# Bryan Chong's first hand recount of the Low Speed Chase tragedy



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Just read this over at SA....

This letter goes out to a devastated sailing community still confused about the events surrounding the 2012 Full Crew Farallones Race. There have been inaccuracies in the media, mostly stemming from the survivors' silence as James ("Jay"), Nick and I are still reeling from tragedy and the loss of close friends and loved ones.

I've chosen to use Sailing Anarchy for distributing this story because they're of a kindred spirit and were the favorites amongst the crew of Low Speed Chase and those who already know the answer to the question, "Why would you sail in the ocean on a windy day with big swells?"

I've also included the Marin Independent Journal and The Tiburon Ark, as they're the hometown newspapers in an area teeming with sailors. Many sailors relocate from around the world to Marin and the Tiburon Peninsula in order to live in proximity to the world's best sailing. Alan Cahill moved from Cork, Ireland to race sailboats professionally in the Bay Area and the Pacific Ocean. He was the best man in our wedding and will be dearly missed while I journey this planet.

This letter does not contain every detail, but my account should provide a basic understanding of our day on the water and what happened after the first wave hit our boat. It is meant both to illustrate how things can look normal until one event changes everything and to begin to address what we can learn. It's my hope and intention that it will spark a wider dialogue within the sailing community about safety standards and, more importantly, safety practices.

Why do we sail?

A sailor's mind set is no different from that of any other athlete who chooses to participate in a sport that has some risk. It's a healthy addiction. Despite the highly publicized deaths of Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy, skiers all over the world continue to hit the slopes each winter. Sitting on the couch is safer than ripping down a slope, but the reward makes the risk worthwhile.

Next, we should all agree there are a wide variety of interests within the sailing community. Some sailors prefer racing to cruising, small boats to big, or lakes to oceans. We all make personal decisions about the risks we're willing to take to enjoy our own brand of sailing.

Naturally, I have personal preferences. I most enjoy one-design and ocean racing. I generally consider sailing to be at its finest when you're coming around a mark alongside 20 identical boats, or when you're in the ocean with a kite up on a windy day, the wave action is perfect and you're surfing downwind at speeds usually reserved for powerboats. I was a guest crew member on Low Speed Chase and I got the sense the others were seeking the same downhill ride back from the Farallones as I was. There were eight sailors on board: one professional, six experienced sailors and one sailor excited for his first ocean race.

The Start Line

It's Saturday April 14, 2012 around 8:30 in the morning. Seven of us are aboard Low Speed Chase as we leave the San Francisco Yacht Club in Belvedere. We head across the bay and swing through the Golden Gate Yacht Club in San Francisco, where Jay hops on from the docks. We motor to the St. Francis race deck start line. Alan grabs the handheld and with the brevity learned from years of flying small planes says, in a heavy Irish accent, "Farallon Race Committee, Sydney 38 Low Speed Chase 38009. Checking in. 8 souls on board." No response. He repeats and the voice on the receiver sounds back, "Confirmed, Low Speed Chase. Thank you."

We raise our sails as we traverse the starting area, checking currents and winds and working out a starting strategy. Meanwhile, the crew double-checks sails, lines, safety equipment, and clothing layers. Today our starting strategy, unlike buoy racing in the bay, is simple: avoid an over-early penalty. This is especially true given the light winds and ebb tide.

A few minutes before the start, someone notices that the reef line for the main isn't tied. Our new Quantum sails were delivered only a couple of days before. They still have that stiff new-sail feel that never lasts long enough. It's going to be a windy day and we need to rig it before we get out in the ocean. I have a harness in my sail bag but Nick is already wearing his. He clips into a halyard and 5 feet up he goes to tie on the line. Alexis grabs his foot to guide him down the boom, and after a few minutes we are ready to get underway.

"Boom!" First Gun

We are well behind the start line but as the countdown continues we realize our distraction has taken us slightly outside the starting box. The air is still and we're trying to trim our sails to squeeze everything we can from one knot of wind.

The start gun goes off and we're still fighting to get inside the box. Ebb is not our friend today and we soon find that we've drifted past the start line without going through the designated gate, so we'll have to backtrack for a proper start. The pressure seems to be hiding just under the Golden Gate Bridge, almost like it's mocking us. It kind of reminds me of Friday night races in Belvedere Cove when the wind shuts down right before the start but continues to tease you from out in the bay.

Already critical of our "start", we anxiously wait for the wind to fill so we can make it back to the line. "Should we pop the kite?" gets floated for a second but it's killed when the wind dies to nothing. We're floating backwards toward the bridge and our drift takes us abeam of Anita Rock. We decide to anchor to prevent any more backwards "progress". Jay pulls the anchor from down below and Jordan heaves it into the bay from the bow. Other boats that have started the race now begin to sail - rather, float - past us. A few find humor in our plight and aren't shy to share. Even Berkeley, a regular crew member on Low Speed Chase who couldn't make the race due to an injury texts "nice start&#8230;" to Alexis from the shore.

Finally, the wind begins to fill in behind us. Dislodging the anchor is another challenge but with a winch, a halyard, and some muscle from Marc, we bring it up it from the bottom of the bay.

By the time we make it across the start line our botched start has cost us over an hour. Our objective for the race has changed now, and the only victory we're hoping for is to avoid the notorious DFL.

The Uphill Slog

Non-sailors often ask what it's like to sail in the ocean, and what's the appeal. I usually compare it to back country skiing or mountain biking. The reward is in the descent. You work through the uphill portion in exchange for the downwind ride when your boat flattens, apparent wind drops to a light breeze and, on the right day, your boat skips along as it planes and surfs down the front side of swells.

As we sail under the Golden Gate Bridge, Peter Lyons clicks a picture from the shore. We tack a few times and set up a starboard lay-line that we will stay on for the rest of the day as we head out to the Farallon Islands. The skies are clear and we're seeing 20-23 knots. It's always been hard for me to gauge swell height from the water. Each swell has its own personality. To me it seems the seas are 10-12 feet with larger sets around 15 feet.

The upwind leg is uneventful and we fill the quiet moments with our usual banter. We tease Elmer about his difficulty emptying his bladder. Jordan snaps at Alan for being Alan. All in all, it's turning out to be a beautiful day on the ocean with conditions as expected. The wind and swells are big but consistent in speed and direction. Nick, Alan, Jordan, Jay and I all take turns on the wheel, maintaining between 7.5 to 8.5 knots of upwind boat-speed.

The mood on the boat is relaxed. We chat about which of our three kites will be safest for the ride home. We've accepted our place in the back of the pack now, so there is no need to risk equipment or safety. Our mind set is definitely not aggressive. We peeled to our smallest jib just outside the bridge and there's no need to reef the main since we aren't being overpowered.

We set up earlier in the day for a port rounding or "taking it from the top" as I'd heard it referenced amongst sailing buddies. I've done a number of day-long ocean races to Monterey, Half Moon Bay and buoys like the lightbucket. This is my first race to the Farallones - a race that I've wanted to do for years. My anticipation heightens as our boat approaches the islands.

Around the Island

The Farallon Islands have a rugged, haunting beauty about them but there's no time for sightseeing as we approach. The waves and wind have steadily built and we start seeing scattered white caps. As the conditions intensify, I'm on the main and Alan - by far the best driver with the most ocean experience - is on the wheel.

We soon approach the first rocky point on the northeast corner of the island. The swells are much larger and the wind has been building. We saw another boat pass a few minutes earlier on an outside line. Behind us, one boat is outside of us and another appears to be on our same line.

There's a YouTube video titled "Crewed Farallones April 14, 2012" showing the Santa Cruz 50, Deception, and several other boats rounding the island. They would have rounded about an hour before us in similar, if not slightly lighter, conditions. The video shows the difference in swell sizes before, during and after rounding the island. Michael Moradzadeh, who thankfully radioed in the initial distress call, notes that the video doesn't do justice to the intensity of the day. I agree, but it does provide a good baseline for those who didn't make the race. As I watch the video, Deception's route feels eerily similar to our own. In fact, when we passed the first point I think we were just slightly outside of their line.

The South Farallones consist of two primary islands, which together form a crescent with its arms toward the north. Between the two northern points we begin to crack off the sails into a close reach as we head toward the next point. The boat in the "Crewed Farallones" video had about the same amount of sail trim but it appears they turned after we did. Our route takes us inside the line of Deception and closer to the island.

Fellow sailors can relate to trimming sails during intense racing or weather conditions. We assimilate data in a series of snapshots taken from within the boat and across the race course. I suspect that's the reason sailors show up to race protest rooms with 5 different accounts of an incident that happened at a speed no faster than a run.

I've been asked by investigators, friends and family just how close we were to the rocky coastline. Truthfully, this is one of the most difficult questions to answer; my focus was almost purely on the distance to the beginning of the break zone. Staying away from the rocks was a secondary concern to staying away from the breakers - an ocean feature that has scared me since long before this weekend. Swells are fine. Breakers aren't.

As we approach the second point I estimate we're inside of 10 boat lengths - which is 128 yards on a Sydney 38 - from the beginning of the break zone. Our distance looks safe and no one on the boat comments. I catch a glance of clear swells off the port side of the boat between the break zone and us. We keep sailing. The boat is heeled toward the island. Alan is driving, I'm trimming main, and everyone else is on the rail.

Then, we come across the largest swell we've seen all day. It begins to crest but we pass over it before it breaks. Thirty seconds later, we will not have such luck.

The Wave

I see another wave approaching in the distance. It's coming from the same direction as the other swells but it's massive. I've seen large waves before but this is unlike anything I've ever seen outside of big-wave surf videos.

As the wave approaches it begins to face up, its front flattening as it crests. By the time our boat meets it, there's no escape route. Alan steers the boat into the wave and the bow of Low Speed Chase ascends the breaking wave, which seconds sooner would have been a giant swell and seconds later would have already broken. Instead, we're heading into a crashing wall of water with 9-10 knots of boat-speed and it breaks directly on us. I lock my right arm to the bottom lifeline and brace for the impact. The last thing I see is the boat tipping toward vertical with a band of water still above it. A single thought races through my head: "This is going to be bad."

After the Impact

I was underwater until the boat righted itself. Confused and disoriented I looked around while water cleared off the deck. Nick and I were the only ones still on the boat. The sails were shredded, the mast snapped and every flotation device had been ripped off. We immediately began to try pulling our crewmembers back into the boat but a second wave hit us from behind. This one ripped me off the boat and into the break zone. Nick barely managed to stay aboard as the boat was tossed by the breakers onto the rocks.

I couldn't tell if I was in the water for a minute or an hour, but according to Nick it was about 15 minutes. People have asked me if I swam for shore. The best way to describe the water in the break zone is a washing machine filled with boulders. You don't really swim. The water took me where it wanted to take me, and when I was finally able to climb from the surf onto low rocks I heard Nick shouting from the distance for me to get to higher ground. Together we located Jay further down the shoreline. He was out of the surf but trapped on a rock surrounded by cliffs. From what we could see, nobody else had been able to climb to safety.

As for what happened in that first wave, my head was down and I initially thought we might have pitch-poled. Nick, who broke his leg while it was wrapped around a stanchion and had a better view, tells me the boat surfed backwards with the wave for a stretch then rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise before the wave finally barrel rolled it. This seems logical and explains how we ended up pointed back the same direction we started.

The US Coast Guard and Air National Guard performed the rescue operation with a level of professionalism that reinforces their sterling reputation for assistance during these types of emergencies. We're incredibly fortunate to have these resources available in our country. If we had been in another ocean off another coast then Jay, Nick and I may not have been rescued.

Correcting the News

There have been various inaccuracies in the news of what happened that Saturday. I believe they stem mostly from misinterpreted information. For example, many sources reported that we attempted to turn the boat around to help other crew members after the first wave hit. This is not accurate. I believe our statement immediately upon being rescued that, "we turned around [while on the boat] to get people out of the water" somehow became "we turned the boat around to get people out of the water".

Additionally, some assumed Jay, the boat's owner, was driving. While one person can be the owner, captain, skipper and driver, this is often not the case. Jay loves sailing but uses professionals like Alan to coordinate his sailing program. This had always been the case with Low Speed Chase and it was no different this day.

Reflections

The sailing community might want to know what we could have done differently that day. It all really centers on a broader commitment to safety - preparation that happens before you get on the boat to race. When sailors "talk sailing" it's usually about winds, currents, tactics, rules or the events of the day - not about safety. I almost never hear conversations about the benefits of different life jacket models, pros and cons of tethers or about practicing man-overboard drills before a race.

That day we had all the mandatory safety equipment including two installed jack lines. Everyone was wearing life jackets and there were 8 tethers on the boat - mine around my neck. Unfortunately, none of us were clipped in when the wave hit. I can't speak for other ocean sailors, but I'd reached a level of comfort where I'd only tether at night, when using the head off the back of the boat, or when the conditions were really wild. It's simply a bad habit that formed due to a false sense of security in the ocean. "Besides," I'd say to myself, "I can just clip in when something bad is about to happen&#8230;"

It's obvious to me now that I should have been clipped into the boat at every possible opportunity. Nevertheless, arguments for mobility and racing effectiveness over safety are not lost on me. Some safety measures can indeed limit maneuvers, but if you're going to spend an hour driving, trimming or hiking in the same spot, why not clip in? Additionally, there are legitimate concerns about being crushed by the boat. Those 15 minutes in the water were the absolute scariest in my life. The boat was the place to be - inside or out.

Until the accident, I believed that to tether or not was a personal choice. But now, my thinking extends beyond the safety of an individual to that of the team as a whole. Here's the logic: If I'd been tethered when the first wave hit, I would have needed to unclip to help the others who were overboard, then I'd have been hit by the second wave and still ended up in the water. Crews need to talk as a team about tethering strategies. One person overboard puts the entire crew at risk, as others might need to unclip to quickly maneuver the boat back to their location.

I truly consider myself lucky to have a second chance at life with my wife and 8-week-old son. Looking back, there were a number of factors that might have helped me survive in those waters. After years on the foredeck, I wear shin guards, ankle pads, neoprene kneepads, full-finger gloves, Dubarry boots, full foul-weather gear and no cotton fabrics. I also wear my auto inflate personal floatation device (PFD) for ocean races. Additionally, the well used gym membership my wife got me early last year was invaluable. Luck was truly on my side but I also think that maybe I left the door open for it.

There are other lessons that can and should be learned from the incident. My auto-inflate suspenders inflated as designed. However, my manual override cord was tucked away and unreachable - a practice amongst sailors who are worried about an accidental opening. A PFD with a crotch strap would have been far better. It would have held the device down and freed up my hands to climb out of the water or swim. My built-in PFD harness was also too loose and I was concerned about it slipping off. A rash guard would have been a worthwhile layer for warmth. All flotation devices attached to the back of the boat were ripped off by the first large wave. And it's important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each PFD and make sure it matches the conditions. Safety lessons shouldn't have to be learned the hard way.

Hopefully this incident will spur a wider discussion on sailboat safety. However, the biggest lesson I learned that day wasn't about any piece of equipment. It was about taking personal responsibility for my own safety. Our EPIRB, a water-activated GPS tracking device, fortunately went off as intended, but who double-checked the batteries that morning? It wasn't me and I didn't ask who did.

It's my wish that no crew or community will ever go through what we've endured from this tragic accident. The memorial flotilla on Saturday for my lost crewmates was by far the most touching memorial I've ever seen. I watched from the SFYC host boat as over a hundred sailboats and powerboats, many filled to capacity, came together on the water in a display of something beautiful and heartwarming in the midst of a week filled with terrible pain and sorrow.

At a service this weekend, I heard a quote from a 1962 speech by John F. Kennedy to America's Cup competitors that, in my mind, captures the essence of our fascination with the sea:

"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came."

Alan, Marc, Jordan, Alexis and Elmer. Keep your rig tuned, your kite full and your foulies dry. We'll one day finish our race together.

Bryan Chong
Saturday Crew on Sydney 38 Low Speed Chase

04/24/12


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Thanks for posting. 

Whoa.... I have no idea. It is hard to imagine going through this. My deepest condolences to the families and friends. 

Chong's accounts his experience reinforces my recent training in Safety at sea. What they taught me in class has merit. It is up to us to use every time we are on board.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Wow...what a read. I am glad we no longer have to speculate. One big wave...that broke the mast and rolled the boat. Second wave put it on the rocks.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

that took courage. May it help others be safe in the future.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

NewportNewbie said:


> Wow.. One big wave...that broke the mast and rolled the boat. Second wave put it on the rocks.


It looks like no one saw the wave was coming.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

That is one very powerful account. As I read through it I came away with a sense that Bryan was being honest and open, and that these were very good sailors who had gotten caught in the wrong place at the wrong moment. I have to admire Bryan for his courage, sensitivity, and humanity which were all so evident in his words. 

Jeff


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Such a needless tragedy. This harrowing tale makes it all the more disturbing. I wonder if they were hit with a "rogue" wave? As I related in another thread here, a charter captain I used to know was hit with one on a relatively calm day, offshore about 20 miles out of Fire Island Inlet. On the bridge, he turned to see a breaking wall of water which engulfed his boat, tore off all the canvas, *including the bridge bimini*, and removed anything that was not firmly attached. Then it was gone. Luckily, he and a friend were the only ones on the boat, both on the bridge which shielded them. I don't know how he avoided being rolled (I think it was a 45' Egg) but he must have been quartering the wave as it hit. This was in the 1970s but I can remember him describing it with amazement.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

The Latitude 38 page with Bryan Chong's letter includes the video to which he refers.

He mentions that the track taken by the boat in the video was very close to that of _Low Speed Chase_, but that conditions were slightly less intense than LSC's rounding. I don't want to "arm-chair quarter-back" this incident, and I fully realize that hindsight is always clearer. However, frankly, I think the boats in the vid were WAYY too close for the conditions. If one looks carefully at the height and wavelength of those seas, it looks pretty obvious that they were transitioning from "swell" to "surf" as the water was getting shallower. I think I would have been at least several hundred yards to seaward. Then again, I don't race, and I've been known to err way to the side of caution (OK, I'm a wimp sometimes, particularly when sailing).

I'll also add that for Bryan Chong to write and publish his account like this took a LOT of guts. I know that it must not have been easy to relive such an experience, particularly in such detail. Whether being tethered would have helped everyone in this particular instance, I don't know. But maybe Bryan's letter, as well as all the other discussion of _Low Speed Chase's_ fate, will get us ALL thinking a bit more about safety.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

I for one will be adding jack lines soon.


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

Thank you for posting


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

An honest account of a sailing tradgedy that, before it struck, looked a lot like many days I have sailed. RIP to the sailors lost.

As time goes by I'm beginning to feel more and more strongly about carrying my own MOB safety equipment (including a waterproof VHF) on my sailing harness. I seriously doubt that the 5 souls lost were dead when they hit the water. More likely they drowned for lack of ablity to be found.

A VHF would have allowed a MOB to steer the helocopter or other boats to them, and a dye marker would have helped immensely as well. For night use a strobe is apparently impossible to miss with night vision.

MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MedSailor said:


> I seriously doubt that the 5 souls lost were dead when they hit the water. More likely they drowned for lack of ablity to be found.


No. They got too close and were dumped into a raging surf zone against rocks. Bryan himself mentioned that he felt he was going to lose his pfd due to the water pressure alone. And the CG mentioned how beat up the other survivors were from the rocks.

Once they were all in the surf, it was over. 15' breakers onto rocks? Think about that. It'll hold you down and strip you clean. Other racers 100 yards away knew exactly where they were - there was just nothing that could be done...by boat or helo.

The lesson here, as Bryan points out, is what we all already know...stay on the boat. Period.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

The boat surfed backward and then was turned beam and rolled....This must have been at least a 18-20 foot wave by the sound of it...Heading out to a place where big swells are known to break as they come upon a world-class upwelling zone that's compared to the Galapagos...well...I am frankly amazed this race had such a good history of safety prior to this....It may have been a "rogue wave" but on "monday morning", at least, this would certainly seem like the place to "expect" one...condolences to the families...hope this brave and eloquent post by Mr. Chong and discussion of this tragedy serves to educate and save a life... somewhere... sometime...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

souljour2000 said:


> The boat surfed backward and then was turned beam and rolled....This must have been at least a 15-18 foot wave by the sound of it...headin out to a place where big swells are known to break when they hit a world-class upwelling zone that's compared to the Galapagos...I am frankly amazed this race had such a good history of safety prior to this....*may have been a "rogue wave" but this would seem like the place to expect one*...condolences to the families...hope this brave and eloquent post by Mr. Chong and discussion of this tragedy serves to educate and save a life... somewhere... sometime...


I don't buy the rogue wave theory - in the true sense of the word. They were on the rocks in only 2 wave strikes:



> As we approach the second point I estimate we're inside of 10 boat lengths - which is 128 yards on a Sydney 38 - from the beginning of the break zone.


Yes, it was a big set. But not a "rogue". They were just too close.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Having been tossed around in whitewater like a rag doll on more than one occasion, in a fraction of the volume of water in pounding surf crashing on rocks, I agree with Smackdaddy: stay on the boat. This may be the most important lesson from the tragedy. Makes one wonder what happened to the blow-up vests!


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Well; I must say Thank You to Bryan Chong for coming forward so soon after this tragedy to explain the events while it is fresh in his mind. Many people would be too stricken with grief or post traumatic stress to come forward and write such a well composed account of the situation and the events that led to such loss of life. Again, Thank You for your well written letter.

I have a feeling that this tragedy was some time in the making; that the decision to sail in closer to the surf line was due to an erosion of the fear about staying further out over the many years of successful roundings during prior events. IIRC the Farallones race is over 80 years old.

It seems obvious that Alan Cahill, the skipper of LSC, did not think he was doing anything wrong; nor did the other skippers who successfully made a rounding on the same layline in similar conditions. The problem with feeling secure outside of a break line is false because when a big set comes the break location moves further offshore.

Surfers have long known that bigger waves come in sets and they wait patiently on days when the swell is mild for them to come in. The same thing happens on days when there is significant swell; only the sets are monsters, not just above average. These are not rogue waves. They are sets of larger waves within large average wave seas. It is not uncommon for the large set waves to be twice the size of an average size wave. When you add to that the effect of shallow water you can end up with a 30' breaker within seas that are an average height of 12'.

On the issue of survivability; going in the water in front of a 30' breaker (visualize Mavericks here) gives little chance of survival. The wave broke over a shallow area (4-5 fathoms) which was more shallow due to the wave pulling water away from the ground. With a wave that large crashing down; you would be smashed down against the sea floor and either knocked unconscious, wedged in against rocks, or blacked out and drowned due to loss of oxygen. I suspect that the only thing that saved Bryan's life was his auto-inflate PFD, and lots of luck.

While I agree with Byian's comments about the personal responsibility to clip in and "stay on the boat"; I suspect that tethering might not have saved everyone in this situation. The forces imposed in a breaking wave (and rolling boat) can be too great to prevent failure of harness D-Rings, Tethers, and Jacklines (which would have had more than one person attached). The root cause and ensuing loss of life was sailing too close to the break line. There is a corollary to "dont fall overboard"; it's "don't get close to a lee shore". Hopefully this lesson will be learned and maybe some changes to the race will be made to prevent racing sailors from 'cutting it too close'.

My wife and I would like to give our deepest condolences to the families of those who lost their lives and to the survivors who will always remember their friends who were lost.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

KeelHaulin said:


> Well; I must say Thank You to Bryan Chong for coming forward so soon after this tragedy to explain the events while it is fresh in his mind. Many people would be too stricken with grief or post traumatic stress to come forward and write such a well composed account of the situation and the events that led to such loss of life. Again, Thank You for your well written letter.
> 
> I have a feeling that this tragedy was some time in the making; that the decision to sail in closer to the surf line was due to an erosion of the fear about staying further out over the many years of successful roundings during prior events. IIRC the Farallones race is over 80 years old.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Staying far off a lee shore should be plain common sense, rogue wave or not. From the looks of the boat, staying attached may have saved some of those missing if they were not crushed or held under too long. My question is, where are the lifejackets? If they were wearing them, and I assume they probably were, it can only be surmised that they punctured, whether still attached to people or stripped away by water. If still inflated, they surely would have been spotted, either on or off. Solid jackets take a hell of a beating and bring you to the surface eventually, even when held under for a long time. They do feel like they are being pulled off when being tossed around but they do stay on. I have always questioned the wisdom of trusting anyone's life to a fragile bag of air. There are just too many sharp or hot things that can render these useless. Inflatables are more comfortable and allow better movement but are they really safe when the going gets rough? Did they actually activate? Plenty of questions still need to come to light.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

smurphny said:


> Agreed. Staying far off a lee shore should be plain common sense, rogue wave or not. From the looks of the boat, staying attached may have saved some of those missing if they were not crushed or held under too long. My question is, where are the lifejackets? If they were wearing them, and I assume they probably were, it can only be surmised that they punctured, whether still attached to people or stripped away by water. If still inflated, they surely would have been spotted, either on or off. Solid jackets take a hell of a beating and bring you to the surface eventually, even when held under for a long time. They do feel like they are being pulled off when being tossed around but they do stay on. I have always questioned the wisdom of trusting anyone's life to a fragile bag of air. There are just too many sharp or hot things that can render these useless. Inflatables are more comfortable and allow better movement but are they really safe when the going gets rough? Did they actually activate? Plenty of questions still need to come to light.


An important point Bryan made in his story regarding the pfds was that most of that racing crowd had a habit of tucking in (hiding) their inflate pull-tabs to avoid accidental inflation. Many people, including me, wear manual inflate pfds - for perfectly good reasons. But, if you can't find your tab when you're under, you're screwed. That very well could have been the case here.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

Great comments....I agree with Keel-haulin that in the past their may have been due respect for the surf-zone at the Farallons...but it may have been a gradual erosion that was passed down over time as their had never been an incident or very few in a long while...kinda like the most car accidents happen a mile from home thing maybe...we all have a potential killer in our backyard like this...depending on what you are doing on the water..and the killers name may be "Familiarity" ...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here is another video of the helo bringing LSC in:






I think I saw AdamL talking about the free-spinning wheel. You can clearly see here that the rudder is crushed and wheel is spinning. I think it's safe to assume though...judging by Bryan's account...that the major breakages occurred after everyone was in the water.

It is amazing though how little damage there is to the port side.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> They were just too close.


With the clarity of hindsight and from the comfort of my desk, I have to say that IMHO, Smack's comment says it all - 100 yards or so off a lee shore with North Pacific surf breaking on it? I noted Mr. Chong's comment about no-one on board saying anything about how close they were - *I* sure would have. There have been similar deadly incidents locally, where racers got too close to a lee shore in wind and sea. Even without that freak wave, what would have happened if the steering chose that spot to fail or a shroud let go or any of the other serious problems that can befall a sailboat? From everything I've read and seen of this incident, there was no room to recover from anything going wrong.

In the other thread on this tragedy, someone commented about the possibility of race committees using GPS waypoints to keep racers from overenthusiastically cutting the corner like this - sounds to me like an excellent idea which could very likely have prevented this terrible incident.

Having said that, I fully agree with the comments about the guts it took to write the personal account of the incident and I extend my sympathy to the friends & families of the victims.


----------



## Izzy1414 (Apr 14, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> I think I saw AdamL talking about the free-spinning wheel. You can clearly see here that the rudder is crushed and wheel is spinning. I think it's safe to assume though...judging by Bryan's account...that the major breakages occurred after everyone was in the water.


Yep, according to Chong's account, the last time anyone even attempted to steer was when the helmsman pointed her into the first wave just before the wave broke - It appears she made that final turn just fine.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

KeelHaulin said:


> ...
> I have a feeling that this tragedy was some time in the making; that the decision to sail in closer to the surf line was due to an erosion of the fear about staying further out over the many years of successful roundings during prior events. IIRC the Farallones race is over 80 years old.
> 
> It seems obvious that Alan Cahill, the skipper of LSC, did not think he was doing anything wrong; nor did the other skippers who successfully made a rounding on the same layline in similar conditions. The problem with feeling secure outside of a break line is false because when a big set comes the break location moves further offshore.
> ...


Yes, I was going to say exactly this. When doing surf you can be for a long time on the place the waves are breaking and from time to time there are huge ones that break 100m more offshore. Keeping an apparently safe but minimum distance of where the waves are breaking is a bad mistake. As someone has pointed up on another thread the right thing to do is to keep the boat on a safe dept.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

SloopJonB said:


> With the clarity of hindsight and from the comfort of my desk, I have to say that IMHO, Smack's comment says it all - 100 yards or so off a lee shore with North Pacific surf breaking on it? I noted Mr. Chong's comment about no-one on board saying anything about how close they were - *I* sure would have. There have been similar deadly incidents locally, where racers got too close to a lee shore in wind and sea. Even without that freak wave, what would have happened if the steering chose that spot to fail or a shroud let go or any of the other serious problems that can befall a sailboat? From everything I've read and seen of this incident, there was no room to recover from anything going wrong.
> 
> In the other thread on this tragedy, someone commented about the possibility of race committees using GPS waypoints to keep racers from overenthusiastically cutting the corner like this - sounds to me like an excellent idea which could very likely have prevented this terrible incident.
> 
> Having said that, I fully agree with the comments about the guts it took to write the personal account of the incident and I extend my sympathy to the friends & families of the victims.


The hard thing, though, is that we're talking about _racing_. Racing is all about the ragged edge - not playing it conservatively. Whether it's auto racing - where you try to slow down in a corner only enough to not lose grip and careen into the wall, or cycling, or skiing, etc. where you do the same...it's all about cutting corners as closely as you can.

As we have seen in this VOR, the organizers can always take steps to mitigate the risk with stuff like GPS marks, but the racer will still push to the edge until something goes horribly wrong - and the cycle starts again.

So it's hard to apply "conservative logic" to incidents like this. You get closer and closer to that edge for the speed - then you lose it...and the outcome is out of your hands at that point.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> Here is another video of the helo bringing LSC in:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to mention that intact keel after being pounded repeatably against rocks till the boat was on dry. A strong and light boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Izzy1414 said:


> Yep, according to Chong's account, the last time anyone even attempted to steer was when the helmsman pointed her into the first wave just before the wave broke - It appears she made that final turn just fine.


Can you imagine what that helm/rudder did, though, when she started to _surf backward_ at several knots?


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Smack-

I'm not trolling for an argument. Just wanted to add a little more perspective. I don't disagree that in racing accidents can happen resulting in injury or even death; but in the case of comparing this to a NASCAR event or other racing sport, can you recall a recent event where 5 people in race cars were killed because someone cut a corner too tight or took too big of a risk? The only thing I can think of was the Reno Air Race; which were mostly spectators and the accident was also preventable (don't put the stands so close to the race course). The reason injury or death in racing cars are so few today is because of the continuous development of safety equipment and engineering of the protective cages in the race cars. I don't see a problem with using a technology like GPS to improve racecourse safety in events which require sailors to take ever increasing risk to shave time off of their ET to win.


----------



## Izzy1414 (Apr 14, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Can you imagine what that helm/rudder did, though, when she started to _surf backward_ at several knots?


I was thinking the same thing. I doubt very much if the helmsman was attempting to steer the boat at this point. If he didn't get violently spun off and he was still at the wheel, he had to just be holding on for dear life.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> An important point Bryan made in his story regarding the pfds was that most of that racing crowd had a habit of tucking in (hiding) their inflate pull-tabs to avoid accidental inflation. Many people, including me, wear manual inflate pfds - for perfectly good reasons. But, if you can't find your tab when you're under, you're screwed. That very well could have been the case here.


Yeah, I have a couple of inflatable pfds that have auto and manual but I still wear my 20 yr old old kayak pfd. It's not all that uncomfortable, has a rugged knife sheath, and cannot deflate. I've never really noticed that it gets in the way and I know it works. The darned manual pulls on the inflatables seem way too exposed to not quickly get caught on something. Tucking them in is something most people will probably do rather than have to shell out $20+ bucks every time they pop off. I can tell you, once you're underwater and being tossed around, you don't know which way is up. Grabbing that tab even in its intended position would be difficult unless practiced until it's second nature. In rolling a kayak in whitewater, which must be very similar to being dragged under on a tether, it's all about knowing where things are by practiced body awareness.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Agreed. Staying far off a lee shore should be plain common sense,"
But that is not _racing_. Racing routinely means rock-hopping. Means figuring how far you can push the most favorable tack. Means putting up ever so slightly less than too much canvas, and as the saying goes "if you didn't break anything, it was all _too heavy_ and you weren't really racing."

As your insurers might say, racing is inherently dangerous and that's why many of htem won't cover a boat racing.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Can you imagine what that helm/rudder did, though, when she started to _surf backward_ at several knots?


The rudder stop was probably sheared, allowing the chain that is inside the helm to jump off of its sprocket. Once this happens the helm will freewheel.


----------



## LauderBoy (Mar 15, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> While I agree with Byian's comments about the personal responsibility to clip in and "stay on the boat"; I suspect that tethering might not have saved everyone in this situation. The forces imposed in a breaking wave (and rolling boat) can be too great to prevent failure of harness D-Rings, Tethers, and Jacklines (which would have had more than one person attached).


I'd think body parts would fail long before a D ring did, unless sailing harnesses are just that less well made than harnesses and lines in other sports.

And while I don't think a harness would keep you from dying all the time, it will keep you with the boat so other crew members don't have to search for you.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> Smack-
> 
> The reason injury or death in racing cars are so few today is because of the continuous development of safety equipment and engineering of the protective cages in the race cars.


X100. I hope the sailing committees around the around world will act upon this tragedy to improve the safety requirement and awareness of their racers.

1. Tethering and properly fitted life vest and harness 
2. Crouch strap
3. PBL, automatic strobes
4. Automatic sea dye marker

With all due respect, this tragedy would not have happened.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

LauderBoy said:


> I'd think body parts would fail long before a D ring did, unless sailing harnesses are just that less well made than harnesses and lines in other sports.
> 
> And while I don't think a harness would keep you from dying all the time, it will keep you with the boat so other crew members don't have to search for you.


You might be surprised to hear that there are many cases where the D-Rings have sheared on sailing life vests. There was an incident just north of Pt Reyes a few years ago where a father/son were washed out of the cockpit; the son was wearing a tethered lifevest. The D-Rings on the vest failed. The father was rescued but the son was lost to the sea.

Tethers and harnesses keep you aboard in the event that you slip/fall on the deck. No guarantees if you fall over the side, and certainly none if you take a breaking wave. My comment on clipping in was also with respect to jacklines; which would almost certainly let go if 3 crew were clipped onto one nylon webbing jackline.

Read this article; there is a video of harness failure testing on the web somewhere (several models failed) but I cant find it.
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/learning-sail-articles/18834-safety-harnesses-tethers.html


----------



## LauderBoy (Mar 15, 2010)

Wow, that sucks. Skydiving rigs are made from type 13 webbing harness with a tensile strength 7000lbs. Heard lots of stories of openings hard enough to tear aortas and break femurs, but in 10 years I've never heard of a harness failure with that.

The webbing harness costs less than $3 a yard. :/


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

hellosailor said:


> "Agreed. Staying far off a lee shore should be plain common sense,"
> But that is not _racing_. Racing routinely means rock-hopping. Means figuring how far you can push the most favorable tack. Means putting up ever so slightly less than too much canvas, and as the saying goes "if you didn't break anything, it was all _too heavy_ and you weren't really racing."
> 
> As your insurers might say, racing is inherently dangerous and that's why many of htem won't cover a boat racing.


Sailboat racing is a slow speed game - it doesn't have to be any more inherently dangerous than any form of going to sea is. Also, after you crash your boat, you don't get to walk back to the pits.

Your comments sound like an echo of Grand Prix racing prior to Jackie Stewart - any thought of driver safety was regarded as unmanly. Pure nonsense. Risking blown sails, wild broaches, even dismasting is not the same as risking going on the rocks in big surf - as we have just seen.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

LauderBoy said:


> Wow, that sucks. Skydiving rigs are made from type 13 webbing harness with a tensile strength 7000lbs. Heard lots of stories of openings hard enough to tear aortas and break femurs, but in 10 years I've never heard of a harness failure with that.
> 
> The webbing harness costs less than $3 a yard. :/


I have a feeling that bio-mechanics were considered in the design of these safety harnesses. At some point the strength of the harness will exceed the strength of your back and upper body; so if it does not give way one would be severely injured (paralyzed) or even killed by the amount of force on the user. That's a design limitation that can't be eliminated so the maximum design loads that the vest is designed to withstand are lower than what would certainly result in death of the user.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

SloopJonB said:


> Sailboat racing is a slow speed game - it doesn't have to be any more inherently dangerous than any form of going to sea is. Also, after you crash you boat, you don't get to walk back to the pits.
> 
> Your comments sound like an echo of Grand Prix racing prior to Jackie Stewart - any thought of driver safety was regarded as unmanly. Pure nonsense. Risking blown sails, wild broaches, even dismasting is not the same as risking going on the rocks in big surf - as we have just seen.


It is more dangerous. It is a form of racing. People push the limits of their equipment and endurance. Everyone who is a competitive sailor knows that there is increased risk of injury involved. But the question is; what is avoidable? Does it make sense to require jackets/harnesses/tethers/jacklines; yet not have a layline boundary (or depth contour boundary) at the SE Farallone north shore? This accident -might- be understandable if the boat were further offshore and suffered some sort of failure like the rudder post shearing; but to be struck by a 'large set' breaking wave makes this tragedy senseless.

If accidents like this continue to happen be prepared for people outside of the sailing community to start looking for ways to restrict the freedom of sailors to race their boats (like the USCG not issuing event permits). I don't think anyone wants that so the best thing to do is to make some changes within the racing sailing organizations to ensure that senseless tragedies like this are avoided as much as possible in the future.

Between late May and early September; the SF Bay is a daily "Small Craft Advisory" area. Do people here say well it's an SCA so we should stay in. NO; everyone who likes heavy air goes sailing/windsurfing/kiteboarding because the wind is up! According to the USCG we are all taking unnecessary risk. What would happen if the USCG said that racing events will be canceled if they issue a SCA?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Another thing to consider about these load ratings is that such numbers are for brand new, "perfect", pieces of equipment. As soon as such a bit of gear starts getting used it becomes worn, damaged, et cetera (however minutely; face it, a tether isn't going to get stronger with use). This is a large part of the reasoning behind such seemingly large safety factors. In other words, we want the gear to work when it's needed; not just right out of the box, but also maybe a year or two down the road. As such, a harness or tether may be rated (when new) at two or three ( or more) times the necessary strength so that it will be strong enough when it actually gets "tested" in the field. In principal, it may not make sense to have a harness that is able to resist faces likely to kill the wearer. But, in practice, such an increased safety margin does in fact serve a purpose.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> Smack-
> 
> I'm not trolling for an argument. Just wanted to add a little more perspective. I don't disagree that in racing accidents can happen resulting in injury or even death; *but in the case of comparing this to a NASCAR event or other racing sport, can you recall a recent event where 5 people in race cars were killed because someone cut a corner too tight or took too big of a risk?*


Apples and oranges comparison, seems to me...

Had there been 7 other passengers riding along with Dan Wheldon in his Indy Car last fall at Las Vegas, pretty good odds most of them would be dead, as well...

Likewise, had LOW SPEED CHASE been sailed singlehanded, at the most one sailor might have been lost...



KeelHaulin said:


> I don't see a problem with using a technology like GPS to improve racecourse safety in events which require sailors to take ever increasing risk to shave time off of their ET to win.


Undoubtedly, that will be the case in future Farallons races... Still, it will offer no guarantees or assurance of safety. Should the boats be required, for example, to stand a certain distance off the Marin Headlands, or the South Tower, as well? Disqualified for passing over the Potato Patch? Prohibited from using a spinnaker on the ride back if winds are recorded above a certain strength?

Ultimately, these decisions and judgments best be left with the sailors, themselves... Might be a good time to re-read Chong's eloquent articulation of what draws these sailors to such a challenge, to begin with...


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> It is more dangerous. It is a form of racing. People push the limits of their equipment and endurance. Everyone who is a competitive sailor knows that there is increased risk of injury involved. But the question is; what is avoidable? Does it make sense to require jackets/harnesses/tethers/jacklines; yet not have a layline boundary (or depth contour boundary) at the SE Farallone north shore? This accident -might- be understandable if the boat were further offshore and suffered some sort of failure like the rudder post shearing; but to be struck by a 'large set' breaking wave makes this tragedy senseless.
> 
> If accidents like this continue to happen be prepared for people outside of the sailing community to start looking for ways to restrict the freedom of sailors to race their boats (like the USCG not issuing event permits). I don't think anyone wants that so the best thing to do is to make some changes within the racing sailing organizations to ensure that senseless tragedies like this are avoided as much as possible in the future.


Agree, have never raced sailboats, but raced off-road motorcycles for 30 years. Two similar concepts, the "throttle" is adjustable and racing is voluntary. After many, many trips over the handlebars I finally learned to take a little more responsibility for my own actions. To each his own. As I mentioned earlier, GPS waypoints are simple and could provide safety without compromising the "racing".

Paul T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

KeelHaulin said:


> Smack-
> 
> I'm not trolling for an argument. Just wanted to add a little more perspective. I don't disagree that in racing accidents can happen resulting in injury or even death; but in the case of comparing this to a NASCAR event or other racing sport, can you recall a recent event where 5 people in race cars were killed because someone cut a corner too tight or took too big of a risk?


No worries Keel, I absolutely agree. This is definitely a major difference where crew are involved. So the analogies only hold up so far.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I would like to echo Jeff H remarks and thank Bryon for having the courage to post, His heartfelt feelings and honesty were apparent. I am not sure if I would have the ability to be so circumsopect about such an event and have the ability to gather my emotions to write such an accurate descriptive account. My heart goers out to the sailors who perished doing what the loved and their families who they left behind...alone without them ever again.

There are times when despite my fourty years of sailing, ocean passages, amateur racing I know this is the place and time to just shut up.

To those of you so called experts, Monday morning quarterbacks, naysayers and sailing icons in your own minds who want to comment and pass judgement on this incident have some decency to the dead...start another post. Let this posting remain for those who want to comment to Bryan and offer condolences and god speed.

Newport...thank you for posting.

To the crew of the Low Spped Chase...god bless you all for chasing your dream. Those of you who did not return may you have fair winds and following seas. For those who survived, always keep your commraides in your heart and mind. You did nothing wrong and deserve to be here.

Dave


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> To those of you so called experts, Monday morning quarterbacks, naysayers and sailing icons in your own minds who want to comment and pass judgement on this incident have some decency to the dead...start another post. Let this posting remain for those who want to comment to Bryan and offer condolences and god speed.


Chef, chill out. Read this part of Bryan's letter again:



> Safety lessons shouldn't have to be learned the hard way.
> 
> Hopefully this incident will spur a wider discussion on sailboat safety.


Personally, I refuse to get on the "they should have known better" or "I would never have X" throne, but I certainly think talking about this stuff - in this very thread - is exactly what Bryan intended.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Sailboat racing is a slow speed game - it doesn't have to be any more inherently dangerous than any form of going to sea is."
No, Jon, I have to disagree. If you are _racing_, as opposed to just putzing around the beercans having some fun, it is inherently more dangerous. 
Examples? A 3-day race was predicted with 5mph winds and gorgeous wx to start, but overnight because 4-8 seas and 40 knots. Half the fleet chose not to start, the rest of us went out in wx we never would have pleasure sailed in. Oh, and two of the three newscopters covering the start, stayed grounded instead. Copter#3 had such a rough ride, they didn't get any video coverage at all. 
That's racing. You go out when it will be hard work and the safety factors are way thinner.
Or, the casual everyday race on a Saturday afternoon. Can we cross ahead of that tug? If we can clear it by fifty yards, go, let the rest of the fleet fall behind it. Casual sailing? Hell no, you give him a quarter mile of clear intents.
Crossing another boat? Racing? "Sufficient room" means you can drop a playing card between the boats and it will fall through. You'd never call that adequate safety _unless _you were racing and among other racers who expected the same.

Are your fuel tanks full? Not if you're racing. Fuel is heavy, it slows you down, you figure out how much you'll need, figure a _thin _safety margin, and don't carry a pint more.

Got an extra set of clean dry clothes aboard? In case someone gets wet and goes hypothermic? Maybe not, if you're racing, because those extras slow you down.

And if you say, well, you don't HAVE TO cut those safety margins to be racing? Yeah, you do. Heavy is slow and slow is just putzing around. Which may be plenty of fun--but it ain't racing.

Me? No, I'm not a racer. I have raced, I find the volume usually is too loud, the TypeA's with big bucks for the serious titanium hardware and new sails every week are a joy to behold. Even better from a distance. I'll putz around the beercans once in a while if a friend needs crew, but _racing _is indeed a _deadly _serious game.

You think any of those boats would have been so close to a rocky lee shore if they hadn't been taking the shortest course? If they hadn't been _racing_? That's how the game is played, and unlike video games, the ones in the real world sometimes bite back.

Getting out of bed in the morning can be dangerous too. Ever had to check your boots to make sure there were no scorpions in them, before you could walk over ot the loo? But racers know the risks, or should know the risks, and that's a choice to be made with freedom. If you want to play something safe, try golf. Wear a helmet, and don't play through lightning. Even with that and the occasional gopher hole or snake in the grass, that's _inherently _much safer than racing. Of any kind.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

hellosailor;863290
You think any of those boats would have been so close to a rocky lee shore if they hadn't been taking the shortest course? If they hadn't been [I said:


> racing[/I]? That's how the game is played, and unlike video games, the ones in the real world sometimes bite back.


Nothing related to LSC.

I constantly remind my son who is a rocket scientist when he is out with his friends. Pleasure is short lived, Injury and death are permanent. Take control, speak up or step out if you must.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> X100. I hope the sailing committees around the around world will act upon this tragedy to improve the safety requirement and awareness of their racers.
> 
> 1. Tethering and properly fitted life vest and harness
> 2. Crouch strap
> ...


Sorry, but I strongly disagree...

How is some "committee" best able to determine how and when an individual sailor should be tethered, for example, in any and every situation? In last summer's Chigago-Mackinac tragedy, we witnessed a pretty strong argument in favor of potentially NOT being tethered in an event of similar suddeness and violence... Why can't these decisions be left to the sailors themselves?

I think to assume unequivocally that this incident "should never have happened" is, frankly, a bit naive... It's the very nature of this race, it can involve some pretty serious risk, sailing through some dangerous real estate in typically strong conditions... Certainly, they would have been better off giving the island a wider berth, but I'm still more inclined to file this one under the heading of _"Sometimes, Sh*t Happens"_... and rather than necessarily being an example of poor seamanship or judgement, perhaps better described as a heavy dose of bad luck, and simply being in the wrong place, at the wrong time...

I liken such a rounding of a lee shore to running an inlet in marginal conditions... You can stand off for as long as you want, observing the pattern of the swell, to best pick your moment... But, at some point, you've got to make the decision to go, and give it a shot...

And sometimes, such a move will backfire on even the most experienced of sailors... Events and conditions simply coincide to conspire against them, despite their best efforts and judgement, "LUCK" was not in their favor at that moment, and a wave train not previously observed or anticipated happened to arrive precisely as they were crossing the bar...

After sitting off St Lucie Inlet one day 25 years ago, observing the rather benign long-period swell pattern for over 30 minutes, I happened to chose such a moment to begin my transit... I wound up being in precisely the wrong place, at the wrong time, and a much larger set than previously experienced arrived, literally "out of nowhere"...

"Sh*t Happened", bigtime ... And to this day, that's the reason I'm skeptical about putting pretty picture windows in the transoms of Taiwanese boats... (grin)

Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug... Any sailor who cannot accept that reality of going to sea, or thinks some freakin' _safety committee_ can ensure the avoidance of the unexpected, is better advised to remain comfortably seated in front of a nice, warm hearth...


----------



## dongreerps (May 14, 2007)

With great respect for the crew of LSC, and for the grace of Bryon, it may be appropriate to remember the words of Patton who wanted to die by the last bullet of the last battle of the last war. May God bless them all.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

hellosailor said:


> "Sailboat racing is a slow speed game - it doesn't have to be any more inherently dangerous than any form of going to sea is."
> No, Jon, I have to disagree. If you are _racing_, as opposed to just putzing around the beercans having some fun, it is inherently more dangerous.
> Examples? A 3-day race was predicted with 5mph winds and gorgeous wx to start, but overnight because 4-8 seas and 40 knots. Half the fleet chose not to start, the rest of us went out in wx we never would have pleasure sailed in. Oh, and two of the three newscopters covering the start, stayed grounded instead. Copter#3 had such a rough ride, they didn't get any video coverage at all.
> That's racing. You go out when it will be hard work and the safety factors are way thinner.
> ...


I'm a fan of all sorts of mechanized racing and I know exactly what you are saying but there's a difference between competitiveness and plain old irresponsibility and poor seamanship - the ocean don't know yer racin'. Your comment about the tug falls under the "completely irresponsible" category - how the hell does the tug skipper know what you are doing? You're just another incompetent Sunday afternoon jerk to him. There was a vid posted recently of a racer getting run down by a freighter in the Solent that was exactly that situation. AFAIAC they (the sailboat) should have suffered criminal sanctions - it was a miracle no-one was killed.

I've heard the same "but they were racing" in reference to the carnage the round the world racers suffer in the Southern Ocean - they're mighty quick to call the Aussie navy when their "racing margins" don't quite make it and their keel falls off or their rig comes down - Isabelle Autissier did it TWICE - expecting them to risk THEIR lives & equipment to save her a$$ when those "playing card" margins weren't quite good enough.

Simply unacceptable.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Just by the by, what exactly is "The Potato Patch"? I've seen references to it before but they always assumed the reader knew what it was.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

SloopJonB said:


> Just by the by, what exactly is "The Potato Patch"? I've seen references to it before but they always assumed the reader knew what it was.


Think about it...Havent you seen any of the pictures of this place...? It's the Farallons... ..just a nickname...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Chef, chill out. Read this part of Bryan's letter again-Smackdaddy


I read perfectly well, just dont type that well. Dont tell me to chill out I am not you child. Maybe you didnt see this part in your haste to make a condescending comment sitting on your throne. He was not making that comment on Sailnet...he made it on SA because he felt they are of a kindred spirit. Comments like yours to others is a perfect example of maybe why.



> I've chosen to use Sailing Anarchy for distributing this story because they're of a kindred spirit and were the favorites amongst the crew of Low Speed Chase and those who already know the answer to the question, "Why would you sail in the ocean on a windy day with big swells?" Bryan Chong


Mr Chong did not post it here so maybe you are reading into his intentions a bit. I stand by my opinions as stated. We all have them and dont need you telling us or determining who should post and who should chill out. I beleive that all the SECONDGUESSERS should do this in another post. I may be in a minority but it is what I beleive.

Smackdaddy if you search for Sailing Anarchy and find it and read the forums on this subject you will notice that there are TWO distinct forums on the subject. The one has the letter which Newport so kindly posted here. Almost all of the 6 pages of the SA Forum were filled with condolances and notes of gratitude to Bryan and the survivors as well as their families. There is distinctly a second forum for the people who want to LEARN from the tragedy where all can second guess etc. Thats what I was saying here, thats all.

Maybe you need to finally go to the optometrist and have the other lens of your glasses repaired so you can finally see clearly all around you.

Thank you again newport for posting his comments here so those of us who care could read it.

God bless the poor deceased men and women whose lives were tragically ended.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

souljour2000 said:


> Think about it...Havent you seen any of the pictures of this place...? It's the Farallons... ..just a nickname...


Actually, the "Potato Patch" is the shoal/bar closer to the Golden Gate. The dredged ship channel cuts through it. It's about 10 or 15 nm east of the islands.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SlowButSteady said:


> I don't want to "arm-chair quarter-back" this incident, and I fully realize that hindsight is always clearer. However, frankly, I think the boats in the vid were WAYY too close for the conditions. If one looks carefully at the height and wavelength of those seas, it looks pretty obvious that they were transitioning from "swell" to "surf" as the water was getting shallower. I think I would have been at least several hundred yards to seaward. Then again, I don't race, and I've been known to err way to the side of caution (OK, I'm a wimp sometimes, particularly when sailing).


I do race and it scares me that even after reading Brian's account I know when it came right down to it I'd probably still take that line close to shore too based on best judgement at the time. Would have definitely done it before reading it so understand fully how he must feel. It's racing, and sailing, and it can be dangerous.

Having been on a boat that lost a spar I know exactly what he went through about how quickly it went from fun & fine to catastrophic. It happens really FAST....

My heart felt condolences to the crew and families..


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> Actually, the "Potato Patch" is the shoal/bar closer to the Golden Gate. The dredged ship channel cuts through it. It's about 10 or 15 nm east of the islands.


The north side of the "bar" with the narrow Bonita channel between the "patch" and shore, NASTY place, the"patch", don't go over it.

http://ocsdata.ncd.noaa.gov/BookletChart/18649_BookletChart_HomeEd.pdf

Paul T


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Being a racer and most likely the only person on this thread who has actually raced to the Farallones (both crewed and DH) I came away with an entirely different perspective of Bryan’s testimony than you non-racers and tyros. You need to re-read it carefully before you jump to any conclusion. First, they were an hour (or more) late at the start. At that point all they were doing was sailing the course cleanly and hoping that another boat had a major screw up. Having done this race in PHRO-1 boats before, I can tell you no amount of shaving close to shore is going to make up this kind of time deficit. Second, Bryan described LSC’s line to be outside of Deception’s, another PHRO-1 boat. The depth there is probably in the neighborhood of 100 feet or more. He also described them being 128 yards outside the break zone. Read that the start of the breaking waves and not where they terminate on the shore. Considering the hydrology of the islands, the initial waves are probably breaking in 30 feet of water. And at 11 second wave periods, there was probably 3, 4 or more wave sets between LSC and the break. This might be too close for some of us reading this thread, but remember, the skill set of those mariners and the design and build of LSC is way above the norm. Yachtsmen that race OYRA and especially PHRO-1 are at or near the pinnacle of the already talented pool of Northern California sailors. I know that it is hard to comprehend, but sometimes-bad things happen to good people. Had they been a further hundred yards out to sea when they got rolled, I afraid that the results most likely would have been the same. 

The lessons for me is to redouble my safety program on Freya. I know that I cannot make sailing in the Gulf of the Farallones risk free, but I can certainly work to improve my odds once an event happens. For example, I’m rethinking my vest. I too, stuff the manual release tab inside the vest and do not always wear the crotch strap. I think that I’m good about clipping in, but my wife has made the comment in most of the photos of me racing, my tether is not to be seen. I know that there is a possibility of drowning with a tether, but I'm thinking that I will take my chances with the boat and will insist that my crewmates do the same. I am good about carrying a waterproof radio in my pocket, but my EPIRB is mounted inside the cabin. I’m thinking about the hydrostatic release now.

A little geography lesson. The Farallones are on the edge of the continental shelf and are the result of plate tectonics moving a little bit of Southern California our way. The waters surrounding the islands are on the order of 100 feet or more and less than two miles to the west, the continental shelf abruptly drops a few thousand feet to the abyssal sea floor. This sudden drop off is one of the sources of the chaotic wave conditions on the islands and how a rogue can sneak in. Just to the north is middle Farallone which experiences the same type of waves but is much more dangerous IMHO as they consist of a grouping of submerged or barely visible wash rocks. Because of this, rounding South Farallone wide has its problems too as you will now have to worry about being too close to Middle Farallone. The “Potato Patch” is a shoal directly to the north of the entrance to the Golden Gate. It earned its name when a 19th century coastal schooner lost its cargo on the shoal. The coves that dot the Marin headlands are all named after ships that wrecked there. There is an equally (if not more) treacherous shoal to the south. Both shoals rise to less than 30 feet and frequently experience breaking seas. Practically all the fatalities for both cruisers and racers alike have happened on or near these shoals.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> The north side of the "bar" with the narrow Bonita channel between the "patch" and shore, NASTY place, the"patch", don't go over it.
> 
> http://ocsdata.ncd.noaa.gov/BookletChart/18649_BookletChart_HomeEd.pdf
> 
> Paul T


Yeah. I think that "officially" the north bar (Fourteen Fathom Bank) is "Potato Patch". But, I've heard folks (mostly commercial fishermen, IIRC) refer to both bars as "Potato Patch".

And YES, it can get really nasty. I was sailing on a friend's boat once, tacking back and forth down the ship channel, watching HUGE breakers on both the north and south bars. It wasn't even all that windy a day, just a strong ebb and a fairly large swell. I would be willing to bet that far more boats are lost "cutting the corner" over those bars than are lost on the Farallons.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

The lesson for me is I should refrain from commenting on potato patches or other areas not part of my local knowledge...and btw my apologies John B....I stand corrected. 
Potato patches aside, I will have a new respect for abrupt hydrographic transition zones of the likes of the Farallons and the other lesser known areas of water where there is a dramatic rise of land from the seafloor affecting waves...and hence creating above average wave sets....though there are not any zones anywhere like that around here ...maybe the Keys and Bahamas banks to a degree. I bet when SF bay drains out on a low tide that it can get really nasty too out west of the golden gate...I have alot of respect for sailors on the left coast in general but Nocal must attract alot of above average sailors I would agree due to the risk and rewards....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> I read perfectly well, just dont type that well. Dont tell me to chill out I am not you child. Maybe you didnt see this part in your haste to make a condescending comment sitting on your throne. He was not making that comment on Sailnet...he made it on SA because he felt they are of a kindred spirit. Comments like yours to others is a perfect example of maybe why.
> 
> Mr Chong did not post it here so maybe you are reading into his intentions a bit. I stand by my opinions as stated. We all have them and dont need you telling us or determining who should post and who should chill out. I beleive that all the SECONDGUESSERS should do this in another post. I may be in a minority but it is what I beleive.
> 
> ...


Siiiigggghhhhh.

Chef - if you take the time to read them yourself, you'll find my comments in all 3 LSC threads at SA going back about 10 days. I spend a lot of time over there as well. Here, let me help you out:

My first comment in the thread relating the news (adhering to your dictated rules of decorum - which I obviously followed even before your lecture):
Aground at the Farallones - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 4

My first comment in the thread discussing the incident :
Wide-open discussion of the loss of Low Speed Chase - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 6

And, finally, my first comment in the thread on Bryan's post:
the Story from Low Speed Chase - Sailing Anarchy Forums

So, I'm way ahead of you dude. And I'm happy to loan you my broken glasses, and even give you the number of my half-blind optometrist, because you don't seem to be reading what you're telling me to read.

Look, I have no problem with you believing what you want to believe. It's just that I think it's misplaced...and more than a little passive-aggressive. Bryan hoped we'd talk about all this...at SA, and other places where sailors hangout like here. There is absolutely no disrespect to anyone in doing so.

===Posted while ensconced upon my throne:


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Smack; yep this thread has gone into the toilet!!!

We were discussing outcomes and potential pathways forward in the AFTERMATH of this tragedy. NOBODY including myself was calling blame to the skipper, who died. I simply stated that IT DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN; and I'm calling BS to the theory that they were in 100's of feet of water when two breaking waves in the 30' or more range came smashing down on them. It simply does not happen that way. The lack of depth is what causes a swell to turn into a breaking wave; unless you are out in 50' seas. 125 yards outside of the white water is about 2 wavelengths away from where waves begin to curl over into a breaker. I'm sorry GeorgeB but that's way too f'n close on a day when the swell is 12'.

Go back and look at the picture that Smack posted of the DHF boats. They are also too close in on a day when the swell was 1/2 the size of the crewed race.

THE REASON BRYAN POSTED WAS TO OPEN UP DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IMPROVING SAFETY AND STOPPING THE SPECULATION ABOUT THE EVENTS. NOBODY IS TWISTING HIS WORDS HERE. THIS EVENT WHILE TRAGIC ALMOST TURNED INTO A MEDIA FRENZY AND A WITCH HUNT FOR THE OWNER. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE AFTERMATH SOMETHING *MUST* CHANGE OR THE OUTCRY FOR IT WILL COME FROM THE NON-BOATING PUBLIC WHO DON'T KNOW S**T ABOUT SAILING OR CARE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO PEOPLE WHO SAIL OR RACE SAILBOATS.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

BTW; there is no place 125 yards North of the charted break line at SE Farallone that is deeper than 40 feet. Sorry; but you need to be at least 500 yards out to be in deep water. Review the inset on the chart here:

Chart 18645

The 10 fathom hump to the North also produces steep cresting waves on days when the swell is big, from what I have read in the earlier thread about the accident on SA.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I have to agree with all who have drawn the _distinction_ between seamanship while racing and while cruising. We DO take more risks while racing.

In the world's most dangerous race, the Vendee Globe, where sailors sail single-handed and non-stop around the world from France, down south to circumnavigate Antarctica and head back up to France, the race committee has created artificial waypoints that the boats must go around. If they didn't the single-handed sailors would sail well into the iceberg zones while sleeping at the wheel doing 20kts. If those waypoints weren't there, then the most daring sailor left alive would be the winner each year. It seems like waypoints off the Faralons could be something to consider as a way to prevent similar catastrophes.

Another change may be that the racing community at large takes a closer look at tethering in because of this tragedy. In the recent Round the County race I was in, the wind was in the mid 20s and there were some nasty current/wind induced waves but nobody was clipping in. It's hard to buck the trend and be the only one clipping in. Look at helmets while skiing, it took a while, but now they're the norm.

I appreciate that Bryan wanted us to discuss and learn from this tragedy. I think that discussing the tragedy IS a way of respecting the dead. The 1979 Fastnet race brought us nearly everything we know about small boat capsize physics and it's relation to hull forms/rigs and caused a closer look at the IOR rule and boat design. The post-mortem of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart race brought to us again the truth of the advice to "STAY WITH THE BOAT" and caused a closer look at non-releasing tethers.

While this tragedy seems to be more of a sudden stroke of massive bad luck for LSC in a fleet of boats making similar decisions, there can still be lessons learned and applied to future racing and cruising safety.

Respectfully,

MedSailor


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

souljour2000 said:


> The lesson for me is I should refrain from commenting on potato patches or other areas not part of my local knowledge...and btw my apologies John B....I stand corrected.
> Potato patches aside, I will have a new respect for abrupt hydrographic transition zones of the likes of the Farallons and the other lesser known areas of water where there is a dramatic rise of land from the seafloor affecting waves...and hence creating above average wave sets....though there are not any zones anywhere like that around here ...maybe the Keys and Bahamas banks to a degree. I bet when SF bay drains out on a low tide that it can get really nasty too out west of the golden gate...I have alot of respect for sailors on the left coast in general but Nocal must attract alot of above average sailors I would agree due to the risk and rewards....


SoCal also has that seamount to the southwest - it's the end of the channel islands I believe. I watched a show about a group that went out there to go surfing - this was like 100 miles out in the Pacific and they were surfing Waimea size waves.  Sailing into that by mistake would sure ruin your day.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> I simply stated that IT DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN; and I'm calling BS to the theory that they were in 100's of feet of water when two breaking waves in the 30' or more range came smashing down on them. *It simply does not happen that way. * The lack of depth is what causes a swell to turn into a breaking wave; unless you are out in 50' seas.


Oh, really? So there's no such thing as a breaking wave of less than 50 feet in the open ocean? Damn, guess I'd better stop believing my lyin' eyes... (grin)...

In my opinion, one of the factors that could have easily contributed to the sudden and freakish sea they encountered, is the likely interaction with a reflected wave train, running seaward back off the bold/rocky shore... The sudden upwelling that can occur when two waves meet in such opposition can create a literal explosion of water that could certainly produce the sort of wave strike - seemingly "out of nowhere" - that LOW SPEED CHASE encountered...

It's difficult to overstate how chaotic and unpredictable a sea state such reflected wave action can produce, even in comparatively tame conditions... Do any sailing close inshore along a coast like that of Newfoundland, for example, you will become a believer in the influence of reflected waves _very_ quickly... My money says reflected wave action was a likely factor in this event, and again - they simply happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

MedSailor said:


> I have to agree with all who have drawn the _distinction_ between seamanship while racing and while cruising. We DO take more risks while racing.


Funny, I'm inclined to argue the exact opposite... (grin)

Certainly, boats are likely being pressed harder while racing, but that doesn't necessarily equate with the continual taking of the greater risk... The crew of LOW SPEED CHASE were definitely in for a sporty ride that day, no question. But, they were sailing a known course of comparatively short duration, in perfect visibility, in company of numerous other boats, and theoretically would be home before nightfall, with a very experienced full crew well drilled to work together as a team...

In comparison, I would suggest that many Mom & Pop voyaging couples are generally embarking on a far riskier endeavor... Often making landfalls in unfamiliar locales, after lengthy, arduous passages on which fatigue typically becomes a real factor, and subject to far greater vagaries of weather, tides, etc...

I'm just not seeing where racing, by definition, is inherently "riskier" than all other forms of sailing - shorthanded offshore voyaging or distance cruising, in particular...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Man, I found myself visualizing Bryan's account and realized I was holding my breath ( I think ) until I threw me self back, saying aloud " holy sh*t "

Thanks Newport for posting that; Thanks Bryan for recounting an event which has such a heavy and costly message. ( my prayers go out to him and the lost friends and/or family )

I will be rethinking many things I/we take for granted ( between the nightmeres )


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Oh, really? So there's no such thing as a breaking wave of less than 50 feet in the open ocean? Damn, guess I'd better stop believing my lyin' eyes... (grin)...


There are large waves (swell) that break at the crest; but typically in open ocean swell they do not curl over into a crashing froth of white water. A large cresting swell may seem like a breaker but it is not. I'm talking about water depths that are over 500 feet. The -average- swell on the day of the CF race was 12-15 feet. Swells of this size do not produce breaking waves until they hit a shoal or a reef. Swell in the 20-25' range produce 50' breakers at Mavericks; you know, the reef off of the Princeton Airport where the salvaged LSC was carried by helicopter to.



> In my opinion, one of the factors that could have easily contributed to the sudden and freakish sea they encountered, is the likely interaction with a reflected wave train, running seaward back off the bold/rocky shore... The sudden upwelling that can occur when two waves meet in such opposition can create a literal explosion of water that could certainly produce the sort of wave strike - seemingly "out of nowhere" - that LOW SPEED CHASE encountered...


I'm sorry; I don't buy it. It was not a freak wave. It was a large set. The boat was washed up onto a reef flat. The topology of the area is nearly the same as the Mavericks reef. Large sets are common and should be expected. I'd be willing to bet money that on days when the swell is 20' the breakers on that shore are every bit of 50' but being 26 miles offshore nobody is there to see or surf them.

It's not that LSC was un-lucky. It's that everyone who sailed through the zone where LSC sailed were lucky that the large set was not coming in when they entered the same area. I've talked with other sailors at my marina who raced in the CF. They all say the same thing; the boat was too damn close to the shore. One friend said they always stayed at least 300 yards outside the break and that was on days when there was little swell. It never stopped them from winning races.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> Oh, really? So there's no such thing as a breaking wave of less than 50 feet in the open ocean? Damn, guess I'd better stop believing my lyin' eyes... (grin)...
> 
> In my opinion, one of the factors that could have easily contributed to the sudden and freakish sea they encountered, is the likely interaction with a reflected wave train, running seaward back off the bold/rocky shore... The sudden upwelling that can occur when two waves meet in such opposition can create a literal explosion of water that could certainly produce the sort of wave strike - seemingly "out of nowhere" - that LOW SPEED CHASE encountered...
> 
> It's difficult to overstate how chaotic and unpredictable a sea state such reflected wave action can produce, even in comparatively tame conditions... Do any sailing close inshore along a coast like that of Newfoundland, for example, you will become a believer in the influence of reflected waves _very_ quickly... My money says reflected wave action was a likely factor in this event, and again - they simply happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time...


Yes, and it may have been one of those freak waves, "rogue waves," whatever you call them can occur anywhere. As in my anecdote in an earlier post, they can create large breaking waves that seem to come out of nowhere. Added to the mix of reflected waves, they could form huge walls of water. Recent research says that they occur much more often than was previously thought and are no mystery. They are the result of smaller waves combining their energy to form larger waves. I surmise that it also likely happens on scales of intensity. Large wave trains are the same thing on a smaller scale. These guys were experienced sailors who knew the area. Something considerably out of the normal occurred to throw this boat out of control on the rocks as explained. Were they too close to shore--YES.

When competing at any sport you take greater risks. In the sports where a mistake can result in death, there is absolutely no difference, especially for young people who view themselves as indestructible.


----------



## snider (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm always amazed how in every tragedy like this there are always a series of seemingly small unconnected events that lead up to a tragic ending. A set of new sails with an unrigged reef line, an ebb tide with little wind causing them to miss the start, trouble getting the anchor up. Had they been with the fleet, or not in that exact position at that exact time we would't be writing here. I read a book awhile back about accident theory, "Deep Survival, Who Dies and Why" It was a great book that I recommend. it basically states that accidents are normal and unfortunately will always happen. Planes will crash, sailors will die, it's unfortunately part of the system that puts us in these positions.

I too was very emotionally moved by his account. It must have been a very difficult thing to write about. It was a very personal account and my heart goes out to those involved.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Have to agree with KeelHaulin, racing or not, unless they were that close due to steerage or other problems, they were voluntarily too close. I am wondering why some have trouble accepting that?

Paul T


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

dabnis said:


> Have to agree with KeelHaulin, racing or not, unless they were that close due to steerage or other problems, they were voluntarily too close. I am wondering why some have trouble accepting that?
> 
> Paul T


"But, but, but - they were RACING"


----------



## Leocat66 (Dec 11, 2010)

How refreshing to read Bryan Chong's first hand account. What courage he has to put it all down, so soon after the happening, so that we have the opportunity to learn from this tragedy. My heart goes out to all those who have suffered a personal loss. Watching the video I must admit that as the music was playing, I teared up for these lost souls and their loved ones, who I had never even met. I am a cruiser not a racer but my feelings prove to me that there is a real and unexplained bond that we all share. Rest in Peace crew of Low Speed Chase. 

As I was reading Bryan's account another tragedy, from the recent past, crossed my mind once again. I wish that we might have had someone with the courage of Bryan aboard "Rule 62".


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Leocat66 said:


> .....As I was reading Bryan's account another tragedy, from the recent past, crossed my mind once again. I wish that we might have had someone with the courage of Bryan aboard "Rule 62".


Courage, and his eloquence...

In that tragedy racing was not a factor, of course, but I'm pretty sure that a good on-board evaluation of conditions and mindsets would have been very enlightening.


----------



## -OvO- (Dec 31, 2011)

snider said:


> I'm always amazed how in every tragedy like this there are always a series of seemingly small unconnected events that lead up to a tragic ending.


Absolutely -- and not just tragic fatalities, but industrial accidents, financial panics, etc, etc.

There's a lesson in there.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

The USCG suspended permits for offshore racing out of SF today...


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

I didn't know you had to have a permit for offshore racing...but of course you are referring to racing in the Farallons National Maritime Zone, Park, etc...which would be in their jurisdiction to do so of course....Otherwise how does CG have authority over racing "out of SF today"...under what authority? Just curious..need more info here OP...Actually, I guess having 80 sailboats coming out under the Golden gate demands some kind of permit...wherever the actual race is..so i get it I think...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

The YRA (Yacht Racing Association) must obtain an event permit from the USCG so that the CG can publish a Notice to Mariners that there will be boats racing on SF Bay and in the Enterance Zone to the Golden Gate. It's to ensure safety because of all of the shipping traffic, ferries, tugs, dredges, fishing boats, etc. that operate on the bay and beyond. If USCG won't issue a permit, YRA and Yacht Club racing organizations can't hold a race. It does not stop people from going sailing (even if they decided to meet and organize their own impromptu race); but I think USCG might stop issuing permits alltogether if that sort of thing started happening.

The duxship race is now only sailing to the Pt Bonita buoy (less than half the distance to the duxbury reef buoy. The Singlehanded Farallones race won't happen unless USCG changes it's policy (but they probably won't). The Spinnaker Cup (Race to Santa Cruz) might be canceled; it depends on if the USCG has completed it's investigation/report or not.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Here is a photo of a breaker that came out of nowhere at the Bonita Channel Buoy during the summer in calm seas ~4 years ago:










To the right of that wave is the channel to AVOID the shallows of Potatopatch Shoal. The Buoy you see is the one where the Duxship race will be rounding next weekend. This is the size/power of wave that LSC encountered off of SE Farallone; but it was not so much of a 'freak' wave as this one because there was already big swell during the CF race.


----------



## Aac (May 24, 2008)

Hats off to Bryan for providing information in the hope others may learn. 

The only hope with a wave like that KeelHaulin is to not be there. Apart from these which seem impossible to deal here’s what I take away from it:

-	I’m going to pay even more attention to lee shores in rough conditions
-	I’m going to go swimming in the surf with a PFD; maybe a crotch strap is necessary
-	I’m going to test out the emergency tiller in rough conditions
-	I’m going to think more about a man overboard strategy
-	I agree with others that GPS markers make sense 
-	I am amazed how much battering hulls can take; it seemed Ok considering

I find many crew, racing or otherwise, eager to stress boats to its max and I guess a lot of that is because they aren’t paying for when things break. On my boat the priorities are: 

-	Safety of people first
-	Safety of boat second
-	Destination time comes third (I’m a casual racer - more a cruiser)


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> The USCG suspended permits for offshore racing out of SF today...


Here's the story in Lat38.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> Here is a photo of a breaker that came out of nowhere at the Bonita Channel Buoy during the summer in calm seas ~4 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah. Bonita Channel has never been known as particularly "great". It's far better than the more or less hypothetical "South Channel", but that ain't saying much.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I do want to correct one inaccurate discussion point above, Bryan Chong did not say that "Low Speed Chase" was a hundred yards from shore. What he actually said was," _As we approach the second point I estimate we're inside of 10 boat lengths - which is 128 yards on a Sydney 38 - from the beginning of the break zone." _

In other words, as I read the description, the crew had tried to gauge were the waves were begining to break and stay roughly 130 yards outside that zone. For a race boat, monitoring the wave breaks and then staying 400 feet away just does not sound all that imprudent.

Jeff


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> I do want to correct one inaccurate discussion point above, Bryan Chong did not say that "Low Speed Chase" was a hundred yards from shore. What he actually said was," _As we approach the second point I estimate we're inside of 10 boat lengths - which is 128 yards on a Sydney 38 - from the beginning of the break zone." _
> 
> In other words, as I read the description, the crew had tried to gauge were the waves were begining to break and stay roughly 130 yards outside that zone. For a race boat, monitoring the wave breaks and then staying 400 feet away just does not sound all that imprudent.
> 
> Jeff


Kind of sounds like you are saying they were too close? Not sure that being a "race" boat should make any difference as to how close is too close?

Paul T


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am not saying that they were either too close or not too close. Earlier discussion seemed to be saying that the boat was a 100 feet/yards from shore. That would clearly be too close. I was trying to correct that point by saying what I said above. My point about racing is that you often make calculated decisions based on the objectives of the day, and the skill of the crew. This means that boats sometime cross very closely to each other, or carry more sail area than they might otherwise. 

In this case, there seemed to be an effort to assess the risk and stay out of the breaking wave zone. Obviously, they got it tragically wrong, but if I understood what was said, the crew had attempted to avoid an unacceptable risk by observing the conditions and avoiding the danger zone by what appeared to be a reasonable distance. And so while the crew may have gone within the a safety margin that was a higher risk than one might do with a smaller less skilled crew, it would seem like they still were trying to act safely, and took the type of calculated that is a part of racing. 

Selectively evaluating risk is something that all sailors do. We often see discussions in these forums where one person is conetmplating doing something which is more risky than the rest of us might consider acceptable. It might be a 16 year old girl doing a circumnavigation, or a young man circumnavigating the America's single-handed in a 50 year old 27 foot boat, or it might be someone buying a 40 year old racer-cruiser, removing the engine and going cruising. To some of us, these may seem too risky, but to other, and particularly, to the person involved, they have a plan that makes sense and offers reasonable risk. 

They may get a bad verdict in the court of public opinion, but what ultimately counts is the verdict from the court of reality. We have seen disasters occur when the risk calculation was in error. But we rarely hear of the cases where the risks were unacceptably high, yet the chance taker got away scot free through luck or circumstance. 

In this case, it sounds like the crew had what they reasonably believed to be an acceptable margin for error. The events proved otherwise. 

Jeff


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Racing is not cruising. Offshore racers take measured risks. Top teams wanting to win take even more risks and that is not only on sailing but in any sport with difficult exterior conditions. Sailors racing use much more sail that prudence will recommend sometimes keep racing in conditions they would avoid if they were cruising. That is normal.

It is normal that a top team tries to shorten way and pass as close of a shore as they can, assuming more risks than if they were cruising, and keep safety to a minimum considered reasonable under racing circumstances. On particularly dangerous places, like it is the case, prudence will counsel the race organizers to put a mark limiting the safety zone, not allowing short-cuts on that area. That is made on many races and some examples were given already.

I am not saying that the blame is on the organization not even on the captain of the racing team that suffered the accident. He made a judgement regarding a minimum safety that would permit him to pass as close as the shore as he could to gain time. It was a bad judgement but he only found out later, as it is normally the case. If he was cruising I am sure he would have take a wider berth and that is normal.

The ones that blame the Captain probably never raced at high level. I did not but while racing motorcycles I took many times risks that *later* I found out that were bad calls and could turned out in bad accidents. Don't take me wrong I was not a dangerous rider, one of the safest on the circuit. The ones that really wanted to win took a lot more risks than me (and broke a lot of bones. Never broke one). When you race seriously you just went to a different set of mind and it is important to understand that because it is a normal thing. You should not call yourself a racer if you don't do that.

This accident had the advantage to enlarge the discussion in what regards boat safety, particularly racing safety rules and I believe that from that discussion and from the safety rules that I am sure are going to be mandatory from now on, many lives will be saved.

The word here is mandatory and you guys, particularly the Americans just hate that word. I remember that the problems in what regards safety lately has not been one related with racing only but also with cruising. I guess this will be the beginning of a discussion about safety and mandatory safety measures that will reach the cruising world too.

For now the sail races on California have been stooped while a serious reflexion about safety is going on.

California sailing tragedy prompts suspension of ocean racing - Yahoo! News


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

This a fall 2011 race shot and is standard spring and fall race weather

Boats and people ALWAYS get broken and there are at least two fatalitys i know of in recent years as well as some really lucky guys that ended up on the rocks and all walked away

I had to flat out tell somebody last fall on the day this picture was taken i was going home to my wife same as i left and was NOT comfortable doing more than keeping the boat and myself in one piece and going a bit slower as it is for FUN and beyong my risk/reward comfort level


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Keel made a great post over at SA* on this. There is this strange disconnect in people discussing this tragedy. The inescapable facts are these:

1. They got too close to a very dangerous lee shore.
2. They put themselves there.

Acknowledging these two facts is not _dishonoring_ anyone. That seems to be one part of the disconnect. Some don't want to say it out loud out of some strange sense of propriety. But NOT acknowledging these facts is dangerous.

The only way this discussion becomes dishonorable is if someone starts criticizing the people on that boat as if he/she would have never taken similar risks. In other words, trying to use this tragedy to make himself look like the better seaman (but more like a douchebag). And that's the other part of the disconnect. He thinks he's so good he'll never get caught. This too is dangerous.

I think Jeff, PCP, Keel and many others have framed the issue perfectly. The people on LSC took the risk...a risk they weighed seriously and felt was within their margin of safety...a higher risk than they probably would have taken in less-competitive circumstances...but through an area others had transited safely...and they got caught. That's really it.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Jeff_H said:


> what ultimately counts is the verdict from the court of reality.


There is the crux of the matter. Shaving things close around the buoys is a very different thing from shaving them close on the open ocean.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> I am not saying that they were either too close or not too close. Earlier discussion seemed to be saying that the boat was a 100 feet/yards from shore. That would clearly be too close. I was trying to correct that point by saying what I said above. My point about racing is that you often make calculated decisions based on the objectives of the day, and the skill of the crew. This means that boats sometime cross very closely to each other, or carry more sail area than they might otherwise.
> 
> In this case, there seemed to be an effort to assess the risk and stay out of the breaking wave zone. Obviously, they got it tragically wrong, but if I understood what was said, the crew had attempted to avoid an unacceptable risk by observing the conditions and avoiding the danger zone by what appeared to be a reasonable distance. And so while the crew may have gone within the a safety margin that was a higher risk than one might do with a smaller less skilled crew, it would seem like they still were trying to act safely, and took the type of calculated that is a part of racing.
> 
> ...


"Too close or not too close"? I see, I think.

Paul T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Keel's post made the front page over at SA. That's how right on it was. You guys should read it.

Nice going Keel.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Keel's post made the front page over at SA. That's how right on it was. You guys should read it. Nice going Keel.


It was the best piece written about the incident.

A quote from it - "the skippers who sailed through that reef were *all* doing the wrong thing".


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

KeelHaulin said:


> The USCG suspended permits for offshore racing out of SF today...


Great government move certainly driven by the ridiculous media frenzy......

This race has been run for *105 years!!!!!!* With not a single death until this tragedy.

How many boats in 105 years have passed a similar line around South Farallon and nobody died.????? Probably in the hundreds... Seriously, it's called an accident.

The USCG has had 105 years to step in, but now, amongst a media frenzy driven by folks who know squat about sailing, let alone racing, they come to the rescue of us poor sailors who take too much risk...? And I pay taxes for what exactly? Am I the only one who finds this USCG move a bit ridiculous, condescending and over-reaching..?

Good points to be taken away, as with any tragedy, but the frenzy, government intervention and arm chairing is getting entertaining to say the least..

Having been a surfer in my younger days, and often rested outside of the break, after paddling through it, I _might_ have taken an even tighter line though, "_might_"?

It was very, very rare to have a break even 15-20 yards out of the break line let alone 130 yards out. As a kid I spent many countless hours outside the break zone during hurricane surf or Nor' Easter surf. Tough stuff to paddle through. A good rest outside the break before catching a wave was always a nice reward for the abuse you went through to get there. 
*
105 years*, no other tragedies, I chalk this up to a tragic accident... Avoidable, sure, but almost all accidents are. Don't drive, no accidents, don't sail, no accidents, don't use power tools no accidents, don't climb mountains, no accidents, don't fly, no accidents.......

Let the dirt start flying....


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> *Keel made a great post over at SA* on this. There is this strange disconnect in people discussing this tragedy. The inescapable facts are these:
> 
> 1. They got too close to a very dangerous lee shore.
> 2. They put themselves there.
> ...


Smack,

I didn't see the "dishonerable" aspect in any of the posts. My own comments were made as somebody that has been in that area and that hopefully others might learn from, nothing more, nothing less. Other posters already knew how close is too close.

Paul T


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Jeff_H said:


> I do want to correct one inaccurate discussion point above, Bryan Chong did not say that "Low Speed Chase" was a hundred yards from shore. What he actually said was," _As we approach the second point I estimate we're inside of 10 boat lengths - which is 128 yards on a Sydney 38 - from the beginning of the break zone." _
> 
> In other words, as I read the description, the crew had tried to gauge were the waves were begining to break and stay roughly 130 yards outside that zone. For a race boat, monitoring the wave breaks and then staying 400 feet away just does not sound all that imprudent.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff; I understand your comments. I don't think the sailors who round SE Farallone think they are in too close either. I think there has been a gradual erosion of the fear about sailing tight to the break line. My dock neighbor sailed the CF race in the 80's/90' and he said they were always at least 300 yards away from the break and they were not sailing in seas that were 12-15'.

The problem with this logic of '150 yards out is OK' is that the entire area is a reef. The reef extends at least 500 yards outside of the break. So anywhere inside of 3-500 yards from the break line has potential for a large set wave or 'freak' wave to break. The wave will curl over when it runs out of water to suck away from the shoreline, and shallowing beneath trips it. It does not matter how far away from the shore it happens, and to reference where the existing break is isn't the correct way to determine where you would be safe from a larger breaking wave. Depth should be the primary consideration in determining safety.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Farallon Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those of us who don't sail those waters, the Wiki picture of the whitewater around some of those islands might clarify things.

Is that where they were rockhopping?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> Farallon Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> For those of us who don't sail those waters, the Wiki picture of the whitewater around some of those islands might clarify things.
> 
> Is that where they were rockhopping?


Yes. I believe that the boat washed up on the left side (as you're looking at it) of the closest bit of island in this pic:









The USCG installation on the island was automated years ago. However, the island has a more or less permanently manned observatory, run by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO; at least, as far as I know they still run it). Often, there are also folks out there doing marine mammal and white shark observations, as well as various other research projects. Normally, one gets on or off SE Farallon (except via helicopter in an emergency) is via a hoist on the east side of the main island. Although, in really calm weather people do land directly. Several years ago, a friend of mine was stuck out there for a week or so after she was due to return from the island when bad weather made even the hoist too dangerous to use. I imagine it looked something like this, or worse:


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Slow is right, the attached chart shows the bottom configuration. I believe the boat went agroung just on the inside of the furthest rocks to the north. There were pictures of it on the rocks, maybe a search would show them?

Chart 18645

Paul T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Lots of pics and vids posted in the initial thread about this incident here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ad-four-missing-farallones-sailboat-race.html

Here's where the boat ended up. Compare that to the image above (especially the break line you see in that image):










Then look at this:










And draw your own conclusions.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Here is the location where LSC went aground. Please notice the large area of white froth to the left. I can't tell from the photo but I believe the reef extends further offshore by another 500 yards or so. The chart clearly shows that there is a shallow zone to the NW of the break that is at least 500 yards outside of the charted break zone. Yes; looking at chart 18645 it's clear that the charted break is approximately the size of what you see in the photo with the yellow X on it. The reef extends another 500 yards further out from that break line. As you can see a large swell (20+ feet) would be breaking over nearly 1/2 mile from the shoreline.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

KeelHaulin said:


> Here is the location where LSC went aground. Please notice the large area of white froth to the left. I can't tell from the photo but I believe the reef extends further offshore by another 500 yards or so. The chart clearly shows that there is a shallow zone to the NW of the break that is at least 500 yards outside of the charted break zone. Yes; looking at chart 18645 it's clear that the charted break is approximately the size of what you see in the photo with the yellow X on it. The reef extends another 500 yards further out from that break line. As you can see a large swell (20+ feet) would be breaking over nearly 1/2 mile from the shoreline.


That photo (above) depicts the west, inside, shore of Maintop Bay. The charted reef extends 200+ yards north and somewhat easterly, somewhat beyond the white water in the photo. The 6 fathom line on that exposure is roughly 400 yards from shore. While some boats anchor in Maintop Bay from time to time in settled weather, with northwesterly winds and swell, coupled with a cross-swell for southwest, no one with an ounce of sense would get closer than 500 yards and the photos of the boats in the race seems to indicate they were a lot closer in than that. One pays one's nickel and takes once chance, but the ocean isn't like the bay and big, "honkin" waves do come up in cross seas with no warning. I went around that island on a friend's NY40 too long ago to discuss. We were 1000 yards off and still got rolled down, almost to our beam ends. One wave. Nothing beforehand to warn us, nothing afterward to prove that it happened (save brown stains in some of the crews' shorts).

What a waste....


----------



## snider (Jun 26, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Lots of pics and vids posted in the initial thread about this incident here:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ad-four-missing-farallones-sailboat-race.html
> 
> ...


I don't know if its an optical illusion but the farthest boat from the camera absolutely looks too close. Like someone else said, this race has been going on for over a hundred years. That's a lot of experience rounding these islands probably on the same line as LSC without incident, so why would they think anything would be different for this rounding. They rounded just as they always had, this time though conditions were different.

Or maybe as Keel pointed out, maybe over the years the boats have gotten gradually closer and closer. The one boat in the photo looks only one wave from the breakers.

When I first heard about this I was amazed that there wasn't a mark or waypoint a safe distance from the reef to round. Our race committee always set such marks when rounding hazards, otherwise everyone cuts it close, a little closer than the boat in front in fact, just to get a little edge. It's heartbreaking and tragic, and as usual with the benefit of hindsight seems needless.

Nice signature slow. ;-)


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> Great government move certainly driven by the ridiculous media frenzy......
> 
> This race has been run for *105 years!!!!!!* With not a single death until this tragedy....
> 
> Let the dirt start flying....


MS,

Your last line sounds like you're trolling for a fight. I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but your comments are just too far to the BS end of the spectrum to ignore.

*FIVE PEOPLE DIED. WTF did you think the CG was supposed to do?* Ignore such a loss of life? Should they just say, "Oh, well. The race had a pretty good record up until now. We'll just wait until MORE people get killed before we do anything."???????? It's pretty obvious that someone should at least take a good hard look at such races. No one is stopping you or anyone else from sailing around the Farallones. You can borrow my POS Sabot and take a crack at it, if you want. The CG has only suspended organized ocean races in the area until they have had a chance to complete their review of this incident and the appropriateness of the safety regs for similar events. That's their job. Their job also entails risking their lives to get recreational sailors out of life-threatening situations. Do you really think it is right for any of us, particularly someone 3000 miles away, to ask them to take such risks unnecessarily? Or, *are willing to volunteer to be the one who has to notify the next of kin of any Coast Guard personnel who get killed trying to rescue people off the next boat that winds up in a similar situation???????*


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

SlowButSteady said:


> MS,
> 
> Your last line sounds like you're trolling for a fight. I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but your comments are just too far to the BS end of the spectrum to ignore.


Heh-heh. Hey Maine, I thought you said _I _was the troll around here.

Booyah!


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> MS,
> 
> Your last line sounds like you're trolling for a fight. I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but your comments are just too far to the BS end of the spectrum to ignore.
> 
> *FIVE PEOPLE DIED. WTF did you think the CG was supposed to do?* Ignore such a loss of life? Should they just say, "Oh, well. The race had a pretty good record up until now. We'll just wait until MORE people get killed before we do anything."???????? It's pretty obvious that someone should at least take a good hard look at such races. No one is stopping you or anyone else from sailing around the Farallones. You can borrow my POS Sabot and take a crack at it, if you want. The CG has only suspended organized ocean races in the area until they have had a chance to complete their review of this incident and the appropriateness of the safety regs for similar events. That's their job. Their job also entails risking their lives to get recreational sailors out of life-threatening situations. Do you really think it is right for any of us, particularly someone 3000 miles away, to ask them to take such risks unnecessarily? Or, *are willing to volunteer to be the one who has to notify the next of kin of any Coast Guard personnel who get killed trying to rescue people off the next boat that winds up in a similar situation???????*


How about waypoints, then investigate the accident, let the racers race!!

Paul T


----------



## larrybme (Nov 2, 2011)

Thank you Bryan for our first hand account. I am so sorry and my heart goes out to the families of those who did not make it back that day. It is unimaginable to me to kiss a loved one goodby, saying "see you after the race, have fun", then being notified that your loved husband, daughter, son, wife, or lover was killed while racing a 38 ft yacht around the Farralones.
At risk of sounding calous or cold. I hope that my last day is spent enjoying the comraderie similar to the crew of LSC and prusuing my passion by doing exactly what it is I so love to do.
Will there be lessons learned? We all certainly hope so. Will there be new regulations pertaining to yacht racing? Probably. Personally I am against govenment intervention. When we rely on a govenment agency for help and rescue though, we can not simply refuse their intervention.
I do not want to be told when I must tether in, what equipment I must carry on board, what equipment I must personally wear or respecting certain waypoints. That being said, when I join or participate in an organized event, such as a yacht race, one must abide by the rules and guide lines set forth for that event. Whatever safety precautions are mandated by the CG, SFYC or other yacht clubs or race organizers with prevention of such another tragedy hopefully will be welcomed and embraced by the racing community.
I can not imagine the pain and sorrow felt by the families of the five who were lost. The sailing community lost way more than friends and family. We have no idea of what we lost in terms of what those who did not return on that Saturday may have contributed to sailing, and society in general.
Larry


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SlowButSteady said:


> MS,
> 
> Your last line sounds like you're trolling for a fight. I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but your comments are just too far to the BS end of the spectrum to ignore.


100% absolutely NOT trolling. However having been here on SN for a long while I simple preemptively stated what I knew would come of my OPINION and your post was exactly what I expected... It is pretty predictable...



SlowButSteady said:


> *FIVE PEOPLE DIED. WTF did you think the CG was supposed to do?*


So if this was single or double handed race or 1 died and the rest survived things should be different? I feel this is all about the media frenzy. I don't feel at all that this is about the sailors, or saving future sailors, it is PANDERING to public sentiment, and yes, I find that offensive and condescending to the sailing community.



SlowButSteady said:


> Ignore such a loss of life?


No one is "ignoring the loss of life" especially not me. I think the loss is a great tragedy just as Fastnet was. However I do find the USCG response totally offensive, reprehensible, transparent and completely and utterly USELESS. Safety measures will be taken by the race organizers and US Sailing will undoubtedly step in too.

Like ALL OTHER sailing tragedies we will learn from this one and we don't need the government telling us how we need to learn from it or where we can and can't sail.

I think sailors are a pretty smart lot and USCG STATISTICS back this up. A temporary ban on ocean racing, out of San Fran, when for 104 years it has been 100% safe in terms of the Farallones shoals, as far as I know, is nothing but feel good politics and it makes me sick to my stomach that I fund this sort of nonsense and pandering to public sentiment when the vast majority of the public knows as much about sailing as I do about NASCAR, which is next to nothing..

Where is the OUTRAGE that HUNDREDS more people die per year in Kayaks or canoes or open motor boats and PWC accidents? Why has the USCG not banned their use like they did three wheel ATV's? Where are those investigations or temporary bans?

I happen to have a copy of the 2008 recreational boating statistics. Sailboat deaths do not even make the top 5.

VESSEL TYPES WITH THE TOP CASUALTY NUMBERS

___________________Deaths____Total Casualties
1 Open Motorboat _____353_________2022
2 Personal Watercraft___45__________965
3 Cabin Motorboat_____ 59__________355
4 Canoe/Kayak_______ 114_________ 243

So has the USCG temporarily banned open motor boats or canoe's & kayaks to investigate? No... Why not? Probably because of the lack of a media frenzy... Have they stopped the production until a formal investigation can occur? Halted new registrations of these clearly dangerous craft? Banned their use out of San Fran?

Where is the "outrage" over all those deaths? My point is sailboats are a LOT safer statistically than most other types of boating. This is backed up by our own USCG in their own statistics.

This "knee jerk" transparent display by the USCG solves NOTHING and saves no more lives than if they were to actually really DO SOMETHING and begin investigating where the real "tragedy numbers" occur. They could save a lot more lives focusing on open motor boat, canoe & kayak and PWC safety rather than banning folks who actually know what they are doing from doing what they love.

Oh but wait those deaths happened one at a time or perhaps two at a time. When 5 people perish tragically it means media outrage, government stupidity and sailing, a sport no one ever cares about, rises to the limelight. Of course when one or two at a time perish, oh well, we'll just collect that and put it into our "statistics"....... Those folks, open motor boaters, PWC's, canoes & kayakers & cabin motorboaters certainly still had family and loved ones left behind but the USCG gives them no common courtesy other than collecting data to publish?????

But hey lets make it look good for public display and stop offshore racing while we "investigate"... Yeah that will baffle the voting public with BS.... And it does, so we accept it, sad really...



SlowButSteady said:


> Should they just say, "Oh, well. The race had a pretty good record up until now. We'll just wait until MORE people get killed before we do anything."????????


Pretty good record? How about 104 years of sailors passing around those shaols and no other deaths due to them that I can find. Perhaps every boat that has raced that race, in 105 years, has passed over the shoals of the reef rounding South Farallone. Shallow is shallow, move the mark beyond the reef or every racer for 105 years has been "unsafe" despite but one single tragedy... If nearly every racer has passed over that same reef, for 105 years, has that area not been historically and statistically "safe".



SlowButSteady said:


> It's pretty obvious that someone should at least take a good hard look at such races.


Yes and I am sure US Sailing and the race organizers have already begun addressing this. US Sailing looks at offshore safety CONSTANTLY. If you've not ever attended a US Sailing Safety At Sea seminar I would urge you to spend a weekend and do so. By doing so you'll see what each of these racers has been through. These seminars are very good but still accidents can happen.



SlowButSteady said:


> No one is stopping you or anyone else from sailing around the Farallones.


Well jeez why not? It is dangerous after all, is it not? Perhaps they should just use yellow police tape and draw a perimeter around every lee shore including the Farallones..... Yeah that's a great idea, someone feed that to the media.... So where is the USCG to protect me from myself? Oh yeah, they only care about "racers"..... BECAUSE IT IS USELESS FEEL GOOD POLITICAL GESTURING.



SlowButSteady said:


> You can borrow my POS Sabot and take a crack at it, if you want.


I'll take a pass I already have an old POS....



SlowButSteady said:


> The CG has only suspended organized ocean races in the area until they have had a chance to complete their review of this incident and the appropriateness of the safety regs for similar events.


Let me give it a crack, "Give lee shores wider berth in ocean racing around the Farallones", investigation done, have a good day... What did that take all of 30 seconds..... Pandering to the nonsensical media frenzy at best.....



SlowButSteady said:


> That's their job. Their job also entails risking their lives to get recreational sailors out of life-threatening situations. Do you really think it is right for any of us, particularly someone 3000 miles away, to ask them to take such risks unnecessarily?


Do you think it is right that there were 353 deaths in open motor boats or 114 deaths in canoes & kayaks in 2008? What are they doing about that? Is that not also their job? Are those deaths not "preventable"....?

Wait I know why.. Yeah no "media frenzy" to contend with for those deaths perhaps because they did not happen 5 at a time and bring lots of media attention to a sport very few actually get, INCLUDING MANY SAILORS......

So we need to suspend ocean racing out of only San Fran? If ocean racing deserves a ban out of San Fran why not the rest of the US? Oh yeah, I guess it is only dangerous out of San Fran and the ocean elsewhere is much more accommodating of ocean racers and not wanting to swallow them up. Completely and utterly ridiculous, reprehensible and a gross display of public media PANDERING.



SlowButSteady said:


> Or, *are willing to volunteer to be the one who has to notify the next of kin of any Coast Guard personnel who get killed trying to rescue people off the next boat that winds up in a similar situation???????*


How about the other 709 deaths in 2008 most of which were totally preventable?

5 people died due to lack of proper ventilation 
9 Poeple died to to lack on proper nav lights 
4 people died due to improper anchoring
7 People died in dams or locks 
5 people died because a seat broke loose

Where were all those investigations or temporary bans while the USCG "investigates"...

My point here is that I find it entirely condescending and a full media pander to ban ocean racing out of San Fran & San Fran only. This is not and has not historically been an unsafe race. The race committee will address this as will US Sailing and we don't need big government sticking their nose in to do nothing but "look good" to the voting public.

That my OPINION, it is not a troll, and I recognize many will not agree with it.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> So if this was single or double handed race or 1 died and the rest survived things should be different? I feel this is all about the media frenzy. I don't feel at all that this is about the sailors, or saving future sailors, it is PANDERING to public sentiment, and yes, I find that offensive and condescending to the sailing community.
> 
> .....
> 
> So we need to suspend ocean racing out of only San Fran? If ocean racing deserves a ban out of San Fran why not the rest of the US? Oh yeah, I guess it is only dangerous out of San Fran and the ocean elsewhere is much more accommodating of ocean racers and not wanting to swallow them up. Completely and utterly ridiculous, reprehensible and a gross display of public media PANDERING.


Agreed...

Actually, 4 sailors died in the Doublehanded Farallones Race in 1982...

Another died of hypothermia after a capsize in the 1984 running of the same race...

2 more sailors disappeared in the 2008 Lightship Race...

No such action taken after any of those incidents, what makes this one so different?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

JonEisberg said:


> Agreed...
> 
> *Actually, 4 sailors died in the Doublehanded Farallones Race in 1982...
> 
> ...


See what I get for trusting the media to be accurate????? My bad, sorry not a perfect record.

Were any of those deaths the result of the Farallones shoals break..?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> Agreed...
> 
> Actually, 4 sailors died in the Doublehanded Farallones Race in 1982...
> 
> ...


Perhaps if the CG had suspended ocean racing after those incidents recent events wouldn't have taken place.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> See what I get for trusting the media to be accurate????? My bad, sorry not a perfect record.
> 
> Were any of those deaths the result of the Farallones shoals break..?


Maine, you are correct, these are the first fatalities since the Full Crew Farallones Race started in 1907.

The other deaths had nothing to do wiith the farallones as I think they are races that go half way to the islands and back


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

poopdeckpappy said:


> Maine, you are correct, these are the first fatalities since the Full Crew Farallones Race started in 1907.
> 
> The other deaths had nothing to do wiith the farallones as I think they are races that go half way to the islands and back


The Double Handed Farallones race is essentially the same course. The light bucket race goes to the "SF" approach buoy and back; about half the distance.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> 
> > Agreed...
> ...


No...

From Kimball Livingston's blog:



> agree with Bob that I hate bodycount references, but I was a daily newsman in '82 when a southerly buster surprised the Doublehanded Farallones Fleet-those were different times, and an updated weather report was broadcast at 0800 while starters were in sequence-and four lives were lost in the racing fleet. Boats returning from the islands in low visibility were swept north by a combination of current and storm (no GPS in those days), and many could not make efficient southing. No lives were lost on the island shore; everything happened on the return (and two non-racers perished aboard a cruising boat in the same storm).
> 
> Remembering Loss Living with Sacrifice


The man overboard/hypothermia death in the '84 race occurred on the run back in, and the loss of the 2 aboard a Cheoy Lee Offshore 31 in the Lightship Race (run roughly half the distance out to the Farallones) in '08 remains a mystery... Many surmise they may have gotten overwhelmed around the Potato Patch on their return...



SlowButSteady said:


> Perhaps if the CG had suspended ocean racing after those incidents recent events wouldn't have taken place.


Can't see how that's very likely, as none of the previous deaths involved circumstances remotely related to getting inside the surf at the islands...



poopdeckpappy said:


> Maine, you are correct, these are the first fatalities since the Full Crew Farallones Race started in 1907.
> 
> The other deaths had nothing to do wiith the farallones as I think they are races that go half way to the islands and back


The Singlehanded, Doublehanded, and Full Crew Farallones Races all sail the same course around the islands... The Lightship Race is sailed to a mark roughly halfway out...


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

There was also a guy killed in the 1999(?) Double Handed Farallones race. He go swept off the boat and dragged by his harness for several minutes. IIRC, the other guy on the boat got back on, but the boom was broken and he couldn't slow the boat down enough to recover his friend. And he didn't dare cut the tether, since he couldn't control the boat well enough to go back for the MOB.

Also, the Duxship race (the one race that has been effected, so far) is a more or less triangular course, from SF, through Bonita Channel then around the buoy (to port) just south of Duxbury Reef, around the Light Bucket to port, and back to SF. The temptation in that race is to cut across Fourteen Fathom Bank/Potato Patch on the way to Duxbury Reef. This year's edition of the race (this weekend) is just to the Bonita Channel buoy and back.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Maine and others:

I understand your frustration with the USCG; but please cut them some slack. It has been total pandemonium here in the media since the loss of the five sailors especially given that Alexis Busch was a minor celebrity here having been a bat girl (the first woman in MLB history) for the SF Giants during the Barry Bonds era. There have been daily news reports on every channel here since the tragedy nearly two weeks ago. With a population in the millions here watching news sources that only add hype and public scrutiny to the equation; the USCG is doing everything possible to regain control over the firestorm of criticism that is coming at them and the community of racing sailors.

I think the USCG suspended sailing here for two reasons. One was to get the public to calm down. If another accident of any type involving serious injury or death were to happen right now I think it might bring an end to offshore racing here by public demand. With the sailing tragedies of the crew of LSC, Daisy, and a couple who were lost off of Ocean Beach still fresh in the mind of the community; people here are getting 'fed up' with these high profile sailing tragedies. I know; more people die in the delta here each year and there is a Mayday out on SF Bay daily during the summer months, but these offshore accidents strike some sort of cord with the news media and then everyone gives offshore sailing the stink eye. It's a media induced frenzy; and the only way to get it to settle down is to put a stop to offshore activities for a while until the media finds other stories to focus their attention on. Remember there were five deaths during an amateur racing event. These things don't happen very often, but when they do it's a really, really big deal to the media; and to the USCG who issued the marine event permit.

In the wake of public outcry to put a stop to 'senseless loss of life' while sailing and 'taking unnecessary risks' (I'm talking about sailing racing in general here); I think it is a good move by the USCG to put a halt to offshore racing until they can sit down with the local YRA and find some ways to improve safety. Thy don't really care how old the race is; they just want to see some effort to ensure that they wont have to pluck more survivors off of SE Farallone and SAR for more lost souls out there.

I'm sorry Maine, but I completely disagree with your analysis of offshore racing here. I don't think we have every statistic at hand for the Farallones race; and I also am pretty sure that the boats that race around the farallones have slowly cut the corner down to the bare minimum in an effort to set ET records and/or win the race on corrected time. My dock neighbor raced in the late 80's and said they were always 300+ yards away from the surf line and that was in lesser conditions. That's closer to the 10 fathom contour than the 5-6 fathom depth that LSC was in. If people can't be trusted to make decisions that protect the safety of vessel and crew; then they should expect to have more safety restrictions imposed. 

It's a basic requirement for all risk involved racing sports to assess their safety standards and make improvements to safety where needed. It's the reason why so few auto racers die in present day; because of the massive safety rules and requirements that are in place for those events. If sailing racers don't like or want to adopt any more safety rules; well I'm sorry but expect for the USCG to take away the ability for you to race here by not issuing new event permits. It's just that simple.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Media frenzies often provoke needless, intrusive, and costly regulation. The CG, a great wing of our armed forces, is certainly not immune to political pressure. Suspending permits does not seem to be an onerous occurrence. After all, they are the ones who have to go out and rescue folks in trouble. 

There is a very positive aspect of media coverage/frenzy. It will undoubtedly keep a lot of sailors, racing or not, farther from lee shorelines everywhere. It will also make sailing organizations rethink where they set their courses much the same as the Fastnet deaths spurred sailboat design changes. No government intervention was needed there. It is still amazing to me that these boats were where they were in an organized event with those in charge of planning well aware of where these boats would be. Let's hope the politicos don't hop on a bandwagon to put some ridiculous and ineffective laws in place to further reduce the freedom of sailing in general.


----------



## snider (Jun 26, 2006)

Has anyone else noticed that in Bryan's account he doesn't mention if there was any conversation on the boat within the 30 seconds between the first large wave they were able to sail over and the breaking wave that initially rolled them? He stated it was the largest wave they had seen all day and it began to crest as they went over it, but 30 seconds later they were not so lucky. If he noticed the larger swell I wonder if anyone else on board did also. I also wonder if there was any conversation about it?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

KeelHaulin said:


> If people can't be trusted to make decisions that protect the safety of vessel and crew; then they should expect to have more safety restrictions imposed.


Offshore racers go through more safety training than that of recreational cruisers, it is REQUIRED. It is a US Sailing requirement. Ever try to enter a Bermuda race or other off shore race? Been through the process of getting all your crew properly trained and certified? Making sure the boat is properly prepared and meets all safety requirements?

What do cruisers do? Read a few books, poke in on SN, CF, CA and head off....... How many NON RACERS have attended a US Sailing Safety At Sea seminar... Now be honest......

So who get's to decide what is "safe" and what is "not safe"..

I'll play.. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think everyone should be at least as safe as I am. I am now the new armchair dictator of safety.... This means every last one of you must have at least what I carry, or more, even for just coastal cruising. This is ANY TIME you leave the dock...

*Safety:*

EPIRB
3 anchors and their rodes (complete, 3 minimum)
Chafe gear for all rodes
Spare nav lights/bulbs
Spare GPS devices = 3
VHF = 3
VHF cable minimum size RG-213
VHF-DSC
AIS
RADAR
Life Sling and multiple throwables
Holstered knife at the helm or on your person
Offshore certified life jackets
Inflatable life jackets with harness and crotch straps
Radar reflectors - two minimum
Storm sails
Personal Locator Beacons
PFD's with personal strobes permanently mounted to PFD's with lithium batts
4 fire extinguishers
Battery fuses on all banks and every branch circuit protected
Life raft for offshore passages.
USCG A1-15 fuel hose
Multiple working bilge pumps plus manual gusher type and hand held pumps
Wood tapered plugs attached to each and every seacock
PROPER FLANGED SEACOCKS
A working and 100% calibrated compass with receipt of date swung and deviation card
Back up depth transducer in place and routed to instrument
100% knowledge of DR skills
Hand held compasses - minimum 4
Working binoculars
Multiple signal devices including mirrors horns and flares. Flares at least double what is required.
Tethers and harnesses
Standing rigging replaced at 10 year intervals (MANDATORY)
Galvanic corrosion surveys biannually
Complete rigging inspections every 4 years
Clean fuel tank
multi-stage filtration
Drogue attachment points and drogue
MOB skills

*Boat Essential Tools & Repair Items: (You're just not safe as safe as I am without them)*

*General Tools:*
Wrenches - Assorted and sized for your vessels nuts and bolts
Flare Wrench's - Very important for any fuel line work
Drills - 1 Corded and 1 Cordless W/inverter to power corded
LED Head lamp & Flashlights multiples, and waterproof
Hole Saw Kit
Screw Drivers - Assorted
Pick Set - Very Handy
Tap/Die Set - Sized accordingly
Heli-Coil repair kit
Hack Saw - With spare blades
Bolt/Wire Cutters - Big enough to cut rigging
Wire Cutters - Big enough to cut battery cable
Blow Torch - Mini butane type and one standard torch head
Socket Set - SAE and Metric
Pipe Wrenches
Pliers - Various sizes
Water Pump Pliers
Needle Nose Vise Grips / hose clamp pliers - For clamping hoses off etc.
Files - Various
Drill Bits - Full Kit
Countersink - At least two sizes
Sandpaper
Dremel
Rigging Knife's
Calipers

*Rigging:*

Sewing Kit
Monel Seizing Wire
Sail Repair Tape
1" Nylon Webbing
1" Spectra webbing
Sail Slugs - To fit mast track
Sailors Palm, Needles & whipping twine
Clevis Pins - Spares sized for your boat (multiples)
Cotter Pins - Stainless various sizes to fit all pins
Grommets, Snaps & Twist Locks
Rig Tension Gauge
Dodger fittings to effect rail repairs

*Engine/Plumbing:*

Water pump - Complete spare and rebuild kit
Plumbing Fittings - Assorted to match parts on vessel
Zincs - For heat exchanger
Solenoid - Spare
Fuel Pump -Spare
Fuel Line Hose - Min 6 feet all sizes on vessel
Hose barbs - male/male for splicing hoses of various sizes
Impeller - With spare gaskets.
Oil Filter
Oil - for engine
Air filter
Antifreeze
Fuel Filters - Primary and secondary
Fuel Filtering Funnel
Hoses - Min 6 feet each size
Oil absorbing bilge pads (min 10)
Alternator Belts
Thermostat & gaskets
Engine service & parts manuals
Mechanics Manual - For your engine specifically
Non-Perforated Hose Clamps - Stainless AWAB type various sizes

*Electrical:*

Inverter - Spare at least 500 watts to power small tools
Electrical Connectors - Assorted marine grade various sizes
Multimeter - Clamp on AC/DC to measure amps, volts and resistance
Heat Shrink - Adhesive lined
Crimper - Ratcheting style for marine grade terminals
Silicone emergency tape
Self fusing tape
Zip Ties
Wire - Assorted gauges 6 feet min per size.
Jumper Wires 10 ga- With alligator clips on each end
Wire Strippers
Light Bulbs - Spares for each socket on the boat
Wire Snake
Terminal strips assorted

*Misc:*

Turkey baster
Stainless Steel Bar Stock
Aluminum Bar Stock
Stainless Steel Dodger Tubing - short length
Velcro - Regular and industrial grade
Grease - Water proof winch grease
PB Blaster
BoeShield
Lanocote
Tef Gel
Wax Toiletbowl Ring
Tru-Plug
Sika 295UV - Or equivalent
Wet Suit, Mask & Fins, hood
UV Resistant Duct Tape
Stainless Steel - Screws, nuts, bolts, fender washers, nyloc nuts, etc.
Tape - Electrical plus green painters tapes
JB Weld - Or equivalent
C-Clamps
Label maker
Bosuns chair = 2
Spare boat hook = 2
Spare halyard.
R-134 and charger adapter for refrigeration system
Spare prop, nuts & key
Prop Puller
Emergency tiller
Outboard motor fuel line with priming bulb

I know I missed a *lot* but that should get you close to as safe as "me".

Can you guys see where I am with this armchair nonsense? Why is it fair for you to decide what is safe for "me" if I can't decide what is safe for "YOU".... Pot/kettle....

When you guys have at least all the items I carry above then you're safe. Until then you are simply acting recklessly and that behavior should be banned by the USCG..

Tongue FIRMLY in cheek..


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Good list Main. Makes you think a bit. I'm off to Rona for the wax ring.to complete my stores.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

MS,

What good will any of that do if you decide to "cut the corner" and get too close to a lee shore? THAT is the decision in question here.

I can see it now:
*Crew:* MS, you're steering us too close to the rocks! We're inside the break line if a big set comes!!!
*MS:* Don't worry. I have a turkey baster and a spare prop. We'll be fine.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SlowButSteady said:


> MS,
> 
> What good will any of that do if you decide to "cut the corner" and get too close to a lee shore? THAT is the decision in question here.
> 
> ...


Oh so you want to mandate the human thought process now that you know you are not prepared to "safely" sail off shore.......

Where does the nanny madness stop? What is "safe" and prudent for YOU may not be safe and prudent for ME.... As I said setting to sea with anything less than what I carry is NOT SAFE SEAMANSHIP...  You should be deemed manifestly unsafe by USCG Capt. Cynthia Stowe.... When you're "prepared" to safely set out to sea then we'll talk... Until then PLEASE stay at the dock because you are a danger to yourself and the rescuers who will need to save you.

See the ridiculousness.. No, I figured you would not......

Who's going to monitor your thoughts while sailing to keep you from cutting a corner too close that *someone else* has deemed too close.? Will you need to wear a temporal lobe scanner wired to the AIS system so USCG Capt. Cynthia Stowe can monitor your decision process to keep you in-line?

Are we to now set sailing "boundaries" so skippers no longer have to think....? Perhaps we just program all GPS devices to set danger zones you can't go near. If you do an alarm is sent to Capt. Cynthia Stowe so she can ban you from yourself...

ALL SAILING IS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NOT JUST RACING AS SOME IN THIS THREAD SEEM TO FEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I FEEL IT IS 100% HYPOCRITICAL TO CALL OTHERS SAILING PRACTICES INTO QUESTION WHEN YOU YOURSELF MAY NOT BE 150% SAFE WHEN AT SEA..... (See my list)

Tongue firmly in cheek, in case you missed that,......................................again..


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> MS,
> 
> What good will any of that do if you decide to "cut the corner" and get too close to a lee shore? THAT is the decision in question here.
> 
> ...


Agree, it is where you go that matters. When I raced off- road motorcycles in the desert a "course" was set up, with check points to keep the riders "on course". The course was laid out to keep people from riding down abandoned mineshafts, blind washes and so on, a safety factor. Way points in about 80 feet of water would have likely prevented this accident. Waypoints seem very simple, am I missing something?

Chart 18645

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

MS,

What _is_ ridiculous is to expect the CG to just carry on, business as usual, after FIVE PEOPLE DIED. WHAT THE F__K is so important about a few silly boat races that they can't be suspended while this incident and its associated safety issues are sorted out?

If Capt. Stowe wants to make sure none of her people have to unnecessarily risk their lives rescuing racers who can't keep their boats away from hazardous surf (all in the name of "fun", or the pursuit of a shiny pickle dish), HOW THE F__K are you qualified to second-guess that decision? When was the last time YOU dropped from a helicopter and pulled someone out of such a mess, or had the responsibility for sending others into such danger??? Why don't you just go play with your toys, write your little web postings on the best crimping tools, and let the safety professionals do their jobs?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Agree, it is where you go that matters. When I raced off- road motorcycles in the desert a "course" was set up, with check points to keep the riders "on course". The course was laid out to keep people from riding down abandoned mineshafts, blind washes and so on, a safety factor. Way points in about 80 feet of water would have likely prevented this accident. Waypoints seem very simple, am I missing something?
> 
> Chart 18645
> 
> Paul T


Waypoints may well be the answer, or at least a major component of such. But, let's give the professionals a little time to sort things out, and make a well considered decision. Let things cool off a little. Let everyone have some input, before a "solution" is enacted.

Making a hurried decision often results in the Law of Unintended Consequences asserting its authority.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SlowButSteady said:


> Making a hurried decision often results in the Law of Unintended Consequences asserting its authority.


Couldn't have said it better myself... Capt. Cynthia Stowe's hurried decision comes immediately to mind... 

I fully suspect the private sector race organizers WILL set a rounding mark for that course and the safety issues will be addressed.

Now what about all those canoes, kayaks, open motor boats and unsafe cruising sailors, why are we ignoring their safety......

Why can my daughter ride a big yellow death trap with NO SEAT BELTS yet I must be strapped in or face fines. What about the "children"..

There's no need to get all riled up, use masked four letter words or make weak attempts at personal level insults. The four letter words and menial attempts at personal level insults are not going to change my opinion of the situation at hand. I am also certain my approach to the situation will not change your mind but hopefully it does make some think about our approaches to judging others sailing decision making processes..

I am sure you and others feel I carry waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much stuff and it is over kill. Yet I may feel 95% of boaters carry to little to be safe. I am merely trying to promote some critical thinking of how we judge from the sidelines while at the same time perhaps not being 100% safe ourselves. That makes us hypocritical.

Can anyone of use 100% guarantee we will never need rescue from the USCG? Absolutely not. There are far to many scenarios to account for all we can do is do our best. I feel LSC made the best decision they THOUGHT they could make that day and it was still not good enough. Someday perhaps you or I will make a mistake too and everyone will be sitting here stomping the keyboard arguing for more government intervention because of your or my lack of forethought or planning. The difference is I don't believe government intervention will solve anything here and it is simply to appease non-sailors. I still find that offensive and condescending to the sailing community.

If it makes you feel better about yourself then by all means feel free to use the masked four letter words and make attempts to trivialize and demean my contributions to the community.. That becomes a reflection on you, not me....

You don't agree with me, I will never agree with your position on this level of government intervention on sailing because I believe the private sector race organizers and US Sailing will work it out.... We already have the COLREGS in place that are a darn good set of rules for ocean safety.. I was just at a US Sailing seminar two weeks ago and they take this stuff VERY, VERY seriously. I have faith that the race organizers will address this, some don't.

That's the nature of life. Not everyone is of the same belief. However, I think we can continue to discuss it without using masked four letter words or taking it to personal level.....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> I think everyone should be at least as safe as I am. I am now the new armchair dictator of safety.... This means every last one of you must have at least what I carry, or more, even for just coastal cruising. This is ANY TIME you leave the dock...
> 
> *Safety:*
> 
> ...


Check. Oh, you forgot rum and condoms. (Turkey baster is a nice touch though.)


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> Check. Oh, you forgot rum and condoms.


Yeah I forgot my entire "medical" stock pile....



smackdaddy said:


> (Turkey baster is a nice touch though.)


Never know when you might need to artificially inseminate someone or clean up spilled battery acid or oil.....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Where does the nanny madness stop? What is "safe" and prudent for YOU may not be safe and prudent for ME....


Honestly maine, I think you're making a weak point...rather hysterically...but still weak. The USCG is doing the right thing. And the OA - and wider SF racing community - will make the right call in imposing some sensible rules for increased safety in the future races. It'll work out.

And you'll still be free to use your turkey baster as you wish.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> Honestly maine, I think you're making a weak point...rather hysterically...but still weak. The USCG is doing the right thing. And the OA - and wider SF racing community - will make the right call in imposing some sensible rules for increased safety in the future races. It'll work out.


Sure..... As I said my "opinion" and it differs from yours... I think I have made my point "sarcastically" not "hysterically". The only ones getting hysterical are the ones who have resorted to four letter....... well.......

If 1 person had perished would the USCG have done this? Doubtful. It has apparently happened before, and they have not. It is still but ONE tragic accident in a long history of safe rounding. I just find the reaction is one of the knee jerk type and I see it as a move of public appeal, not real problem solving....



smackdaddy said:


> And you'll still be free to use your turkey baster as you wish.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Aside from how the boats are equipped I am not sure why a big time investigation is necessary? Bryan didn't mention any kind of gear failure. I believe the SF Police Dept did their investigation and determined it was an "accident". I don't know of anything else being found other than that they got too close to the rocks. Solution, stay farther away from the rocks by whatever means available. Am I over simplifying the whole thing?

Paul T


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

dabnis said:


> Solution, stay farther away from the rocks by whatever means available.
> 
> *Am I over simplifying the whole thing?*
> 
> Paul T


No not at all. It's pretty simple....

Lesson learned, give wider berth to the lee shores of the Farallones. Now lets race... Oh yeah we can't Captain Cindy said we can't.....


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> No not at all. It's pretty simple....
> 
> Lesson learned, give wider berth to the lee shores of the Farallones. Now lets race... Oh yeah we can't Captain Cindy said we can't.....


Hmm, "Captain Cindy", now I think I understand.

Paul T


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Never know when you might need to artificially inseminate someone or clean up spilled battery acid or oil.....


Not with the same baster...or at least not in the wrong order.

Although, AI with battery acid and oil might explain the personalities of some of us here.

There aren't many threads here that a post-whore like me won't throw my opinion into, but this is one of them. I haven't raced since I was a kid, i have never raced big boats, I have never raced in the waters in which this tragedy occured, so any opinion I would offer on how I would have done it differently, better, or more successfully is just tapdancing on the graves of those lost.

My thoughts go out to those lost and those who carry on .


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Sure..... As I said my "opinion" and it differs from yours... I think I have made my point "sarcastically" not "hysterically". The only ones getting hysterical are the ones who have resorted to four letter....... well.......
> 
> If 1 person had perished would the USCG have done this? Doubtful. It has apparently happened before, and they have not. It is still but ONE tragic accident in a long history of safe rounding. I just find the reaction is one of the knee jerk type and I see it as a move of public appeal, not real problem solving....


Actually I have no problem with sarcasm (as you might guess) - but you have to admit, you baited the dude...and got personal before he did (do you guys have some history in the political threads?). So don't be surprised at strong reactions or even four letter words. You just got what you were looking for. (I know, I used to play a Troll on Broadway - and AS).

Also, love your point about the hypocrisy of sailors calling out others with different approaches. It was the basis of my FC/AFOC flourishes for years. So you're right on.

However, again, in this case...you're not making sense. The USCG is _already_ a critical part of this activity. Organized races have to be coordinated with them (and permitted by them) - for very good reasons. They help ensure it's a safe event for ALL the traffic out there on the water (obviously without too much interference by insisting on rule minutiae for the actual race, leaving that up to the OA) - THEN they freely provide the back-up we've just seen when people get caught. Furthermore, caught doing something that appears might be a more widespread practice of questionable safety than just this one incident. That's actually some very reasonable "government interference".

So your cry of "Freedom" is just a bit silly...and potentially hypocritical if, God forbid, you ever have the need of rescue.

The CG is doing the right thing. And now it's the OA's and racing community's turn to do the right thing and work to make the race safer.

It really doesn't need to be any more Orwellian than that.


----------



## BigDawgz (Jul 7, 2006)

I'll never forget this story, and will use the lessons taught here. 

Thank you.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

BigDawgz said:


> I'll never forget this story, and will use the lessons taught here.
> 
> Thank you.


I have to believe that this is what all the posts were aimed at. Hopefully, others have learned also.

Paul T


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> Actually I have no problem with sarcasm (as you might guess) - *but you have to admit, you baited the dude...and got personal before he did (do you guys have some history in the political threads?).* So don't be surprised at strong reactions or even four letter words. You just got what you were looking for. (I know, I used to play a Troll on Broadway - and AS).


Can you please show me where I took it to a personal level with another SN poster and directly insulted anyone here at a personal level? If I did I will be the FIRST to PUBLICLY apologize. I think I have discussed "issues" surrounding the event not attacked posters personally.

I do not participate in off topic or political forums here. I merely preemptively suggested that my "opinion" would not be shared by others, with my let the dirt fly comment, and it is not shared by all so my assumption was correct..


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I think below is when you really notched up the trolling motor.

Look, I don't care really. It's between you guys. But to accuse the dude of "getting personal" and "hiding behind four letter words" (which always seems to get the attention of the mods)...especially after your spirited hyperbole directed at him (sarcastic and smiley-laden though it might have been)...was a little over the top.

Just sayin'.



Maine Sail said:


> Oh so you want to mandate the human thought process now that you know you are not prepared to "safely" sail off shore.......
> 
> Where does the nanny madness stop? What is "safe" and prudent for YOU may not be safe and prudent for ME.... As I said setting to sea with anything less than what I carry is NOT SAFE SEAMANSHIP...  You should be deemed manifestly unsafe by USCG Capt. Cynthia Stowe.... When you're "prepared" to safely set out to sea then we'll talk... Until then PLEASE stay at the dock because you are a danger to yourself and the rescuers who will need to save you.
> 
> ...


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Maine Sail said:


> If 1 person had perished would the USCG have done this? Doubtful.


Pointless point MS - it WAS 5 deaths. I'm sure when an airliner crashes there is a bigger investigation than when an ultralight crash kills 1 person or when 5 people get murdered, the police put on more of a push than when 1 person does as well - mass deaths always cause more fuss than singles - just a fact of life.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> I think below is when you really notched up the trolling motor.
> 
> Look, I don't care really. It's between you guys. But to accuse the dude of "getting personal" and "hiding behind four letter words" (which always seems to get the attention of the mods)...especially after your spirited hyperbole directed at him (sarcastic and smiley-laden though it might have been)...was a little over the top.
> 
> Just sayin'.


If SBS or ANYONE read that as a personal level attack I whole heartily apologize.

I am sorry if it was taken that way by ANYONE and especially SBS. SBS and I have NO history that I am aware of and I have less than zero animosity towards ANYONE here on SN. Not my style.

Being offensive at a personal level was absolutely NOT my intent hence all the smiles, winkies etc., and the last line. It was meant as pure sarcasm to make a point, that's it..

Words are often misread and I apologize if mine were.

I try to make it a point to NEVER go personal. My SINCERE apologies if it appears that's what I did.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

KeelHaulin said:


> ... *If people can't be trusted to make decisions that protect the safety of vessel and crew; then they should expect to have more safety restrictions imposed.*
> 
> It's a basic requirement for all risk involved racing sports to assess their safety standards and make improvements to safety where needed. It's the reason why so few auto racers die in present day; because of the massive safety rules and requirements that are in place for those events. If sailing racers don't like or want to adopt any more safety rules; well I'm sorry but expect for the USCG to take away the ability for you to race here by not issuing new event permits. It's just that simple.


And while racing if you can gain some advantage taking some more risks you can be sure that some will be willing to risk more that others and will gain an unfair advantage because they are endangering their lives and the lives of others.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> If people can't be trusted to make decisions that protect the safety of vessel and crew; then they should expect to have more safety restrictions imposed.
> 
> It's a basic requirement for all risk involved racing sports to assess their safety standards and make improvements to safety where needed. It's the reason why so few auto racers die in present day; because of the massive safety rules and requirements that are in place for those events. If sailing racers don't like or want to adopt any more safety rules; well I'm sorry but expect for the USCG to take away the ability for you to race here by not issuing new event permits. It's just that simple.


OOO..this is scary. I think Maine has pointed out the flaws in the first paragraph's thinking and I had to quit liking his posts as I don't want to seem like a stalker.

With the second paragraph, you suggest or imply that auto racing sports are safer due to Government intervention to make the sport safer. Without it, the sport would be even more dangerous. This can't be further from the truth. One of the most talked about tragedies in NASCAR was the death of Dale Earnhardt. One of the biggest changes to the sport's safety was NASCAR requiring drivers to wear the "Hans Device". A piece of safety equipment that, very likely, would have saved DE's life.

No Government was involved in this decision. The (us?) normal folks figured it out all on their own without some bureaucrat telling 'em what to do.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite quotes attributed to Ben Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

PCP said:


> And while racing if you can gain some advantage taking some more risks you can be sure that some will be willing to risk more that others and will gain an unfair advantage because they are endangering their lives and the lives of others.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


That is probably why "icberg" waypoints are used in the Southern Ocean. Seems like a fairly simple way to reduce the "risk" factor.

Paul T


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

GMFL said:


> OOO..this is scary. I think Maine has pointed out the flaws in the first paragraph's thinking and I had to quit liking his posts as I don't want to seem like a stalker.
> 
> With the second paragraph, you suggest or imply that auto racing sports are safer due to Government intervention to make the sport safer. Without it, the sport would be even more dangerous. This can't be further from the truth. One of the most talked about tragedies in NASCAR was the death of Dale Earnhardt. One of the biggest changes to the sport's safety was NASCAR requiring drivers to wear the "Hans Device". A piece of safety equipment that, very likely, would have saved DE's life.
> 
> ...


Dude, lower case "g". Capitalizing government makes you look like an extremist who worries about the New World Order and Black Helicopters.

I think there is some serious gun-jumping going on here. No government has imposed new regulations on racing in the wake of this tragedy, so to discuss this as a fait accompli is a little hysterical.

NOWHERE in the second paragraph of the post quoted is government mentioned- all of the additional rules and regulations in aut racing are the direct result of self-regulation, and nowhere in that paragraph si anything else even suggested.

in fact I think the last time government was involved in auto racing was in 1957 when a number of European countries banned racing in the wake of the 1955 Le Mans bloodbath.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> If SBS or ANYONE read that as a personal level attack I whole heartily apologize.
> 
> I am sorry if it was taken that way by ANYONE and especially SBS. SBS and I have NO history that I am aware of and I have less than zero animosity towards ANYONE here on SN. Not my style.
> 
> ...


Maine,

In my opinion you don't owe anyone an apology for anything. You used a lot of smilies and said more tha once "tongue in cheek", not much more that you could have done. All of this probably won't change anyone's mind mind about anything but the exchange of ideas is interesting, to me anyway. Big Dawgz said: "I'll never forget this story, and will use the lessons taught here." Hopefully, others may have learned something also.

Paul T


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

bljones said:


> Dude, lower case "g". Capitalizing government makes you look like an extremist who worries about the New World Order and Black Helicopters.
> 
> I think there is some serious gun-jumping going on here. No government has imposed new regulations on racing in the wake of this tragedy, so to discuss this as a fait accompli is a little hysterical.
> 
> NOWHERE in the second paragraph of the post quoted is government mentioned- all of the additional rules and regulations in aut racing are the direct result of self-regulation, and nowhere in that paragraph si anything else even suggested.


Bro, sorry for the capital G, hope the rest of my spelling and the punctuations were adequate for you. For someone to suggest that another is looking for black helicopters due to a capital G is more than a little silly and even more "hysterical". Let's grow up a bit in our arguments, shall we?

Gun jumping? The USCG has stopped all racing in the oceans outside of SF. How long, exactly, is that suspension? Weeks? Who, exactly, has jumped the gun here? Imagine if they did that for every time a pileup on a freeway happens.

Sorry, I didn't realize that the USCG is no longer part of the Government (I think I hear a helicopter) which the poster clearly refers to in the last sentence of that paragraph. He clearly states that he thinks sailors will be regulated further by them in the future. I realize he didn't specifically state that auto racing was currently regulated by anyone but, he IMPLIES that current safety requirements for auto racers are the result of bureaucratic intervention.

No need to attack when you realize your arguments are weak. Just rethink the argument and revise it. I can think of several ways to support both you and KeelHauling's side. You should be able to come up with one on your own though, without my help.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Okay, the tardfest has begun. I'm out, before this thread gets any more sidetracked by stupidity.

But before I go, GMFL, if you think you were attacked, "bro," you really need to HTFU. Show me the piece of legislation banning racing permanently and I'll buy your silly inaccurate overreaction. You said something stupid and got called on it, and your response is more stupidity. Seeya.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

bljones said:


> *Okay, the tardfest has begun.* I'm out, before this thread gets any more sidetracked by stupidity.
> 
> But before I go, GMFL, if you think you were attacked, "bro," you really need to HTFU. Show me the piece of legislation banning racing permanently and I'll buy your silly inaccurate overreaction. You said something stupid and got called on it, and your response is more stupidity. Seeya.


I find the word you used to describe what is going on in this thread as utterly offensive. Some of us might have people we know who are challenged. I find it rude, inconsiderate and completely offensive to use words like that on a SAILING forum... Sorry but that is just how I feel..

Can we please discuss these maters without derogatory and offensive words or terms...? That word is as offensive to me, and I am sure many, as racial slurs...

Please we have forums like SA for that type of stuff........


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

bljones said:


> Okay, the tardfest has begun. I'm out, before this thread gets any more sidetracked by stupidity.
> 
> But before I go, GMFL, if you think you were attacked, "bro," you really need to HTFU. Show me the piece of legislation banning racing permanently and I'll buy your silly inaccurate overreaction. You said something stupid and got called on it, and your response is more stupidity. Seeya.


AWWW, taking your ball and going home? Who needs to HTFU?

BTW, my "bro" comment was in response to your "Dude", guess you didn't quite get that. You follow that up with "tardfest", call me "stupid" and ended with "seeya". You then want me to show a piece of legislation that I never suggested existed. I guess I should have read a few more of your posts to realize the level of maturity I was dealing with.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Nobody wants to see government intervention but if people keep taking stupid chances and getting people killed due to their bad judgement then that is what we will get. 

In Canada we now have mandatory operator licenses for boats due solely to the actions of brain donors with jet skis and ski boats who let little kids run them alone and smash into things. The usual government response was forthcoming - license EVERYBODY and charge a fee.

Anybody want more of the same? Keep supporting the "freedom" to turn 38 footers into surfboards with resulting deaths.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> I find the word you used to describe what is going on in this thread as utterly offensive. Some of us might have people we know who are challenged. I find it rude, inconsiderate and completely offensive to use words like that on a SAILING forum... Sorry but that is just how I feel..
> 
> Can we please discuss these maters without derogatory and offensive words or terms...? That word is as offensive to me, and I am sure many, as racial slurs...
> 
> Please we have forums like SA for that type of stuff........


You want to regulate language, but not regulate sailing? 

I apologize if you found that word offensive. Certainly not my intention. It also wasn't my intention to sidetrack this thread, which is why I have bowed out after commenting on the stupidity of a post here, stupidity which continues to persist.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Originally Posted by bljones
> Okay, the tardfest has begun. I'm out, before this thread gets any more sidetracked by stupidity.
> 
> But before I go, GMFL, if you think you were attacked, "bro," you really need to HTFU. Show me the piece of legislation banning racing permanently and I'll buy your silly inaccurate overreaction. You said something stupid and got called on it, and your response is more stupidity. Seeya.





> Urban dictionary: 1. tardfest A combination of the words "retard" and "festival".





> I find the word you used to describe what is going on in this thread as utterly offensive. Some of us might have people we know who are challenged. I find it rude, inconsiderate and completely offensive to use words like that on a SAILING forum... Sorry but that is just how I feel. Mainesail .


I am in full agreement with Maine. Absolutely utterly offensive. If the moderators allow offensive remarks such as this and personal attacks by this poster and the other smug megaposter and dont reign this stuff in, I will soon be joing the ranks of our former collegue Saildog and turn away from postimg on this forum. I am a big supporter of Sailnet in our area, but these mindless internet denizens who take great sport in making fun of others who post are getting old.

Its funny the moderators never post like this an are encouraging as well as respectfull of others comments, even when they disagree. It is not just what you say in life...its how you say it. 
Respect is becomming a thing of the past in Sailnet forums. Just saying

Dave


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

bljones said:


> You want to regulate language, but not regulate sailing?
> 
> I apologize if you found that word offensive. Certainly not my intention. It also wasn't my intention to sidetrack this thread, which is why I have bowed out after commenting on the stupidity of a post here, stupidity which continues to persist.


This kind of chest slapping is usual when talk to turns to politics. GM's comments aren't any more stupid than yours or mine are bl.

The USCG is involved because the USCG is involved. That's yacht racing fellas. As I said above, I think the government-intrusion hyperbole just doesn't fit this issue for that very reason.

Why don't you guys talk like sailors for a while (instead of politically charged drama nerds) and figure out what should be done within yacht racing to improve safety - while still allowing the competitive edginess that keeps it fun? That might be helpful.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> I am in full agreement with Maine. Absolutely utterly offensive. If the moderators allow offensive remarks such as this and personal attacks by this poster and the other smug megaposter and dont reign this stuff in, I will soon be joing the ranks of our former collegue Saildog and turn away from postimg on this forum. I am a big supporter of Sailnet in our area, but these mindless internet denizens who take great sport in making fun of others who post are getting old.
> 
> Its funny the moderators never post like this an are encouraging as well as respectfull of others comments, even when they disagree. *It is not just what you say in life...its how you say it. *
> Respect is becomming a thing of the past in Sailnet forums. Just saying
> ...


Actually chef, it's both. And remember, respect goes both ways (that was my earlier point to Maine). I've called BL out several times for posts that I felt went over the line (see his tag under his username). That's what a community does - works it out amongst themselves out in the open instead of relying on back-room politics or, worse, some governing/moderating hand to do the dirty work, right? So where are my "personal attacks" again? I'd appreciate a link.

BTW - do you want me to come up with a nickname for you? Are you being respectful even when you disagree? Or are you taking some shots here?

Signed,

The Other Smug Megaposter and Part-Time Mindless Internet Denizen

+++++++++++++

Now, what do you think should be done regarding safety in yacht racing?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

More sad news: *3 Dead 1 Missing in CA Yacht Race
*

What I said about this topic earlier in this thread was sincere in the context of temporary bans.....



Maine Sail said:


> So we need to suspend ocean racing out of only San Fran? *If ocean racing deserves a ban out of San Fran why not the rest of the US?* Oh yeah, I guess it is only dangerous out of San Fran and the ocean elsewhere is much more accommodating of ocean racers and not wanting to swallow them up. Completely and utterly ridiculous, reprehensible and a gross display of public media PANDERING. My point here is that I find it entirely condescending and a full media pander to ban ocean racing out of San Fran & San Fran only.


So if it was good enough for San Fran racers why not the rest of the nation?

I'm sorry but this is a big part of why I found that move by the USCG so offensive. Either ban it all temporarily or none at all. The ocean is the ocean......



smackdaddy said:


> The CG is doing the right thing.


For those in the "ban camp", did they do the right thing?

My deepest heartfelt condolences to the families of those lost in the recent tragedy.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I will respond in another forum as I stand by my remarks about honoring the fallen from this tragedy.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> More sad news: *3 Dead 1 Missing in CA Yacht Race
> *
> 
> What I said about this topic earlier in this thread was sincere in the context of temporary bans.....
> ...


On your question about why not the rest of the nation...if you're going by the story you linked above to make the comparison...that was apparently a collision at sea. The reason for this SF suspension is that the deaths seem to be a combination of the course parameters and, judging by the talk I've seen over at SA, a wider mentality among the actual racing community who were pushing it closer and closer. There was a recipe for more problems in this area unless the OA took some measures.

The fact that the USCG is NOT enacting a nation-wide suspension on racing, despite your example, actually undermines your point about government wanting to clasp its evil fist around all our freedoms. (If they do so based on your example, I'll eat my rhode.)

As I said, the suspension in SF makes sense.


----------



## snider (Jun 26, 2006)

I think it would be prudent to place a temporary ban on races around the Farallones until measures were put into place to insure boats rounding are a safe distance from the shoal. After all it was the close proximity to the island that lead to the accident. There's no way the yacht would have wound up on the rocky beach had it been required to round half a mile to windward.

The anti government rhetoric here is preventing a reasonable discussion about what measures could be taken to prevent this type of accident in the future. I haven't been here in a few years and its sad to see such right wing nut politics contaminating what's suppose to be a sailing forum.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

snider said:


> The anti government rhetoric here is preventing a reasonable discussion about what measures could be taken to prevent this type of accident in the future. I haven't been here in a few years and its sad to see such right wing nut politics contaminating what's suppose to be a sailing forum.


+1. What's funny is that we had almost 100 posts with a good discussion before things started going politically pear-shaped with the fighting.

When Keelhaulin and I can have a civil conversation and agree with one another - you know ANYTHING is possible!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> +1. What's funny is that we had almost 100 posts with a good discussion before things started going politically pear-shaped with the fighting.
> 
> When Keelhaulin and I can have a civil conversation and agree with one another - you know ANYTHING is possible!


So now anyone who disagrees with the ban on any racing outside the GG bridge is a "right wing nut"?

With all due respect NONE of my posting on this have ANYTHING to do with my politics. PERIOD... My posts are about SAILING and that is IT. I just happen to disagree with the ban, and the WAY it was implemented, and now we've denigrated into four letter words, disgracing the mentally challenged and calling people right wing nuts.. Wow.....

I can tell you that is the first time I have been "associated" with "right wing nuts".... But hey feel free to call anyone with a differing opinion on a SAILING MATTER a "right wing nut" if it makes YOU GUYS feel better....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> ...Signed,
> 
> The Other Smug Megaposter and Part-Time Mindless Internet Denizen
> 
> ....


 We are here to share and have fun and that is not possible without a cordial ambiance...and thanks for the humor smack

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Maine Sail said:


> More sad news: *3 Dead 1 Missing in CA Yacht Race
> *
> 
> What I said about this topic earlier in this thread was sincere in the context of temporary bans.....
> ...


Not all offshore races have the same safety requirements. I guess the ban has to do with time to re-think about what should the minimum requirements (they exist already) and time to implement them as mandatory measures. I guess that not being a global USA ban as to do with the federal nature of the nation, with many states with different laws.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> This kind of chest slapping is usual when talk to turns to politics. GM's comments aren't any more stupid than yours or mine are bl.
> 
> The USCG is involved because the USCG is involved. That's yacht racing fellas. As I said above, I think the government-intrusion hyperbole just doesn't fit this issue for that very reason.
> 
> Why don't you guys talk like sailors for a while (instead of politically charged drama nerds) and figure out what should be done within yacht racing to improve safety - while still allowing the competitive edginess that keeps it fun? That might be helpful.


Well, OK, back to business. I have been thinking about what to do to make the Farallone race, or other races, safer. Some thoughts:

1. Limit the weather and sea conditions the race can be run in

2. Require more elaborate equipment on board, radar, AIS, GPS, the list could go on & on

3. Establish waypoints around lee shores, reefs, and other hazards.

Items 1&2 would no doubt be met with much resistance. Item 3 seems easy to do and not inhibet the "racing" aspect. Am I missing anything else?

Paul T


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

dabnis said:


> Well, OK, back to business. I have been thinking about what to do to make the Farallone race, or other races, safer. Some thoughts:
> 
> 1. Limit the weather and sea conditions the race can be run in
> 
> ...


In what regards point two there are much more simple things to be demanded like the permanent use of auto inflated life-jackets.

In what regards point 1 have a look here:






We can say that boat should never bee kept sailing on that direction an on that place for such a long time. They had plenty warning. That led us to other point that is related with sea conditions and has to to with the sailing experience of the skipper and the crew. On many races skippers are only accepted if they had done previously some other easier qualifying races. Not all the races are the same and have the same difficulty grade.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

MS,

You keep insisting that the CG _banned_ ocean racing near SF Bay. They _suspended_ such races. This is a _*temporary*_ situation while this investigation and the general safety of ocean racing in the area are investigated, your hyperbolic language notwithstanding. Please let the safety professionals and local racing organizers do what needs to be done before you play armchair quarter-back. In a few weeks, maybe less, the CG, ORA, and various other organizations will have come to some sort of understanding, and new rules/regulations for such events will have been released. Then you can have all the apoplectic fits you want. Until then, as I said earlier, no one has suspended, banned, or otherwise prohibited you from individually sailing around the Farallones. So far as I know, you have never done such a trip. Maybe you should before you offer any more criticism of the CG. If you really want a close look at the islands, contact Ronnie Simpson and see if he'll take you out there. He seems to take no small amount of pride in how close he has rounded SE Farallon, and how may boats sailed the turn outside of his track.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> MS,
> 
> You keep insisting that the CG _banned_ ocean racing near SF Bay. They _suspended_ such races. This is a _*temporary*_ situation while this investigation and the general safety of ocean racing in the area are investigated, your hyperbolic language notwithstanding. Please let the safety professionals and local racing organizers do what needs to be done before you play armchair quarter-back. In a few weeks, maybe less, the CG, ORA, and various other organizations will have come to some sort of understanding, and new rules/regulations for such events will have been released. Then you can have all the apoplectic fits you want. Until then, as I said earlier, no one has suspended, banned, or otherwise prohibited you from individually sailing around the Farallones. So far as I know, you have never done such a trip. Maybe you should before you offer any more criticism of the CG. If you really want a close look at the islands, contact Ronnie Simpson and see if he'll take you out there. He seems to take no small amount of pride in how close he has rounded SE Farallon, and how may boats sailed the turn outside of his track.


Slow,

Conceptually, I am kind of with Mainsail on this one. Yes, I know, 5 lives are a lot to lose all at once. Having fished commercially in that area I can remember that it can, indeed, be a really nasty place. However, holding long, detailed hearings or investigations probably won't turn up more than "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time". The only difference in this incident and others out the gate is that more people died. Seems that the CG could mandate waypoints be established for a safer rounding of the north side of the island, simple, quick, and easy to do. The other alternative is for the CG to say "you can't race there anymore".

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Slow,
> 
> Conceptually, I am kind of with Mainsail on this one. Yes, I know, 5 lives are a lot to lose all at once. Having fished commercially in that area I can remember that it can, indeed, be a really nasty place. However, holding long, detailed hearings or investigations probably won't turn up more than "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time". The only difference in this incident and others out the gate is that more people died. Seems that the CG could mandate waypoints be established for a safer rounding of the north side of the island, simple, quick, and easy to do. The other alternative is for the CG to say "you can't race there anymore".
> 
> Paul T


As I've said before, that may well be the answer. But, how about giving folks a little time to look everything over and discuss this in detail _before_ implementing a "solution" that might make things worse? It's only been a couple of weeks. And not running a few races isn't going to really mean _anything_. If you, or anyone else, wants to go sailing please do so. No one is stopping you. All the CG has done is to temporarily suspend ocean racing in the area.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> As I've said before, that may well be the answer. But, how about giving folks a little time to look everything over and discuss this in detail _before_ implementing a "solution" that might make things worse? It's only been a couple of weeks. And not running a few races isn't going to really mean _anything_. If you, or anyone else, wants to go sailing please do so. No one is stopping you. All the CG has done is to temporarily suspend ocean racing in the area.


Slow,

Point taken. Curious to know what your thoughts are related to what might be found in a formal, lenghty investigation that isn't already known? Perhaps I am over simplifying the whole thing?

Paul T


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

dabnis said:


> Slow,
> 
> Point taken. Curious to know what your thoughts are related to what might be found in a formal, lenghty investigation that isn't already known? Perhaps I am over simplifying the whole thing?
> 
> Paul T


If I might interject here, the inquiry might well determine if this was merely a freak accident that nothing could have prevented or if it was simply poor judgement in the heat of competition that could be prevented in future by rule changes such as waypoint courses.

Auto racing used to be insanely dangerous - roll bars lower than the drivers head, drivers thinking it was better to be thrown clear than to wear belts, thoughts of safety being "unmanly", drivers sitting in the middle of 40 gallon gas tanks and so forth. Multiple drivers and spectators were killed ever year - it was simply "part of racing".

Jackie Stewart got that mindset changed and now deaths are rare even though speeds are generally far higher. Don Garlits famously said "I've been upside down, backwards and on fire, faster than most people have ever driven" (300MPH) He also walked away from it.

From some of the comments on this thread, it sounds like sail racing needs a Jackie Stewart or the government will take over. It simply CAN'T be left to the individual skippers because someone will ALWAYS take that extra risk to gain an edge. It has to be designed into the racing procedures, courses run etc. The "Iceberg" waypoints in the Southern Ocean are a good example of how it needs to be done IMHO.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SloopJonB said:


> If I might interject here, the inquiry might well determine if this was merely a freak accident that nothing could have prevented or if it was simply poor judgement in the heat of competition that could be prevented in future by rule changes such as waypoint courses.
> 
> Auto racing used to be insanely dangerous - roll bars lower than the drivers head, drivers thinking it was better to be thrown clear than to wear belts, thoughts of safety being "unmanly", drivers sitting in the middle of 40 gallon gas tanks and so forth. Multiple drivers and spectators were killed ever year - it was simply "part of racing".
> 
> ...


Sloop,

If they were in 80 feet or more of water it would likely have been a "freak accident", but they were likely in about 30 or less, a judgement call. Yes, way points could be easily established immediately, and at virtually little cost. If they proved to be too limiting or have other negative effects they could be easily removed. Seems so simple, probably could be implemented by "Capt Cindy", all by herself, in a heartbeat.

Paul T


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

dabnis said:


> Sloop,
> 
> If they were in 80 feet or more of water it would *likely have been a "freak accident"*, but *they were likely in about 30 or less, a judgement call. *Yes, way points could be easily established immediately, and at virtually little cost. If they proved to be too limiting or have other negative effects they could be easily removed. Seems so simple, probably could be implemented by "Capt Cindy", all by herself, in a heartbeat.Paul T


Agreed, but the highlights indicate the reason for an inquiry.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Maine-
"I found that move by the USCG so offensive."
You must understand, the USCG enacted no ban. Apparently one rogue? misguided? Port Captain did this on her own. And she didn't ban racing, no one banned racing, what she did was to revoke/suspend marine event _permits._ I'd be surprised if the folks affected by this haven't found a way to reorganize their events such that no permitting applies. i.e. , If I want to conduct a parade in NY Harbor I may need a permit. If I want to have the same parade offshore in open waters, tfb, I don't need any permits.

But now the Commandant is in the embarassing position of either backing up his team, or taking out the trash. Or possibly giving her a pup tent and promoting her to "Port Commander, Farallon Island".
That would work for me. Work for you?

I suppose she's something like Patton, never quite learned that one never, ever, puts one's CO in an embarassing position.

Paul-
"1. Limit the weather and sea conditions the race can be run in"
Traditionally, no, no race committee makes that decision because then they could be liable for the consequences--as the USCG could be now. An RC may, rarely, postpone or cancel a race completely due to manifestly unsafe conditions, but in anything short of that it is usually posted very clearly that it is the skipper's sole decision and responsibility to start or not. And I'd argue that's the way it should be, because no one knows your boat and crew and limits as well as you do.
What is the phrase? A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for.

And there ARE "objective" safety criteria. Among others, the ORC regulations exist, and are regularly revised, to provide standards for safer racing, very much akin to NASCAR and auto racing organizations limiting horsepower and requiring roll cages.

A race captain messed up. Their naviguesser probably messed up as well. Then a Port Captain messed up. Now, the USCG needs to find a way to extricate themselves from this mess on a way that saves face all around.

I think anyone who has raced, has raced past a rock or other known obstruction. Has had to dodge barges or other traffics. Has had to decide if the wx or other factors were an issue. There's nothing new here, someone made a mistake. Not to be cruel but "**** happens" or "there but for the grace of god go I".

And then someone else just HAD to go and compound it.

Maybe they could send her over as an exchange liaison with the Red Chinese for the rest of her enlistment? To study "repression of the people" ?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis,

I seriously doubt that you, or anyone else here, would refer to Captain Stowe with a diminutive nick-name if she were male. Such behavior may be _de rigueur_ in the Politics/Religion/Cesspool section (as my own posts will attest), but for the rest of the forums why don't you behave a bit more appropriately?

Rising to the rank of Captain in the Coast Guard or Navy is no mean feat. How about giving her her due and referring to Captain Stowe as such?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> Maine-
> "I found that move by the USCG so offensive."
> You must understand, the USCG enacted no ban. Apparently one rogue? misguided? Port Captain did this on her own. ...


Like it or not, Captain Stowe's decisions ARE the CG's decisions in the San Francisco sector.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Captain Stowe's decisions ARE the CG's decisions in the San Francisco sector. "
That's neither permanent nor final, there's a chain of command and the USCG's formal "decision" comes from above her. If a beat cop busts your taillight so he can write a ticket, that doesn't make his _department _crooked--just him.
If she overstepped her authority, that's not at all the same as a formal USCG sanction coming from the top. Does she represent the USCG? Sure. But she's _not _the final word.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Maine-
> "I found that move by the USCG so offensive."
> You must understand, the USCG enacted no ban. Apparently one rogue? misguided? Port Captain did this on her own. And she didn't ban racing, no one banned racing, what she did was to revoke/suspend marine event _permits._ I'd be surprised if the folks affected by this haven't found a way to reorganize their events such that no permitting applies. i.e. , If I want to conduct a parade in NY Harbor I may need a permit. If I want to have the same parade offshore in open waters, tfb, I don't need any permits.
> 
> ...


Hello,

Totally agree, the only thing I would recommend is the waypoints. Although I never raced I have to believe the vast majority of race organizers know what they are doing.

Paul T


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> dabnis,
> 
> I seriously doubt that you, or anyone else here, would refer to Captain Stowe with a diminutive nick-name if she were male. Such behavior may be _de rigueur_ in the Politics/Religion/Cesspool section (as my own posts will attest), but for the rest of the forums why don't you behave a bit more appropriately?
> 
> Rising to the rank of Captain in the Coast Guard or Navy is no mean feat. How about giving her her due and referring to Captain Stowe as such?


Slow,

Having served 8 years in the Navy Reserve as an enlisted man, I know there is no question that getting to be a Captain is an accomplishment. However, as Hellosailor mentioned, I wonder how much the political and job advancement concepts effected her decision. Very likely if this happened during the single handed race it would have probably been considered an "unfortunate accident", case closed.

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Slow,
> 
> Having served 8 years in the Navy Reserve as an enlisted man, I know there is no question that getting to be a Captain is an accomplishment. However, as Hellosailor mentioned, I wonder how much the political and job advancement concepts effected her decision. Very likely if this happened during the single handed race it would have probably been considered an "unfortunate accident", case closed.
> 
> Paul T


Please re-read my post and your reply. Now, please tell me how you addressed my request.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> Please re-read my post and your reply. Now, please tell me how you addressed my request.


Slow,

How about this:

"Having served 8 years in the Navy Reserve as an enlisted man, I know there is no question that getting to be a Captain is an accomplishment. However, as Hellosailor mentioned, I wonder how much the political and job advancement concepts effect "Captain Stowe's" decision. Very likely if this happened during the single handed race it would have probably been considered an "unfortunate accident", case closed."

FWIW, I didn't invent the "Captain Cindy" title, just repeated it. Maybe that just makes me 50% dis-respectfull? 

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> ...
> FWIW, I didn't invent the "Captain Cindy" title, just repeated it. Maybe that just makes me 50% dis-respectfull?
> 
> Paul T


There are lots of things adults know not to repeat.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"There are lots of things adults know not to repeat. "
And adults make their own decisions about standing into danger.

If she doesn't treat other adults as adults--she's going to _earn _their disrespect.

But having worked her way up to Port Captain, she should certainly know how to take a little heat and name calling. Not to worry, her next assignment will be to a far quieter place, I'm sure.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> Offshore racers go through more safety training than that of recreational cruisers, it is REQUIRED. It is a US Sailing requirement. Ever try to enter a Bermuda race or other off shore race? Been through the process of getting all your crew properly trained and certified? Making sure the boat is properly prepared and meets all safety requirements?
> 
> What do cruisers do? Read a few books, poke in on SN, CF, CA and head off....... How many NON RACERS have attended a US Sailing Safety At Sea seminar... Now be honest......


If I want to enter any of the OYRA sanctioned races here all I have to do is get a PHRF rating, join YRA, do a systems check for required gear, pay my entry, and show up at the starting line. It's a cultural problem here that no offshore experience or training is required to enter events that go out into one of the gnarliest near shore areas in the world; during a time of year when it is usually fairly extreme. This is why I'm saying that there needs to be some minimal regulation to ensure that inexperienced sailors don't make mistakes at places like the Bar or at SE Farallone. As I said before; it seems to me that the decisions of inexperienced or irrational people has eroded the safety zone around the reef at SE Farallone. Older racing sailors gave it a much wider berth; and the race was no less challenging. Beating 26 mi out to sea in steep swell is plenty challenging and people ought to ensure that they can enjoy the kite ride back instead of worry about how tight they can hug the rockpile.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

dabnis said:


> FWIW, I didn't invent the "Captain Cindy" title, just repeated it. Maybe that just makes me 50% dis-respectfull?
> 
> Paul T


I said that and I am sorry if it offended or was taken out of context as other than it was intended.

It was NOT meant in ANY WAY to be derogatory to Captain Cynthia Stowe, whom I referred to numerous times as such, but as a flow to the end of a tongue in cheek filled post about the captains RESPONSE to media driven hysteria..

My dad was a Captain in the US Army, I have the utmost respect for our armed forces and that is why I referred to Captian Cynthia Stowe as such NUMEROUS times. Of course that one sarcastic time it gets taken out of context as potentially sexist? Captain Stowe's sex has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. A Captain in our military is a CAPTAIN, PERIOD. Please do not try to read sexism into my posts, there is NONE. If it was Captain Robert I would have used Captain Bobby but NOT in disrespect of the achievemts just tongue in cheek. Won't do that gain, POINT TAKEN...

My point is less about the "ban" or "suspension" and mostly about the knee jerk way I feel it was executed. I would not want a Judge, the Navy, Marines, Army or the USCG to run their courts or divisions driven by responses to media driven hysteria. I would have felt this way about any branch of our armed forces executing in this manner. I expect seasoned veterans of our armed forces to execute their jobs, especially at the level of Captain, based on more than a what I feel is a knee jerk response to media and non-sailor hysteria.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> I said that and I am sorry if it offended or was taken out of context as other than it was intended.
> 
> It was NOT meant in ANY WAY to be derogatory to Captain Cynthia Stowe, whom I referred to numerous times as such, but as a flow to the end of a tongue in cheek filled post about the captains RESPONSE to media driven hysteria..
> 
> ...


Maine and all,

Couldn't have said it any better. When i was in the Navy Reserve from 1953 to 1961 IIRC, the only women that were in the Navy held clerical or similar positions, so today's situation just kind of sticks in my mind. I am sure Captain Stowe has paid her dues in many ways. It is my opinion however, that she over reacted to a "politically correct" charged situation. Whether or not her actions were based on personal achievement motives we will never know. As I said, If this happened in the single hand race it would probably just be noted as another "unfortunate accident", end of story.

Paul T


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

Just as a thought exercise, might San Francisco's racing community have felt a little less unfairly picked upon, or victims of a kneejerk reaction, if the US Coast Guard had suspended all commercial ship traffic in San Francisco Bay in the wake of 2007's Cosco Busan running into the Bay bridge and spilling fuel?


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

SlowButSteady said:


> dabnis,
> 
> I seriously doubt that you, or anyone else here, would refer to Captain Stowe with a diminutive nick-name if she were male. ...


Well, people have made lots of fun of Captain _Reid_ Stowe, who is male.

But, before people tell me to stowe it, yes, that's a different person and a rather different thread. And, yes, I'd feel much safer with the Coast Guard captain than the 1152-day captain.


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

Condolences to the friends and families of those lost in both the Farrallons and Newport to Ensenada races.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

rgscpat said:


> Just as a thought exercise, might San Francisco's racing community have felt a little less unfairly picked upon, or victims of a kneejerk reaction, if the US Coast Guard had suspended all commercial ship traffic in San Francisco Bay in the wake of 2007's Cosco Busan running into the Bay bridge and spilling fuel?


Did *5 people die* in that incident?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

rgscpat said:


> Just as a thought exercise, might San Francisco's racing community have felt a little less unfairly picked upon, or victims of a kneejerk reaction, if the US Coast Guard had suspended all commercial ship traffic in San Francisco Bay in the wake of 2007's Cosco Busan running into the Bay bridge and spilling fuel?


I believe the CG did implement some new rules/regs concerning the operation of large commercial craft in dense fog in the aftermath of that incident.


----------



## aaronwindward (Aug 8, 2010)

I share the opinion of some that the USCG's action was a little heavy-handed. This doesn't seem to be the sort of situation that warrants emergency measures, and even though there's evidence that the level of risk is higher than previously perceived, it's still not really that high.

However, I think it's appropriate to consider the political angle here. California has a strongly prevailing "protective" culture. As a SF Bay local, the public bike path I take to work has a speed limit, specified down to tenths of mph in some parts. My general perception is that most locals like to regulate other people, and even more mysteriously, like to regulate themselves. It's just sort of something you have to accept in this region, and I think the USCG's decision here is completely in-line with how other government agencies here behave.

Another observation I have is that the USCG has much more latitude than any other military or law enforcement agency. It would be shocking if the police stopped a motor vehicle for a suspicionless search of its interior compartments, or the military entered a person's home without their consent. But the USCG does this routinely, every day, on the water, and not only is this practice constitutional, but it's one that most people seem to approve of.

But I think all of this is unfortunate, because I suspect that the sailors who met their end knew exactly what the risks were--or if they didn't, they should have. I'm not an experienced sailor, but every time I hear about "freak" rogue waves causing accidents, I groan internally. Waves that are randomly much larger than other waves are a statistical probability, and quite frankly, a common occurrance. Getting swept off the deck by a knockdown or boarding sea isn't "freak" at all; it happens all the time, and it's a leading cause of sailing fatalities near the Golden Gate. I can't imagine that anyone, sailor or not (given the news coverage every time this happens) could be unaware of this. And anyone who's ever sailed in the Bay in the summer knows what a temper it can have (although it seems especially angry at anyone who sails with less than 35' LOA).

I'd like to advance the theory that it's acceptable to take this level of risk, in the same way that it's acceptable to engage in even more risky sports (bicycling, for instance). Similarly, if crew as a group choose not to engage their tethers or wear wimpy PFDs, I still don't see the problem. (Surely lack of effective tethers was as significant a contributor to this disaster as being in shallow water.) I think it's OK to say it's their choice.

A lot of people will point out that excessive risk-taking might put USCG personnel at risk. However, I don't think it should. The USCG is extremely professional, and my perception is that rescues like this don't significantly endanger them. However, if in some instance involving excessive risk-taking this is not the case, then I think it is proper for them to decline to perform a rescue until the conditions are safe; and I don't see how anyone could possibly complain about this eventuality.

I whole-heartedly support the movement to have waypoints around dangerous obstacles like this. Without them, the race committee is pretty much telling racers in tightly competitive races that they need to engage in risky practices to win, and I don't think that's an acceptible situation.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

aaronwindward said:


> I share the opinion of some that the USCG's action was a little heavy-handed. This doesn't seem to be the sort of situation that warrants emergency measures, and even though there's evidence that the level of risk is higher than previously perceived, it's still not really that high.
> 
> However, I think it's appropriate to consider the political angle here. California has a strongly prevailing "protective" culture. As a SF Bay local, the public bike path I take to work has a speed limit, specified down to tenths of mph in some parts. My general perception is that most locals like to regulate other people, and even more mysteriously, like to regulate themselves. It's just sort of something you have to accept in this region, and I think the USCG's decision here is completely in-line with how other government agencies here behave.
> 
> ...


Having lived and worked in San Francisco for many years, I concur, well said.

Paul T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> My point is less about the "ban" or "suspension" and mostly about the knee jerk way I feel it was executed. I would not want a Judge, the Navy, Marines, Army or the USCG to run their courts or divisions driven by responses to media driven hysteria. I would have felt this way about any branch of our armed forces executing in this manner. I expect seasoned veterans of our armed forces to execute their jobs, especially at the level of Captain, based on more than a what I feel is a knee jerk response to media and non-sailor hysteria.


I think you (and others) are making a lot of assumptions here Maine. Public attention is always the catalyst to change. I say just let it play out before accusing people, who have far more information on the matter than you, of being knee jerk reactionaries.

I trust the USCG to do what's right.


----------



## dmcMaine (Sep 1, 2010)

I can't speak for the USCG, but in my time in the Navy (P-3 patrol planes that is) I experienced any number of what were termed 'safety standowns' in the wake of mishaps. On numerous occasions, we would have our planes grounded to attend safety training on a specific recent mishap, or have a general cooling off period after a major event to reasses how we were doing business, and to refocus on maintaining proper safety.

I don't know if the USCG operates in a similar manner, but if they do it probably seemed more akin to SOP than a knee-jerk reaction to the media for the Captain in command there.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

aaron-
"and not only is this practice constitutional,"
Well please, let's be onjective about that. The practice has been upheld by the courts, but that does not make is "constitutional". The courts have allowed and then banned (or vice versa) many things over the years, as their interpretation of what is constitutional has changed back and forth.
The USCG's unique creation, neither enumerated military nor police, technically put it outside of some legislation--but that's the old letter-versus-spirit arguement, and if one were to hold that literally, tv and radio would not get the protection that print media do, since "electronics" didn't exist in 1776 either.
In point of practice the fourth amendment was written so that Colonial traitors and revolutionaries could travel the King's highways, with treasonous documents in the carriages, homes, or persons, without fear of being searched. That our courts have determined boats and carriages to somehow have different status? Doesn't make it constitutional, just makes it the flavor of the day. Or as the lawyers say "under color of law" as opposed to being legal.

Don't think "constitutional" changes? Woman, Indians, non-property-owing white males, all couldn't vote. _Constitutionally_. Yes, they passed amendments to change that, but these days? ROFL, Congress is scared *less of the very prospect of opening that can of worms, and rightfully so.

The USCG can board your "carriage" without want or warrant, because they have the force of arms and the backing of the courts. _Not _because it is constitutional.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> aaron-
> "and not only is this practice constitutional,"
> Well please, let's be onjective about that. The practice has been upheld by the courts, but that does not make is "constitutional". The courts have allowed and then banned (or vice versa) many things over the years, as their interpretation of what is constitutional has changed back and forth.
> The USCG's unique creation, neither enumerated military nor police, technically put it outside of some legislation--but that's the old letter-versus-spirit arguement, and if one were to hold that literally, tv and radio would not get the protection that print media do, since "electronics" didn't exist in 1776 either.
> ...


Jeez you guys. Take it to PRWGatory. This thread is about sailing and safety.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Good heated debate here! Bout time...

Here's BL bailing with a quickness!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Yessir, smacksir. Didn't realize you owned the thread, sir.

Now go put yourself on report for being out of uniform.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> Yessir, smacksir. Didn't realize you owned the thread, sir.
> 
> Now go put yourself on report for being out of uniform.


Heh-heh. Touche. I don't own the thread - and you guys can certainly do what you want. But the whole constitutional/governmental debate crap gets so freakin' tiring...and really takes away from the point of the discussion: how do _*we*_ make this race (and our sailing/racing in general) safer.

Debating constitutional politics on this will kill the safety side of the discussion (which applies to any and every sailor around the world - not just U.S.) quicker than anything.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)




----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Someone mentioned this is the first casualty incident in 100+ years of this race. if that's so, why would you even question the need to make it safer? One incident in 100 years is a spike, a flyer, not a call to alarm.

If you want to make racing safer, make sailing and boating safer. Follow that to the logical conclusion, and you _must _ban recreational boating. Everything else is just playing whack-a-mole.

Sure, you can mandate education and certification and qualifiwhatever until the cows come home, but there will always be someone finding a new way to create an issue.

By all means, consider the issue, examine the problem, but do it like the ORC does it. Without interfering with ongoing activities, and with due consideration.

You see this as a sailing problem. I don't see any sailing, racing, or boating problem. I see a safety problem, someone at the USCG went "FIRE! Ready, aim!". Loose cannon need to be secured.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

hellosailor said:


> Someone mentioned this is the first casualty incident in 100+ years of this race.


Apparently they were wrong.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> Someone mentioned this is the first casualty incident in 100+ years of this race. if that's so, why would you even question the need to make it safer? One incident in 100 years is a spike, a flyer, not a call to alarm.
> 
> If you want to make racing safer, make sailing and boating safer. Follow that to the logical conclusion, and you _must _ban recreational boating. Everything else is just playing whack-a-mole.
> 
> ...


When life provides an actual logical conclusion, I guess we can do away with the whack-a-mole nature of reality. In the mean time - steps have to be taken somewhere.

I was against the VOR's decision to postpone the start of L4 due to bad weather. I figured these skippers were the best on the planet and should be able to make that call themselves. And I strongly believe in the "skipper's supremacy" in ensuring safety for his boat and crew. But I've actually come to see the need for the whack-a-mole approach to balancing the competitive drive of racing skippers (who WILL push until stuff breaks) with the need to maintain the safest conditions under which they push.

It's a balance with no obvious "sequitur".


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I've actually come to see the need for the whack-a-mole approach to balancing the competitive drive of racing skippers (who WILL push until stuff breaks) with the need to maintain the safest conditions under which they push.
> 
> It's a balance with no obvious "sequitur".


As an illustration of this - the only time I know of where a driver pulled out of a Grand Prix due to manifestly unsafe conditions was Niki Lauda in Japan many years ago. The conditions were so bad (rain) that the drivers were essentially blind - I saw on-board video and they could barely see the front of their car - it should have been stopped but wasn't. All the others kept going - only Lauda had the balls to drop out and face the predictable "cowardice" implications.

Unfortunately that is all too typical of male competitiveness so it is incumbent on non-participants to make up the difference.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> When life provides an actual logical conclusion, I guess we can do away with the whack-a-mole nature of reality. In the mean time - steps have to be taken somewhere.
> 
> I was against the VOR's decision to postpone the start of L4 due to bad weather. I figured these skippers were the best on the planet and should be able to make that call themselves. And I strongly believe in the "skipper's supremacy" in ensuring safety for his boat and crew. But I've actually come to see the need for the whack-a-mole approach to balancing the competitive drive of racing skippers (who WILL push until stuff breaks) with the need to maintain the safest conditions under which they push.
> 
> It's a balance with no obvious "sequitur".


So, how about a "straw poll" , besides waypoints, as what ought to be done over and above what is being done now? I asked Slow and did not see a reply.

Paul T


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Don’t you guys go out sailing anymore?

I am reminded of two old adages’, every problem looks like a nail if the only tool you own is a hammer and on the internet, you don’t have to be accurate, or experienced in the subject to render an opinion and if you are persistent enough in misrepresenting the facts, then they take on a odd life of their own.

Once again, unlike others I’m the only one who has actually raced to the Farallones (in both sport boats and the family Catalina). Being one of the few ocean racers here, I can rely on my actual experience in ocean racing, I don’t need to try and draw analogies to surfing, watching the Mavericks contest, NASCAR racing, flying airplanes etc. I actually do ocean racing. I am concerned over the misrepresentations and falsehoods in this thread. It is getting really bad and to the point where I question the value of threads like this to teach anybody anything. LSC ended up on the Island, it didn’t start out there or inside the break line. The only eye witness account put the boat safely outside the break zone. The only people who put the boat inside the break zone in the beginning live thousands of miles from the Pacific and in places like Central Texas. The photo Smack likes to use isn’t very accurate in depicting the conditions of that day (See Deception’s Utube video if you want to see how it really was). Besides, you should be using the photo further down in the Wiki article showing the wave breaking a mile or so south of the Island. That breaker is definitely in deep water. 

Captain Stowe is the Commander of Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. Her jurisdiction runs from Humboldt Bay near Oregon down to Monterey Bay and East to Lake Tahoe. She commands four of the 80 foot cutters, buoy tender and the air assets at SFO. Her next rank will be admiral and will lead her to command one of 17 CG Districts or one of the operational heads of DHS or a joint position in the Pentagon. Calling her a “Port Captain” is a major insult – Port captains work for her and responsible for clearing vessels in and out and security of the Port they are assigned to. In order to be promotable, she needs to display decisiveness for the one major publicity flap that happened on her watch. Here is how selective enforcement works: There are between 50 and 75 suicides each year from jumpers off the GGB. Stowe maintains Station Golden Gate primarily to respond to the jumpers. Because the Bridge District doesn’t want to draw attention to the suicides they don’t report them publicly and they don’t want mar the esthetics of the bridge by putting up a suicide barrier or banning walkers on the Bridge. Both would be under the purview of Sector San Francisco, but the political pull of the Bridge District (Nancy Pelosi) is such that 50-75 deaths a year is acceptable, but five in 105 years is not. 

The thing that sticks in the craw (BTW, I was at EYC after the Bonita Pt. race). Is the high handedness on how the suspension was handed down. It kind of was done at the last moment and not coordinated well with OYRA. The ocean racers and OYRA is a very, very small constituency of Captain Stowe’s and the impression was she was compelled to “do something” based on the media hype and not necessarily based on any perceived lapse of good judgment on behalf of LSC or the safely procedures currently in place. She waited until SFPD field their report and found no criminal negligence which certainly been the case if LSC was found to be inside the break zone when she first got rolled. When they do their safely review, they will re-open the Daisy, Heatwave, Pterodactyl, 1999 Farallones and a host of other incidents. The problem is this is the year of the SHTP and Pacific Cup. Boats use these races as a tune up for the big ones. How safe will those ocean races be if you can’t effectively dial in the boat? 

Even without a suspension, the CG will review the safety procedure with the YRAA/OYRA. And they have done significant improvements. They pre-position the Sockeye in the Gulf and conduct a training exercise on the day of the race. This greatly reduces response times and they provide a pre race conditions report (didn’t one of the races get cancelled on account of a condition report a few years ago. They also require the organizing authority to maintain a mobile radio station near lands end to facilitate communications and have a regular check-in protocol after a certain time (for slug boats like mine). They will relay information from VTS too. We have to carry a ton of other safety gear. The weather that day was pretty average (and within the parameters set forth by MrsB for the Family Catalina). Pretty much all boats these days have a GPS (AIS probably isn’t that effective as the Farallones don’t move around.) I hope they don’t make skipper meetings mandatory as most of us have trouble getting there in the rush our commute. In my learned opinion, I don’t think they will set a mark out there or have you round something that is only on a GPS. Remember, LSC got rolled by a wave and the helmsman needs to be looking outside boat for obvious safely reasons and not trying to ascertain a dot on a screen. What I see as more probable is they make Farallone a starboard rounding which would give boats a much wider steering angle (you need to actually have been there to understand this). We already need to have MMSI, crew member’s notification papers and a description of the boat on file with the CG. I hope we don’t have to rent a helicopter in order to have an arial photo of the boat. The two most probable changes is I think they will make wearing tethers mandatory and that they will come out with a USSailing definition of “safe and prudent rounding”.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

GeorgeB said:


> Don't you guys go out sailing anymore?
> 
> I am reminded of two old adages', every problem looks like a nail if the only tool you own is a hammer and on the internet, you don't have to be accurate, or experienced in the subject to render an opinion and if you are persistent enough in misrepresenting the facts, then they take on a odd life of their own.
> 
> ...


Starbord rounding and tethers, finally something specific, shouldn't take too long to implement. Very good write up from somebody who has been there and done that.

Paul T


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Thanks George. Reading about sail boat racing on sailnet is an exercise in futility as there are too many with little, limited, or no race experience pontificating on a whole lot of would'a should'a could'a. I'm sure some good will come of the temporary stand down. What it will be, who knows, but things will be back to a modified normal soon enough. And yes, did the race 3 times while living in the Bay Area and have found much of the commentary here pretty ridiculous and largely of the knee jerk variety. Fatalities are always the result of one major or a string of minor mistakes. That so many posters think they're beyond making them is truly frightening and silly. Of course when desks are far from water there's nothing risked. Nor is anything gained. Hindsight is easy. It's the future that's tough to sort out.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

dabnis said:


> Having lived and worked in San Francisco for many years, I concur, well said.
> 
> Paul T


I'd concur also except:


arronwindward said:


> But I think all of this is unfortunate, because I suspect that the sailors who met their end knew exactly what the risks were--or if they didn't, they should have.


I don't think anyone other than maybe the skipper were aware of the risk that rounding so close to the break meant 'we may die right here in a few waves'. Everyone who races here out of SF as regular offshore crew knows what the overall risks are in terms of getting injured, or swept from the deck in a large swell; but I don't think they know about the issues regarding rounding SE Farallone. Unfortunately many of the skippers who do that race are aware of the fact that they are taking big risks; and sadly many of the people who don't know better follow their racing line and are oblivious to it. I don't like "it's a matter of time until..." type scenarios. It resulted in the death of 5 two weeks ago. If nothing changes it will happen there again.



arronwindward said:


> Waves that are randomly much larger than other waves are a statistical probability, and quite frankly, a common occurrance. Getting swept off the deck by a knockdown or boarding sea isn't "freak" at all; it happens all the time, and it's a leading cause of sailing fatalities near the Golden Gate. I can't imagine that anyone, sailor or not (given the news coverage every time this happens) could be unaware of this.


True, and correct; nothing wrong with this commentary. BUT; this was not what happened to the crew of LSC. The boat was rolled by breaking shore waves; not deck sweeping swells. Deck sweeping swells are not preventable; sailing in too close and getting caught in shore break is. On the issue of tethers later in your post; the power of those waves may well have snapped the tethers, D-Rings, or common Jackline like a weak rubber band. If a worn tether did not fail; the forces applied to the sailor may have been deadly also. It was a no win situation and those that survived were very lucky.



GeorgeB said:


> The only eye witness account put the boat safely outside the break zone. The only people who put the boat inside the break zone in the beginning live thousands of miles from the Pacific and in places like Central Texas. The photo Smack likes to use isn't very accurate in depicting the conditions of that day


No; Bryan said that they were 120 yards outside of the break. That's about two maybe 3 wavelengths from the break. The reef extends much further. Estimated depth is 4-5 fathoms here (24-30 feet). Definitely in the ground swell of 12-15' seas; and definitely in a danger zone for large set waves. Here is the chart with plotted approximate position:


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

WTF? Tried twice now to post the chart, but it won't display. Oh well if you want to look at it it is here:

http://www.sailnet.com/photogallery/showfull.php?photo=7643


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> I'd concur also except:
> 
> I don't think anyone other than maybe the skipper were aware of the risk that rounding so close to the break meant 'we may die right here in a few waves'. Everyone who races here out of SF as regular offshore crew knows what the overall risks are in terms of getting injured, or swept from the deck in a large swell; but I don't think they know about the issues regarding rounding SE Farallone. Unfortunately many of the skippers who do that race are aware of the fact that they are taking big risks; and sadly many of the people who don't know better follow their racing line and are oblivious to it. I don't like "it's a matter of time until..." type scenarios. It resulted in the death of 5 two weeks ago. If nothing changes it will happen there again.
> 
> ...


Keel, the second two quotes are not mine.

"Originally Posted by dabnis 
But I think all of this is unfortunate, because I suspect that the sailors who met their end knew exactly what the risks were--or if they didn't, they should have."

"Originally Posted by dabnis 
Waves that are randomly much larger than other waves are a statistical probability, and quite frankly, a common occurrance. Getting swept off the deck by a knockdown or boarding sea isn't "freak" at all; it happens all the time, and it's a leading cause of sailing fatalities near the Golden Gate. I can't imagine that anyone, sailor or not (given the news coverage every time this happens) could be unaware of this."

Paul T


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

dabnis said:


> Keel, the second two quotes are not mine.


Sorry forgot you were quoting 'aaronwindward'; fixed!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> I think you (and others) are making a lot of assumptions here Maine.


Hello pot!!!! I have been no more or less "assumptive" than you or the other side on the USCG matter.

Funny that I did not see you jump on the poster who "assumed" anyone who disagreed with the USCG on the temporary halt to ocean racing off San Fran was a "_Right Wing Nut_"... I guess (assuming again, at least I admit to it) when assumptions take your side they are fine???? Seems a tad hypocritical, if my "assumption is correct...?

I will be waiting, but not holding my breath, for you to quote that individual and call them out for being "assumptive".

If the USCG had temporarily banned, postponed, stifled, suspended, halted (lots of good terms for those ready to jump on my choice of words/semantics) the single hand Farallones you would not have heard a peep from me. It is my OPINION that the crew of LSC made their choice based on data avaible at the time and it was wrong. I do feel they were in to shallow of water and that the RC should be examining this and setting a new rounding mark or addressing this issue. I just don't feel the move driven by what I feel (feel is a descriptive word to say MY ASSUMPTION OR MY OPINION) was media and public hysteria was one that did any good and is not the way I "feel" our Military should react.

My dad and I discussed this on Sunday. As an Ex Captain in the US Army he too found the move to be "odd".....

Sadly for the "pro suspension" side, they did not temporarily suspended ALL racing outside the bridge out of San Francisco. ALL racing outside the bridge did not include the rest of the US ocean races, which apparently can be dangerous too...... Again this is MY OPINION and with my OPINION, and yours, always comes ASSUMPTIONS.

I also feel Captain Stowe made an "assumptive" decision. Her assumption was that this was a good move. Hey it just may be for her career but then again, perhaps not? We won't know for a while if her "assumptions" on the matter were correct or not. There are many in the sailing community, and at least two USCG I know (one USCG Ret and one active), that disagree with her assumption that this was a wise move.

Your statement of "_The Coast Guard did the right thing._" is an ASSUMPTION and your OPINION but you state it as hard fact...

The difference here in "assumptions" is that I have CLEARLY stated that this is my OPINION from the very beginning. I have stated this from the beginning and have been the only one I know of in this thread to state that clearly, up front and unequivocally. With OPINION comes assumptions. We always have assumption until we have FACT.

One of the few "facts" in the past week is that 4 more great sailors, loved ones, fathers etc. are now deceased.

So, if taking your side of the table, the "right thing" apparently was not done because IF what was "right" for San Francisco was "right" for ALL racers there would be four great sailors alive today. Can't have it both ways.

Suspension on Farallones races until safety can be addressed = Fine by me

Suspension on all racing out of San Francisco, but only San Francisco = Not fine by me...

That again is my OPINION.....

Your assumptions or opinions are no less assumptions or opinions than mine are.



smackdaddy said:


> Public attention is always the catalyst to change.


Yeah a catalyst to get things rolling not a stick your finger in the air and have a branch of our military make a hasty (again my OPINION) decisions based on public hysteria.uke



smackdaddy said:


> I say just let it play out before accusing people, who have far more information on the matter than you, of being knee jerk reactionaries.
> 
> I trust the USCG to do what's right.


I always trust our armed forces to do what is right. In this instance my OPINION that what was done was not done to save lives but to quell hysteria. The USCG is there to save lives four more are now deceased. Was the "right thing" (your opinion) really done???

I guess now I am not entitle to have an "OPINION" on the matter but YOU are????

Based on that I am done here as this has dwindled to nit picking semantics, swearing, name calling and nothing of useful gain towards discussing these issues.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Maine-

The suspension is so US Sailing can come in and review safety protocol of the YRA; particularly the OYRA, which is why they suspended OYRA sanctioned sailing until the review process can be completed. The reason it is local is because YRA/OYRA operates under a different set of rules/regs than the rest of the US. Please, let go of the fact that not all offshore racing is stopped or that only the upcoming races to the Farallones should be canceled. USCG and USS will do their job to find where OYRA needs some amendments and then they will be back on their racing schedule. The reason for all of this is because YRA was not going far enough to make internal changes; so USCG decided to step in and have USS do an audit.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Taken from Deception, a Santa Cruz 50 on the day of the CF. Note how close in they are to the large shore breaker at the 5min mark.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

MS,

1) Captain Stowe's authority to suspend ocean racing does not extend beyond USCG Sector San Francisco. Aegean was lost several hundred miles south of CG Sector SF.

2) The apparent collision between _Aegean_ and a large ship definitely does NOT have anything to do with the crewed Farallones race.

3) What expertise does your "army Captain" father have in such matters? Was he responsible for marine safety in the US Army? If not, them maybe we should consult my Physical Chemist father, or my Music Teacher brother, or my Biology Professor wife, as they have about as much expertise in this area.

4) You state, "Suspension on Farallones races until safety can be addressed = Fine by me; Suspension on all racing out of San Francisco, but only San Francisco = Not fine by me..." Only _offshore_ racing was suspended. This is a small fraction of the total number of races in Captain Stowe's jurisdiction. Her actions are actually far closer to your first statement than to your second. You do realize that, don't you?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> Sorry forgot you were quoting 'aaronwindward'; fixed!


No problem, "in all this excitement I forgot, did I fire Only 5 shots or 6?" Dirty Harry.

I don't have a boat in salt water anymore and didn't race when I did so the racing is really no big deal for me. What is a big deal, in my opinion, is shutting down all the outside races.

Captain Stowe could have suspended just the Farralone races and left the Lightship and Duxberry races alone, not too much to run into unless you miss the Duxberry bouy and keep going north.

Paul T


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

dabnis said:


> Captain Stowe could have suspended just the Farralone races and left the Lightship and Duxberry races alone, not too much to run into unless you miss the Duxberry bouy and keep going north.
> 
> Paul T


I think it has more to do with race oversight; and with the overall issues regarding exiting the SF Gate and crossing SF Bar which is generally worse than open ocean sailing. Note that they did allow with permit the Dux race to happen with a modified course out to Bonita Buoy and back. I realize that this is not what you would call 'offshore' but it illustrates that USCG does not want racing events to go across SF Bar until the audit is complete.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> Don't you guys go out sailing anymore?
> 
> Once again, unlike others I'm the only one who has actually raced to the Farallones (in both sport boats and the family Catalina). Being one of the few ocean racers here, I can rely on my actual experience in ocean racing, I don't need to try and draw analogies to surfing, watching the Mavericks contest, NASCAR racing, flying airplanes etc. I actually do ocean racing.
> 
> The only people who put the boat inside the break zone in the beginning live thousands of miles from the Pacific and in places like Central Texas. The photo Smack likes to use isn't very accurate in depicting the conditions of that day (See Deception's Utube video if you want to see how it really was). Besides, you should be using the photo further down in the Wiki article showing the wave breaking a mile or so south of the Island. That breaker is definitely in deep water.


This one?










Or how about this one...










George - you know I have huge respect for you as a sailor/racer. No doubt. So I'll defer to you.

But as for me being the only one putting them in the break zone - I'm not. Actually, several racers from the SF area who post on SA (and some of whom were there that day) - have said the same. However, being "in the break zone" is misleading...precisely because the break zone is never a single place. It changes.

What I've said, and what I still maintain is that they were too close. I say this because several accounts (SA, the news, witnesses, etc.) have said that they were on the rocks after 2 wave strikes. If those reports were incorrect - so be it. But I've not seen anything disputing them. So if it's true - don't you think that's too close? It's not a matter of being inside or outside the "break zone" - it's about being too close to the rocks for the conditions.

Again, I'll defer to you. You know worlds more than me about this stuff. But there sure are a lot of SF-area racers over at SA who are saying the same things. And that boat _was_ on the rocks. So it's hard to see how they _weren't_ too close...even from Central Texas.

As for the USCG stuff - I'm not really as interested in all that. I trust the USCG will do the right thing in the long run. But that's me.

Finally, as for sailing, I'm doing another ocean race this weekend. So I'm learning.



puddinlegs said:


> That so many posters think they're beyond making them is truly frightening and silly. Of course when desks are far from water there's nothing risked. Nor is anything gained. Hindsight is easy. It's the future that's tough to sort out.


I read about this stuff (here and many other places). I think through this stuff. I have opinions about this stuff. But I certainly don't think I'm beyond making any of these same mistakes. On the contrary - that's exactly why I read, think and talk about it. I want to learn. I'm going out there.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> Nobody wants to see government intervention but if *people keep taking stupid chances and getting people killed due to their bad judgement* then that is what we will get.
> &#8230;..
> 
> Anybody want more of the same? *Keep supporting the "freedom" to turn 38 footers into surfboards with resulting deaths.*


Wow&#8230;

Here's a thought&#8230; How about we reserve such overwrought, hysterical rhetoric for an idiot like Michael Calabrese, OK? Frankly, I find your characterization of this event deeply disrespectful to the memories, and an insult to the skills, of the helmsman and crew aboard LOW SPEED CHASE&#8230;

Mr. Chong appeared to make it pretty clear that they were all resigned to being well out of the running after their unfortunate start, and were simply looking forward to the sleigh ride back into the Bay&#8230; I find it hard to imagine the very experienced skipper at the helm of LSC was of the mind that he was gonna cut the corner around the islands as close as possible, in order to finish DFL by only 29 minutes, instead of 30, or whatever&#8230;

None of us was aboard that boat, or even close to it, or even (as far as I know) sailing around the Farallones that day&#8230; I think it's been fairly well established that they sailed a track not all that different from many other boats racing that day, and their "judgment" may not have differed all that much from many other sailors who deemed their course to be a safe one given the conditions&#8230; LSC were the unlucky ones, positioning themselves in precisely the wrong spot, at precisely the wrong time&#8230; Of course, events have proven that they were in too close - but that by no means proves they were intentionally taking a "stupid" chance&#8230;

I could fill a book with stories of all the stupid things I've done on the water. I've likely made more egregious errors than that made by the helmsman that day, I've just so far been supremely lucky that none of them carried such a dreadful consequence&#8230; I've taken, and will continue to take, far greater risks than sailing with an experienced, full crew on a well-found boat around the Farallones, but I'll certainly never claim I'm not capable of making as unfortunate a mis-calculation as was made aboard LSC that day&#8230; Moreover, I have a hard time imagining that a CG inquiry is gonna be able to prevent me from doing so&#8230;

As others have said, I could understand the CG suspending further races to the Farallones&#8230; Having just returned from the Bay area, and spoken to a few people I've sailed with out there, I'm aware of the "political" pressure authorities might be feeling in the wake of this event. (I can't help but think one aspect that has ratcheted up whatever pressure was being felt from the public with little understanding of sailing or racing, is the fact that one of the victims was the lovely young lady who'd been the ball girl for the Giants) But I agree with the others here, who feel that a suspension of all offshore racing is a complete overreach&#8230;

The Farallones have been rounded uneventfully HUNDREDS of times by racing boats over the years, after all&#8230; What the CG has done is nothing more than a _reaction_ (as these things typically are, of course) However, if they are to be considered so expert on matters pertaining to racing, why could not they have _forseen_ that racing around the islands absent of designated turning marks was simply a disaster waiting to happen? Racing on Lake Michigan was not suspended last summer in the wake of the Chicago-Mac tragedy, I would have hoped that would serve as the model in the wake of this accident&#8230; The yacht racing authorities quickly assembled in conjunction with the CYC a panel of experts, the best possible approach, IMHO&#8230; Hopefully, the CG will conduct their review in a similar manner&#8230;

As to what the immediate future holds, however, I'm curious to see what the CG - having committed themselves so broadly - will handle the matter of this summer's upcoming Singlehanded Transpac&#8230; (I don't know for certain, but I'm presuming they have been issuing permits to the Corinthian YC to run this race over the years)

Let's face it, if there is anything that might technically be deemed a "Manifestly Unsafe Voyage", it's a singlehanded race passage of over 2,000 NM&#8230; A FAR riskier endeavor than racing a fully-crewed yacht out around the Farallones and back in full daylight&#8230; (Not to mention, such a trip is by definition a violation of COLREGS) We all know it will be simply a matter of time before a sailor is lost in this race - might not happen for another 100 years, but it WILL happen someday&#8230; In conducting such a broad spectrum review of all offshore racing out of the Golden Gate, how will the CG justify their continued "endorsement" of such an event? Should they not effectively "ban" it now, before someone else dies?

Only time will tell, but my gut tells me this move by the CG is gonna end up having consequences well beyond the establishment of GPS turning marks outside the Farallones&#8230;


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Howdy kettle! Heh-heh.

Wow...a lot to deal with here....



Maine Sail said:


> Hello pot!!!! I have been no more or less "assumptive" than you or the other side on the USCG matter.
> 
> Funny that I did not see you jump on the poster who "assumed" anyone who disagreed with the USCG on the temporary halt to ocean racing off San Fran was a "_Right Wing Nut_"... I guess (assuming again, at least I admit to it) when assumptions take your side they are fine???? Seems a tad hypocritical, if my "assumption is correct...?
> 
> I will be waiting, but not holding my breath, for you to quote that individual and call them out for being "assumptive".


You seemed miffed about the RWN comment (or at least me liking a post that contained it). Personally, I don't care about the political name-calling. You can fight that fight on your own. You're a big boy.

And as for me liking that post, I liked it because I agreed with his statement that:



> The anti government rhetoric here is preventing a reasonable discussion about what measures could be taken to prevent this type of accident in the future.


You'll notice that I repeated this statement later. I've never repeated any of the goofy name-calling. I don't care.



Maine Sail said:


> If the USCG had temporarily banned, postponed, stifled, suspended, halted (lots of good terms for those ready to jump on my choice of words/semantics) the single hand Farallones you would not have heard a peep from me. It is my OPINION that the crew of LSC made their choice based on data avaible at the time and it was wrong. I do feel they were in to shallow of water and that the RC should be examining this and setting a new rounding mark or addressing this issue. I just don't feel the move driven by what I feel (feel is a descriptive word to say MY ASSUMPTION OR MY OPINION) was media and public hysteria was one that did any good and is not the way I "feel" our Military should react.
> 
> My dad and I discussed this on Sunday. As an Ex Captain in the US Army he too found the move to be "odd".....
> 
> ...


I guess where we part ways on this is that you're putting a lot of reasoning in the USCG Captain's head (media pressure, public hysteria, selfish career moves, etc.). That's utter speculation. It's beyond even assumption.

I say they did the right thing because _they are a critical partner (and relatively passive overseer) in ocean racing_. Overall safety is absolutely JOB ONE with them. If something threatens that - especially if it might be a larger problem beyond the incident...they act. That's their job. If they had no part in ocean racing - and just came "barging through the door" and imposing their will, you might have a point. But that's not the case.



Maine Sail said:


> The difference here in "assumptions" is that I have CLEARLY stated that this is my OPINION from the very beginning. I have stated this from the beginning and have been the only one I know of in this thread to state that clearly, up front and unequivocally. With OPINION comes assumptions. We always have assumption until we have FACT.
> 
> One of the few "facts" in the past week is that 4 more great sailors, loved ones, fathers etc. are now deceased.
> 
> So, if taking your side of the table, the "right thing" apparently was not done because IF what was "right" for San Francisco was "right" for ALL racers there would be four great sailors alive today. Can't have it both ways.


Well maybe the issue is you just can't think of this stuff without going to extremes (based on some sOrwellian fear?). I can. There is absolutely no need to ban ALL racing for ALL of California - and/or the rest of the US. That would obviously be ludicrous. The incidents were situational and distinct. And, you'll notice, that global ban hasn't happened (yet). So things are actually a lot more reasonable than you want to make them.



Maine Sail said:


> Suspension on Farallones races until safety can be addressed = Fine by me
> 
> Suspension on all racing out of San Francisco, but only San Francisco = Not fine by me...
> 
> ...


Jeez Maine, why the hell are you so touchy on this stuff? Of course you're entitled to have your opinion...just like I'm entitled to have mine..and everybody else is entitle to have theirs. We disagree. What's the big deal?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Wow&#8230;
> 
> Here's a thought&#8230; How about we reserve such overwrought, hysterical rhetoric for an idiot like Michael Calabrese, OK? Frankly, I find your characterization of this event deeply disrespectful to the memories, and an insult to the skills, of the helmsman and crew aboard LOW SPEED CHASE&#8230;


5 people are dead as a result of that skippers judgement and *I'm* hysterical and disrespectful? Interesting.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> This one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks more like a tide line trailing off of the SE end of the island to me guys. Many people over at SA feel that the LSC among others were in too close; while a group of others still have their heads stuck deeply in the sand.



> What I've said, and what I still maintain is that they were too close. I say this because several accounts (SA, the news, witnesses, etc.) have said that they were on the rocks after 2 wave strikes. If those reports were incorrect - so be it. But I've not seen anything disputing them. So if it's true - don't you think that's too close? It's not a matter of being inside or outside the "break zone" - it's about being too close to the rocks for the conditions.


I agree with the 'too close' comment; but the real elephant in the room is that the "break zone" is about 500 yds wide and those who choose to hug the break are about 250 yds from the shore. With breakers only 2 swells away there is no chance of getting outside of a break that is further out.



> Again, I'll defer to you. You know worlds more than me about this stuff. But there sure are a lot of SF-area racers over at SA who are saying the same things. And that boat _was_ on the rocks. So it's hard to see how they _weren't_ too close...even from Central Texas.


Yes; but unfortunately there are a ton of yahoos who don't want to accept that they are making a fatal mistake but getting away with it on most occasions. I just can't understand why people don't want to believe that someone (more including all boats) f'd up and sailed in too close. Even after the SA Admin posted my letter to the homepage there is still a contingent who say I am the problem, and don't know anything about it because I 'was not there'. So it's up to "those who were there" to say what did or did not happen? I think that is a little one-sided when you consider that everyone is playing the CYA game, hunkering down, and clinging to the belief that LSC was a rogue wave (or whatever) tragedy beyond the ability anyone to prevent.



> As for the USCG stuff - I'm not really as interested in all that. I trust the USCG will do the right thing in the long run. But that's me.


 I do to. Remember they set the standards for 'safety at sea'.


> I read about this stuff (here and many other places). I think through this stuff. I have opinions about this stuff. But I certainly don't think I'm beyond making any of these same mistakes. On the contrary - that's exactly why I read, think and talk about it. I want to learn. I'm going out there.


Agreed; and I don't profess to be any better than the guys who race out there. My analysis of these events is just that; and I have learned from it also. Had I been out there two weekends ago I probably would have been following whoever was in front of me not knowing about the hazards of that reef. I think everyone needs to do some constructive criticism of their standards for what is safe and what is not. One would be called an idiot for crossing North of the Half Moon Bay buoy racing from SF; yet they cross a similar if not more deadly reef structure at SE Farallone. Does not make a bit of sense to do one yet not the other.



> Finally, as for sailing, I'm doing another ocean race this weekend. So I'm learning.


Good luck to you.
Nice post Smack; glad we agree on something finally!


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

SloopJonB said:


> 5 people are dead as a result of that skippers judgement and *I'm* hysterical and disrespectful? Interesting.


I'm inclined to being with Jon E on this one. This is one very bad result in thousands of roundings of the Farallons. There's a whole lot of baby being pitched with the bath water here. Were mistakes made? Sure. I don't think there's any argument. But to even begin to proscribe _'action'_ from the PNW and the Salish Sea for the SF Bay area is a stretch and best. Knock on wood that none were lost in Southern Straights a couple years back. Again, the old, "there, but for the grace of God, go I."


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Frankly, I find your characterization of this event deeply disrespectful to the memories, and an insult to the skills, of the helmsman and crew aboard LOW SPEED CHASE&#8230;


I don't. I think those lost on LSC would be happy that we are trying to get some change to happen to the culture of sailors who are willing to risk the lives of everyone aboard to make a tight rounding of SE Farallone. It is the fact that many if not all of the boats competing in the CF were in too tight that makes the loss of LSC a bigger deal than the incorrect actions of one skipper who was lost in the accident. If people like US (the non-hair on fire racing crowd; and more conservative racing sailors) don't step up and demand some change; nothing will, and the lost souls will have died for nothing.



> I find it hard to imagine the very experienced skipper at the helm of LSC was of the mind that he was gonna cut the corner around the islands as close as possible, in order to finish DFL by only 29 minutes, instead of 30, or whatever&#8230;


But they did nontheless. Probably just following the boat in front of them. Not to try and make up time. Two sailboats in proximity are racing; regardless of if it is for a win.



> None of us was aboard that boat, or even close to it, or even (as far as I know) sailing around the Farallones that day&#8230; I think it's been fairly well established that they sailed a track not all that different from many other boats racing that day, and their "judgment" may not have differed all that much from many other sailors who deemed their course to be a safe one given the conditions&#8230; LSC were the unlucky ones, positioning themselves in precisely the wrong spot, at precisely the wrong time&#8230; Of course, events have proven that they were in too close - but that by no means proves they were intentionally taking a "stupid" chance&#8230;


I for one am glad that I was not crewing on any of them. The collective 'judgment' is incorrect. It's not that LSC was un-lucky. It was that everyone else who sailed in that close were lucky that they did not get caught by the large set. You know surfers will sit outside of the coastal break waiting for 'large set' waves. The position of the sailboats rounding were in the zone where surfers would wait for that bigger wave. According to NOAA statistics that 'large set' should be expected every 70 minutes or so. Are you willing to take the chance that it will come in while crossing the reef? I for one am not. They were not knowingly taking this risk; but nonetheless they were risking more than they thought (all of the boats were).



> but I'll certainly never claim I'm not capable of making as unfortunate a mis-calculation as was made aboard LSC that day&#8230; Moreover, I have a hard time imagining that a CG inquiry is gonna be able to prevent me from doing so&#8230;


Neither will I but please, understand that LSC was not the only boat in too tight to SE Farallon. Look at the video I posted from youtube of Deception rounding. Way too close in; IMHO. Two wave crests from the surf or less.



> The Farallones have been rounded uneventfully HUNDREDS of times by racing boats over the years, after all&#8230;
> 
> Let's face it, if there is anything that might technically be deemed a "Manifestly Unsafe Voyage", it's a singlehanded race passage of over 2,000 NM&#8230; A FAR riskier endeavor than racing a fully-crewed yacht out around the Farallones and back in full daylight&#8230; (Not to mention, such a trip is by definition a violation of COLREGS) We all know it will be simply a matter of time before a sailor is lost in this race - might not happen for another 100 years, but it WILL happen someday&#8230; In conducting such a broad spectrum review of all offshore racing out of the Golden Gate, how will the CG justify their continued "endorsement" of such an event? Should they not effectively "ban" it now, before someone else dies?
> 
> Only time will tell, but my gut tells me this move by the CG is gonna end up having consequences well beyond the establishment of GPS turning marks outside the Farallones&#8230;


Hundreds of boats have gone around on SE Farallon also. I'm sure that a fair number of them were racing boats in the distant past but I don't think there are accurate statistics to tell us how many.

I hate to tell you this; but by far there are more near-shore sailing accidents than anything out in the open ocean. Mainly because the shoreline is more unforgiving than the sea.

The possibility exists that USCG will make the waters between the islands of the marine sanctuary an exclusion zone.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

puddinlegs said:


> Knock on wood that none were lost in Southern Straights a couple years back. Again, the old, "there, but for the grace of God, go I."


Exactly and I commented on that earlier in this thread. We have had deaths locally due to poor judgement/excessive competitiveness as well. The S/S race you refer to was an excellent example - lots of poor judgement in going out in that, particularly in the smaller boats. The S/S race is frequently a gear buster (like every other year ) but when 50 knots is FORECAST, IMHO going out demonstrates poor judgement - just as sailing less than 200 yards from a reef/lee shore does.

My attitude is quite simple - plain old good seamanship is not obviated merely by the fact that you are racing. We're talking about play racing in toy boats here, not warfare or a lifesaving mission. No-one should EVER die in a sailboat race unless it's from a heart attack or some such. The fact that racing rules don't supersede ColRegs would seem to support my position.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Look at the breaking wave in the bottom of this photo off of the NW corner of SE Farallon. It is well outside of the white water froth; indicating that it is a 'large set' wave. If one were hugging the break during the time of this photo they would be rolled by that wave. I really don't think this sort of wave activity is terribly uncommon here.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Did I miss the granite counter tops in this thread?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> I think it has more to do with race oversight; and with the overall issues regarding exiting the SF Gate and crossing SF Bar which is generally worse than open ocean sailing. Note that they did allow with permit the Dux race to happen with a modified course out to Bonita Buoy and back. I realize that this is not what you would call 'offshore' but it illustrates that USCG does not want racing events to go across SF Bar until the audit is complete.


Could be, but that is kind of a scary thought to ban any race using a route over the bar, leaving only the Duxberry race, maybe? The problem was at the islands not the bar although there has certainly been loss of lives near the bar. Maybe the bar is more hazardous than rounding the island? Where does it all end?

Paul T


----------



## Argyle38 (Oct 28, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> 5 people are dead as a result of that skippers judgement and *I'm* hysterical and disrespectful? Interesting.


Yes. Since the skipper is one of the dead, yes absolutely, by definition yes.

The key point here is they the boat was effectively out of the race, there was no reason for the skipper to cut corners. He was sailing the same line everyone else was sailing, and likely the same line he had sailed many times before. There is no logical reason to expect that he should have done anything different. To assume that he should have done something different, when there was no evidence that he needed to do something different, is disrespect.

To be respectful would be to assume that the skipper was doing everything within his power to conduct his vessel safely until there is ample evidence that proves otherwise. Sometimes we do everything right and bad stuff still happens. It's a scary truth.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Argyle38 said:


> Yes. Since the skipper is one of the dead, yes absolutely, by definition yes.
> 
> The key point here is they the boat was effectively out of the race, there was no reason for the skipper to cut corners. He was sailing the same line everyone else was sailing, and likely the same line he had sailed many times before. There is no logical reason to expect that he should have done anything different. To assume that he should have done something different, when there was no evidence that he needed to do something different, is disrespect.
> 
> To be respectful would be to assume that the skipper was doing everything within his power to conduct his vessel safely until there is ample evidence that proves otherwise. Sometimes we do everything right and bad stuff still happens. It's a scary truth.


I see, I think. Brian's description was that they were hit by the first wave and then very shortly were put on the rocks by the second wave. For them to go on the rocks that quickly indicates they were too close to begin with. I doubt that others commenting on the accident mean to be dis-respectfull but are just discussing what happened and possibilities as how to prevent a repeat.

Paul T


----------



## sea_hunter (Jul 26, 2000)

After reading Mr. Chong's letter, I knew there'd be significant response on most forums especially from the many keyboard sailors. While most of us rarely if ever have experienced what he and the crew of Low Speed Chase went through in those few fleeting seconds, it's easy to second guess almost anything. As is said; "hindsight is 20-20". Being too close, by following a 30 minute old track (as the tide and wave placement changed) is neither here or there, yet more poignant was his comments regarding their safety lines and harnesses. Complacency kills. Fifty years ago my 1st captain said to me and the rest of the crew , remember this: "stay with the boat no matter what: stay with the boat I don't care how, just stay with the boat ". Every day he stated this rule and to this day I vest up and clip on when out of the cockpit, even while the rest the crew laughs and ribs my "overly" cautious habits. 
Here's to the missing crewmates, and lessons not lost in the wind.


----------



## Argyle38 (Oct 28, 2010)

dabnis said:


> I see, I think. Brian's description was that they were hit by the first wave and then very shortly were put on the rocks by the second wave. For them to go on the rocks that quickly indicates they were too close to begin with. I doubt that others commenting on the accident mean to be dis-respectfull but are just discussing what happened and possibilities as how to prevent a repeat.
> 
> Paul T


Absolutely and a very valid and interesting discussion it is. But this is from Brian Chong's statement in the original post:



> We soon approach the first rocky point on the northeast corner of the island. The swells are much larger and the wind has been building. We saw another boat pass a few minutes earlier on an outside line. Behind us, one boat is outside of us and another appears to be on our same line.


I also think that this has been somewhat confirmed from eyewitness accounts from other boats. It seems they were a bit inside, but not the most inside of all the boats rounding at that time. They were just doing what you normally do.

From our perspective after the fact, it does indeed appear that they were closer than they should have been. It also seems like there should be a fixed (physical) buoy farther out that is the fixed rounding mark.

But from the skippers perspective, out there, at that time, he would have no reason to believe that what he was doing was unsafe. We have to ask ourselves, would I have done anything different given the information the skipper had at his disposal at the time? There were a lot of sailors out there that day, and a great many of them sailed along the same line as the Low Speed Chase. Am I a better/ safer sailor than all of those guys??


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Argyle38 said:


> Absolutely and a very valid and interesting discussion it is. But this is from Brian Chong's statement in the original post:
> 
> I also think that this has been somewhat confirmed from eyewitness accounts from other boats. It seems they were a bit inside, but not the most inside of all the boats rounding at that time. They were just doing what you normally do.
> 
> ...


A little more detail on how quickly they went up on the rocks:

"I was underwater until the boat righted itself. Confused and disoriented I looked around while water cleared off the deck. Nick and I were the only ones still on the boat. The sails were shredded, the mast snapped and every flotation device had been ripped off. We immediately began to try pulling our crewmembers back into the boat but a second wave hit us from behind. This one ripped me off the boat and into the break zone. Nick barely managed to stay aboard as the boat was tossed by the breakers onto the rocks."

There has been some discussion about establishing GPS waypoints for a safer rounding although George B, who has done the race, thinks that might be a distraction and offered a starbord rounding and mandatory thethers.

I mis-spelled Bryan's name in my other post, my apologies to Bryan.

Paul T


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Argyle38 said:


> But from the skippers perspective, out there, at that time, he would have no reason to believe that what he was doing was unsafe. We have to ask ourselves, would I have done anything different given the information the skipper had at his disposal at the time? There were a lot of sailors out there that day, and a great many of them sailed along the same line as the Low Speed Chase. Am I a better/ safer sailor than all of those guys??


I agree with you that the skipper of LSC did not think he was putting people at such high risk. I also feel that most of these people who rounded SE Farallon are excellent sailors and they do have my respect as such. I don't by any means consider my self any better or any less prone to making such an error; but this error needs to be prevented because it's a dice roll to go on such a tight course around that NW point. It is the nature of racing to cut distance sailed to a minimum. The only way to prevent the activity of sailing in too close is to put a waypoint rounding mark or depth contour limitation at SE Farallon in the race rules.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Let's face it, if there is anything that might technically be deemed a "Manifestly Unsafe Voyage", it's a singlehanded race passage of over 2,000 NM&#8230; A FAR riskier endeavor than racing a fully-crewed yacht out around the Farallones and back in full daylight&#8230; *(Not to mention, such a trip is by definition a violation of COLREGS)* We all know it will be simply a matter of time before a sailor is lost in this race - might not happen for another 100 years, but it WILL happen someday&#8230; In conducting such a broad spectrum review of all offshore racing out of the Golden Gate, how will the CG justify their continued "endorsement" of such an event? Should they not effectively "ban" it now, before someone else dies?
> 
> Only time will tell, but my gut tells me this move by the CG is gonna end up having consequences well beyond the establishment of GPS turning marks outside the Farallones&#8230;


You know, this is an excellent point - and illustrates the complexity of the problem.

The CG is obviously already allowing something that sailors WANT to do (single-handing) that goes against regulations. To Keel's point, if the sailing community starts having/creating problems policing itself, the consequences can get real big real fast.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

LandLocked66c said:


> Did I miss the granite counter tops in this thread?


Over at SA it's boobs. Here it's granite counter tops. That's just sad.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

sea_hunter said:


> after reading mr. Chong's letter, i knew there'd be significant response on most forums especially from the many keyboard sailors. While most of us rarely if ever have experienced what he and the crew of low speed chase went through in those few fleeting seconds, it's easy to second guess almost anything. As is said; "hindsight is 20-20". Being too close, by following a 30 minute old track (as the tide and wave placement changed) is neither here or there, yet more poignant was his comments regarding their safety lines and harnesses. Complacency kills. Fifty years ago my 1st captain said to me and the rest of the crew , remember this: "stay with the boat no matter what: Stay with the boat i don't care how, just stay with the boat ". Every day he stated this rule and to this day i vest up and clip on when out of the cockpit, even while the rest the crew laughs and ribs my "overly" cautious habits.
> Here's to the missing crewmates, and lessons not lost in the wind.


+1000.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> I agree with you that the skipper of LSC did not think he was putting people at such high risk. I also feel that most of these people who rounded SE Farallon are excellent sailors and they do have my respect as such. I don't by any means consider my self any better or any less prone to making such an error; but this error needs to be prevented because it's a dice roll to go on such a tight course around that NW point. It is the nature of racing to cut distance sailed to a minimum. The only way to prevent the activity of sailing in too close is to put a waypoint rounding mark or depth contour limitation at SE Farallon in the race rules.


Keel,

Well said, totally agree. Well, after almost 7,000 visits it appears that:

1. Some think they were too close
2. Some think their position was OK because other boats were in close also
3. Way points or marker buoys in deeper water would reduce the danger
4. Some think the CG over reacted in suspending all outside race activity
instead of just the one individual race, some do not.
5. Probably everything being said did not change anybody's mind about 
anything, anyway

It will be interesting to see what the CG comes up with, probably in a year or so.

So, as my wife has just politely reminded me that my time could be better spent raking pine needles, I must go.

Paul T


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

Wow, a lot of speculation. I would think it is pretty easy to make an error in visual judgment. It happens all the time . Power boaters around here are always hitting the breakwall off Cedar Point which is well marked. Sailors have hit it too. Sometimes it is alcohol related sometimes it is an error in visual judgment. A lot of times it ends very badly. Woman's body found, search suspended for missing man | Sandusky Register

Le'st say you are racing around the Farallon islands and you visually pick out what appears to be relatively safe track. Unfortunately you don't notice that waves and/or current are setting you closer to the surf line. Definitely could happen. Especially if you are little tired from pounding up wind for a couple of hours and a little dehydrated. I wouldn't be too quick to judge that this was a product of a "racing" mentality.

Short of forbidding race organizers from using the Farallon Islands as a mark of the course I'm not sure what they can do to absolutely prevent this from happening again. People do make errors in judgment. I think the organizing authority can require modified Cat 3 equipment standards, have a safety briefing about the potential perils in the area, and require 20% of the crew to have a Safety at Sea certificate. Even with that there are no guarantees.

It doesn't seem much of a stretch to think that the CG captains decision to suspend racing approvals in the area was a political one. Does the CG in Alaska prohibit trawlers from going out when there are deaths in the Alaskan fishing fleet? Different venue, different culture, and different decision.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Sanduskysailor said:


> Does the CG in Alaska prohibit trawlers from going out when there are deaths in the Alaskan fishing fleet? Different venue, different culture, and different decision.


Yes, they do. Sometimes they will make the fleet re-inspect their vessels. Was watching DC several years ago and following a capsize they stopped crab fleet operations to re-evaluate the permitted number of pots each boat can take out (vessel stability certifications).


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Does the CG in Alaska prohibit trawlers from going out when there are deaths in the Alaskan fishing fleet? "
Sandusky, you're missing something here. The USCG did not forbid anyone from going out here. They suspended _marine event permits_--which is totally different from forbidding anyone going out.
Kinda like the difference between convicting Al Capone for crimes, as opposed to arresting him for failing to pay his taxes.

As to those unlit breakwaters...year in, year out, all around the country they wreck ships. Gotta wonder, why no one ever sues to have them lighted. Or simply lights them, without the need for suits.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

"It doesn't seem much of a stretch to think that the CG captains decision to suspend racing approvals in the area was a political one. Does the CG in Alaska prohibit trawlers from going out when there are deaths in the Alaskan fishing fleet? Different venue, different culture, and different decision."

Having been married for 52 years, raising two daughters, working with and having many women work for me it is my opinion that _generally speaking_ women sometimes react to stress situations differently than men.
Maybe in Captain Stowe's climb to become a Captain she had some of her feminine instincts washed out of her, maybe not?

Paul T


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > Frankly, I find your characterization of this event deeply disrespectful to the memories, and an insult to the skills, of the helmsman and crew aboard LOW SPEED CHASE&#8230;
> 
> 
> I don't. I think those lost on LSC would be happy that we are trying to get some change to happen to the culture of sailors who are willing to risk the lives of everyone aboard to make a tight rounding of SE Farallone. It is the fact that many if not all of the boats competing in the CF were in too tight that makes the loss of LSC a bigger deal than the incorrect actions of one skipper who was lost in the accident. If people like US (the non-hair on fire racing crowd; and more conservative racing sailors) don't step up and demand some change; nothing will, and the lost souls will have died for nothing.


I don't disagree at all&#8230; My comments were simply a reaction to such hyperbole as "using a 38-footer as a surf board" to kill people&#8230; Such language in the wake of this tragedy strikes me as more than just a tad over the top, and implies a degree of recklessness and irresponsibility on the part of the crew that I just don't believe is accurate&#8230;



KeelHaulin said:


> I for one am glad that I was not crewing on any of them. The collective 'judgment' is incorrect. It's not that LSC was un-lucky. It was that everyone else who sailed in that close were lucky that they did not get caught by the large set.
> &#8230;
> 
> They were not knowingly taking this risk; but nonetheless they were risking more than they thought (all of the boats were).


Again, no disagreement from me, and you've put it more accurately than I originally did - it definitely IS more accurate to say all the others who sailed a similar line were lucky, as opposed to saying the crew of LSC was "unlucky"&#8230;



KeelHaulin said:


> I hate to tell you this; but by far there are more near-shore sailing accidents than anything out in the open ocean. Mainly because the shoreline is more unforgiving than the sea.


Thanks for the tip, but after a trip or two in proximity to some fairly crunchy bits, I've become at least somewhat familiar with that notion&#8230; (grin)










The RULE 62 tragedy from last year is about as sober a reminder of that as we're ever likely to see, of course&#8230;

And, that reality is the primary reason why I will continue to take issue with some who appear to believe that racing is somehow, by definition, inherently "riskier" than cruising, or that bluewater passagemaking is necessarily more challenging than coastal cruising&#8230;


----------



## CapnRon47 (Jul 29, 2007)

My condolences to the crew and families of lost loved ones.

My first thought after reading Bryan's account was that it was a brave thing to write and post. I have read thru all the comments and some I agree with and some I disagree with. I am not sure how carefully Bryan choose his words, but my first reading of the account agreed with others that they were too close and tossed onto the rocks too quickly. But the 'wave' part of the account was repeated later in the thread and after re-reading it I came to a different conclusion.



> We immediately began to try pulling our crew members back into the boat but a second wave hit us from behind. This one ripped me off the boat and into the break zone. Nick barely managed to stay aboard as the boat was tossed by the breakers onto the rocks.


The boat was eventually tossed onto the rocks by the breakers, it does not say how long that took. It was not tossed onto the rocks in two waves.

I am not a racer, I enter races occasionally for fun. I always err on the side way too far from the mark and other boats. I select a crew that agrees with my style (or else I might have a mutiny). They just like to sail. I cannot fault the skipper at all for his judgment, he was sailing at his level of experience, I sail at mine.

Ron


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't discount the sailing experience of any of the skippers who were sailing the CF. But what I see on the forums is that there is too much homage to the 'ability' of those skippers; yet not enough homage to the power of the sea and it's ability to destroy boats and lives aboard.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

CapnRon47 said:


> My condolences to the crew and families of lost loved ones.
> 
> My first thought after reading Bryan's account was that it was a brave thing to write and post. I have read thru all the comments and some I agree with and some I disagree with. I am not sure how carefully Bryan choose his words, but my first reading of the account agreed with others that they were too close and tossed onto the rocks too quickly. But the 'wave' part of the account was repeated later in the thread and after re-reading it I came to a different conclusion.
> 
> ...


Ron,

From my earlier post:

"Well said, totally agree. Well, after almost 7,000 visits it appears that:

1. Some think they were too close
2. Some think their position was OK because other boats were in close also
3. Way points or marker buoys in deeper water would reduce the danger
4. Some think the CG over reacted in suspending all outside race activity
instead of just the one individual race, some do not.
5. Probably everything being said did not change anybody's mind about 
anything, anyway

It will be interesting to see what the CG comes up with, probably in a year or so."

So far suggestions have been:

1. Establish waypoints
2. Starboard rounding
3. Mandatory tethers

Anybody have anything else? Wonder what the CG will come up with and when?

Paul T


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

4. Minimum Depth in proximity to SE Farallon of 10 Fathoms.
5. Wave data review pre-race; with postponement option if swells are predicted to be breaking across SF Bar.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

dabnis said:


> Starboard rounding Paul T


Don't know if I missed something about this but what difference would starboard rounding of the island do to change anything re: this incident, from port rounding?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> Don't know if I missed something about this but what difference would starboard rounding of the island do to change anything re: this incident, from port rounding?


The prevailing winds are from the NW, and the island runs from the NW to the SE (more or less). So, a starboard rounding would force boats out to sea on a starboard tack (more or less due west) before switching to a port tack for their final rounding of the north side of SE Farallon/Maintop. A boat could still cut it too close, there would (theoretically) just be less opportunity to do so.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> 4. Minimum Depth in proximity to SE Farallon of 10 Fathoms.
> 5. Wave data review pre-race; with postponement option if swells are predicted to be breaking across SF Bar.


Done!!, the CG isn't needed, just have the race organizer present it to the CG and forget the big massive, extremely lenghty "investigation" full of committees and sub-committees.

Paul T


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Done!!, the CG isn't needed, just have the race organizer present it to the CG and forget the big massive, extremely lenghty "investigation" full of committees and sub-committees.
> 
> Paul T


While I still feel the CG's suspension is an overreaction, to their credit, it appears they're taking the proper approach, quite similar to the action taken in the wake of the Chicago-Mac tragedy last year...

Kudos to them for this:



> Debate Continues, Investigative Panel Announced
> 
> May 2, 2012 - San Francisco Bay
> 
> ...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I am going to re-post the earlier section where Al Hiller makes some good points about waves that run up onto reefs:



Latitude 38 said:


> The following letter, from Al Hiller, who describes himself as a San Francisco sailor who has raced and cruised offshore since '72, does a particularly good job of explaining this point of view:
> 
> "If the US Coast Guard wants to make ocean racing safer in Northern California, they should put a limiting buoy off the western point of Maintop Bay at Southeast Farallon, which would put it outside of the 15-fathom line. This would prevent a Low Speed Chase accident from ever occurring again." [Editor's note: A fathom is six feet, so 15 fathoms is 90 feet.]
> 
> ...


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

> "Oceanography 101 - Long period waves react with the bottom, slow down, and start to stand up in water depths of 10 times their vertical height. Thus a 10-ft swell starts to stand up and become cycloidal surf as it hits the 16-fathom line. By the time it hits the 4-fathom line, many hundreds of yards off the western point of Maintop Bay, the larger waves have already turned into huge, breaking surf.


I don't know where Mr. Hiller took Oceanography 101, but he must have been snoozing during the lecture(s) on wave theory. I have taught Oceanography at a couple of academic institutions, and I can tell you with some confidence that the above quote is an incorrect statement of how waves act as the approach shore. That isn't to say that Mr. Hiller's basic conclusion is in error. Had LSC stayed in deeper water there wouldn't have been a problem. However, he is essentially right for the wrong reasons.

Interface waves (the more general term for the type of waves to which ocean surface waves belong) produce water movement normal to the interface (in this case the water surface) proportional to the wavelength of the waves in question, rather than their height. So, as distance from the surface increases, water movement due to passing surface waves decreases asymptotically (i.e., it never actually reaches zero). At one-half a wavelength, water movement is about 5% of surface values and is thus considered negligible. This means that surface waves transiting water deeper than half the crest-to-crest distance (i.e., one wavelength) will have negligible interaction with the ocean floor. As the water depth becomes shallower than half a wavelength, the interaction of the wave with the ocean floor increases, and the bottom of the wave slows (often this is referred to as the wave "feeling the bottom"). This causes the wave to "lean" in the direction of it propagation (e.g., toward shore). The entire wave will eventually slow, causing its amplitude to increase and wavelength to decrease as it becomes a "transitional wave". If the water becomes shallow enough, the wave will eventually become too "tall" to support its mass (this is generally when the wave height is equal to about 1/7th of the wavelength) and it will begin to break.

So, while the point at which a wave starts to break is influenced by the wave height, the "stacking up" or "standing up" one sees when ocean swell (technically, "deep water waves") start to become transitional waves is determined by the depth of the water relative to the wavelength, NOT the wave height. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the videos of other boats in the CF race transiting the area in question showed waves that (to my eye, anyway) looked like they were pretty classic transitional waves; they appeared to have shorter wavelengths, steeper faces, and were becoming more asymmetric than I would expect for ocean swell in the sorts of winds they had that day. In other words, the shape of those waves were a pretty good indication that the water was much less than half a wavelength deep.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> I don't know where Mr. Hiller took Oceanography 101, but he must have been snoozing during the lecture(s) on wave theory. I have taught Oceanography at a couple of academic institutions, and I can tell you with some confidence that the above quote is an incorrect statement of how waves act as the approach shore. That isn't to say the Mr. Hiller's basic conclusion is in error. Had LSC stayed in deeper water there wouldn't have been a problem. However, he is essentially right for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Interface waves (the more general term for the type of waves to which ocean surface waves belong) produce water movement normal to the interface (in this case the water surface) proportional to the wavelength of the waves in question, rather than their height. So, as distance from the surface increases, water movement due to passing surface waves decreases asymptotically (i.e., it never actually reaches zero). At one-half a wavelength, water movement is about 5% of surface values and is thus considered negligible. This means that surface waves transiting water deeper than half the crest-to-crest distance (i.e., one wavelength) will have negligible interaction with the ocean floor. As the water depth becomes shallower than half a wavelength, the interaction of the wave with the ocean floor increases, and the bottom of the wave slows (often this is referred to as the wave "feeling the bottom"). This causes the wave to "lean" in the direction of it propagation (e.g., toward shore). The entire wave will eventually slow, causing its amplitude to increase and wavelength to decrease as it becomes a "transitional wave". If the water becomes shallow enough, the wave will eventually become too "tall" to support its mass (this is generally when the wave height is equal to about 1/7th of the wavelength) and it will begin to break.
> 
> So, while the point at which a wave starts to break is influenced by the wave height, the "stacking up" or "standing up" one sees when ocean swell (technically, "deep water waves") start to become transitional waves is determined by the depth of the water relative to the wavelength, NOT the wave height. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the videos of other boats in the CF race transiting the area in question showed waves that (to my eye, anyway) looked like they were pretty classic transitional waves; they appeared to have shorter wavelengths, steeper faces, and were becoming more asymmetric than I would expect for ocean swell in the sorts of winds they had that day. In other words, the shape of those waves were a pretty good indication that the water was much less than half a wavelength deep.


Very detailed and interesting, I think it means that if they were in 60 to 8o feet of water they probably wouldn't have been hit.

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Very detailed and interesting, I think it means that if they were in 60 to 8o feet of water they probably wouldn't have been hit.
> 
> Paul T


It depends on the wavelength and amplitude of swell. But, yes. Beyond the 10-fathom line swell just won't produce a breaking wave due to water depth.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Another thing to note in this case is that the area in question is essentially a "headland" jutting out to sea in a more or less NW direction. When waves (swell) approach a headland they refract and tend to "wrap around" either side. This concentrates the wave energy on the headland and any shallow areas seaward. 








This can often result in both "confused seas" and the magnification of waves via constructive interference. The more the headland points straight into the swell, the greater the effect of these phenomena. This MAY have had something to do with why the waves that hit LSC seemed to "come out of nowhere".


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> Another thing to note in this case is that the area in question is essentially a "headland" jutting out to sea in a more or less NW direction. When waves (swell) approach a headland they refract and tend to "wrap around" either side. This concentrates the wave energy on the headland and any shallow areas seaward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right, I think some of the photos that have been posted show exactely what you described. Also, I think in one of the videos or other racers description
of sea conditions they described just that, nasty place, sea room can be your friend. Good description.

Paul T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here's a link to the final report:

http://media.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=18654

Came across it at SA.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

I just read through it quickly. I think the panel did not recommend a "stand off" marker or GPS waypoints but recommended better "education"? Am I missing something? Any word what the CG has done or will do about future races , if they will allow them?

Paul T


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Paul, from what I read the panel is basically saying that there were a number of human failures including:
1-Organizers did not follow USCG permit procedure, i.e. requiring check-in/out and communications with all vessels
2-Organizers, skippers, crews, were apparently unaware of the risks of shoal water on a course where it could be expected

and yes, "education" and a bit more diligenece about existing safety and navigation could prevent this from happening again in the future.

No need for exclusion zones or marks, etc, just a need for the racers to be more aware of hazards and regulations (proper pfds & pfd usage among them) and more need for the organizers to ensure everyone meets a higher standard, themselves included.

Of course that's just USSA, not the USCG speaking, but I don't think you are missing anything. A major mishap is often that simple: one trivial mistake compounded by the next: navigator not knowing how the water would break at that depth, skipper trusting navigator without checking, crew wearing pfds improperly, odds are they never tried them out in the water, a handheld radio oops not charged...and then all it took was one bigger wave to throw them over, when other boats made it through the same spot with no problem.

The only PFD that works without a crotch strap is the one the airlines put under your seat. And that only works because the collar is so tight, it can't get over your head, it just chokes you before you can drown. (Next time you're flying and they demo the vests, you'll notice they've cut open the neckline in the demo model.)

Racers go rockhopping, they cut corners. That's a given. So among the other things, USSA is saying Make Real Damn Sure they _know _this race includes "dead man's curve". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Hello's right. Here's one of the summary paragraphs:



> The panel considered recommending placement of an offset mark or that the race committee set a course outside the 4-fathom shoal. However, we rejected these recommendations on two grounds: 1) it places an unacceptable burden of responsibility on the race committee to declare a specific distance off-shore safe when under certain circumstances a similar result could occur and 2) in any off-shore race, there are many similar shoal areas and points, which would have similar conditions and similar dangers. It is impossible to set rounding distances at every dangerous point. Sailors must be trained to the standards of seamanship to avoid such dangers.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here's something else that was pretty interesting in light of the criticism that the SFYRA did not handle itself well and needed more training:



> US Sailing conducts a comprehensive program of training and certification of race officers at several levels, but at present those courses do not address the specific knowledge and skills required to run offshore races.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"in any off-shore race, there are many similar shoal areas and points,"
hehe. Here on the Upper Right Coast, the first similar shoal might be Bermuda.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

For me, this was the most difficult statement in the whole thing:



> Even though several boats provided assistance through VHF communications, the panel found it troubling that no boats appear to have dropped out or delayed their race in order to render assistance, which is a basic tenet of the sea, as well as the first Fundamental Rule16 of the Racing Rules of Sailing under which the event was sailed.


Wow.


----------



## Marcel D (Apr 15, 2012)

Tear thanx for posting sorry for your loss!!!


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> For me, this was the most difficult statement in the whole thing:
> 
> Wow.


\\

The panel found it "troubling" that no boats responded by dropping out of the race. Sounds criminal to me....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> \\
> 
> The panel found it "troubling" that no boats responded by dropping out of the race. Sounds criminal to me....


It definitely doesn't reflect well on those racers. I think this will be the most damning aspect of the entire report.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Troubling? That the other racers didn't endanger their crews by trying to do what? Attempt a landing on a rocky and dangerous island?

I can't see _any _way that another keelboat could render assistance to the folks who were on the island. Some years back I saw a white strobe on a small island which was posted off-limits. I radioed in to the USCG that there was a possible distress beacon on the island and they asked if I could render assistance. I had no qualms about saying no, I could not, I was constrained by draft and couldn't risk the rocks surrounding that island. (In the dark and pre-gps.)

Could they have stood by? No point. Could they have perhaps formed a search party to zigzag the local waters to look for crew in the water? Maybe, if they had thought of MOB instead of "beached boat". Maybe, if conditions allowed it. Maybe, if anyone had asked them to. But I suspect no one thought beyond "beached boat" and "we can't get in there".

And the study (oops?) doesn't mention educating racers as to the possible need to search for MOB in the water if there's a _beached _boat. Maybe that's something else to remind racers of.

Which, by the way, is something taught fairly religiously to all emergency responders these days: You do NOT place yourself in danger attempting to provide aid. Contrary to any public perceptions of heroism, if you can't respond without endangering yourself, you don't go in. That's policy all the way up from the local rescue squad to DHS.


----------



## sea_hunter (Jul 26, 2000)

Regardless of the tactical sailing errors made, two important factors remain; firstly stay on the boat and secondly, employ gear that keeps you on the boat. A couple of things that stands out in the report; Type II, and III inflatable vests don't always work while complete harnesses with jack lines significantly increase your odds.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

"The panel considered recommending placement of an offset mark or that the race committee set a course outside the 4-fathom shoal. However, we rejected these recommendations on two grounds: 1) it places an unacceptable burden of responsibility on the race committee to declare a specific distance off-shore safe when under certain circumstances a similar result could occur and 2) in any off-shore race, there are many similar shoal areas and points, which would have similar conditions and similar dangers. It is impossible to set rounding distances at every dangerous point. Sailors must be trained to the standards of seamanship to avoid such dangers. "

"unacceptable burden"? By establishing a waypoint in at least 60 feet some lives may have been saved. Other agencies seem to have no problem establishing speed limits or seat belt laws. I just don't see the "burden"?

Paul T


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

*sea hunter-* I don't think they're suggesting that Type2/3 pfds don't work, just that there are limits in the intended use and performance of every vest type--and that would include Type1.

A Type3 is designed more for waterskiers and fly fishermen where "I fell down in the water" is the situation. A Type1 is designed to rotate you face up, which is pretty useful.

But the USCG requirements for PFDs do not address issues that racing bodies have addressed, and pfd makers have addressed, which go beyond "keep the deceased floating". A few questions to PFD makers will reveal that they come in different bouyancy ratings. That spray masks and crotch straps are considered vital in open water. And if you're in the wrong line of business, Mustang even makes them with a bullet-resistant outer fabric.

The folks who don't want to be encumbered by a Type1, or just want a cheap vest because they'll never need to really use it, should know that up front. Each vest is valid _for a certain use._ None of the vests here failed, they all functioned as designed.

When I bought my automatic inflateable pfd, with harness, before they were approved for any type of use in the US (but were being used aboard Marine One for the president), folks saw a PFD and made nancy-boy jokes or asked if you couldn't swim. That's changed a little for the better today, but boaters still refuse to actually GET IN THE WATER and see how they work. Or, to spend the money and put up with the inconvenience of what will actually work.

Kinda like getting folks to use seat belts in cars: Some of them simply aren't interested. That's their choice.

*Paul-* 
I agree with "unaccceptable burden". Once you make the organizers select a point, you've now made a liability issue. Was it a safe point? Safe enough? Is 60' right, or should they hold off for deeper water? And then what, erect a tower on the spot? Or require all boats to use WAAS-GPS and submit track logs as proof they rounded the _imaginary _point?
Racers cut corners and go rockhopping all the time. Some of the hit the rocks, smash their keels, hole their boats, injure their crew. That's part of racing and really, this was no different. As the report also stated, three(?four?) other boats made it through that exact same spot without any problems, so arguably it was perfectly safe IF the skipper was observing the wave pattern and taking that into account. Waves, like passing freighters, won't be the same for every boat.
So, stick all that on the committee? Follow that to the logical conclusion, and then where are you? "Boats shall not leave the dock, because there may be freighters on the course."

No, I think the study was very logical. There ARE risks, and there ARE ways to minimize them. And if the racers, and the organizers, all just double-check each other to make sure everyone is aware of the issues, they can all be treated like adults and make their own decisions about them.

The same way that boats routinely withdraw from races as their personal decisions on weather are made.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

This is what the panel thought the racers could have minimally done:



> Although it is unlikely that the outcome would have been changed in this case, there were many ways other boats might have provided aid by signaling with those on shore, searching for those in the water, or providing continuing relays for radio communication. This topic is required in the standard US Sailing Safety At Sea seminars recommended above.


From their comments, it seems the bottom line is that, apart from radioing in the incident, the racers did nothing else. They just kept racing.

In terms of the first rule of seamanship _and_ racing - that's a serious black eye.


----------



## Chadfunk48 (Jun 8, 2006)

I can't imagine seeing a boat in distress (especially that kind of distress) and just sailing on by without stoping to help. I guess the race was more important than saving someones life to these guys?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I like to see ONE of you heroes even run in close to a sandy beach with 15' to 25' breaking waves and do anything but get YOUR crew KILLED 

Sometimes when you make you own fate with really bad picks NOBODY can BAIL you out and the rescue person DEATH RATE is rather HIGH


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

tommays said:


> I like to see ONE of you heroes even run in close to a sandy beach with 15' to 25' breaking waves and do anything but get YOUR crew KILLED
> 
> Sometimes when you make you own fate with really bad picks NOBODY can BAIL you out and the rescue person DEATH RATE is rather HIGH


I agree with you tom. And the report does say that the outcome likely would not have changed (i.e. - none of the racers could have, or should have, gotten in close to attempt a rescue).

But the point of the report is that there _were_ things that could have been done. Staying on scene until the CG got there being one of the most basic of them.

Don't shoot the messenger here. The report says what the report says.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"But the point of the report is that there were things that could have been done. Staying on scene until the CG got there being one of the most basic of them."

And exactly what would staying there have done? Aside from keeping the other boats close enough to breaking waves so as to endanger them?

I'm reminded of all the motorists who rubberneck highway accidents. I used to think they were just ghouls hanging out to see the carnage, then one day I rolled down my windows and heard the real dialogues.

"Hi, I'm a barber, does anyone there need a haircut? I could do it for you now."
"Hi, I'm an accountant. Have you filed your taxes yet? I could help you make sure that gets done while you're stuck here."
"Hi, I make really good brownies, should I bring some back for you? It looks like you're going to be stuck there for a while."

Oh yes, well intentioned folks, one and all.

While harsh and insensitive me, I just want to blitz on by and leave the response to the professionals on the scene unless there's REALLY something useful I can do. (And yes, I have been known to pull out an extinguisher or lend a hand if the pros were NOT there yet.)

So again, wtf could any of the other boats have done, given the danger from the position. Apparently the USCG was already complaining about "too many cooks spoil the soup" because of all the conflicting jabber they got from folks reporting the incident. Many boats DID call it in.

Remember: The wx, the geography, the incident. And the appearance that it was a _beached _boat, _not a MOB situation_. Not just "what can a boat do" in _other _situations.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Sorry

At the start of the 2009 ARLI it was blowing 40 knots + and (SV Lora-lee )or some such name was in trouble taking on water IT did end up OK 

BUT in there PANIC They Lacked the skill to even give there position and the Rescue Helicopters could NOT do anything let alone another boat 

IF you had have not had on a harness and went over you had two picks make it shore OR hope a CG rescue swimmer would risk there life because the odds of getting on a lifesling were LOW at best 

After taking safety at sea i can assure you the odds of climbing into a deployed life raft would be unlikely as 60% of the people could NOT even do it in the swimming pool


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> "But the point of the report is that there were things that could have been done. Staying on scene until the CG got there being one of the most basic of them."
> 
> And exactly what would staying there have done? Aside from keeping the other boats close enough to breaking waves so as to endanger them?
> 
> ...


Well, I don't know how to answer your question apart from what was said in the report. _They_ concluded that the things in that paragraph above _could have_ been done - but weren't.

As for the beached boat argument - precisely because of the geography and the conditions, anyone that concluded the boat on the rocks in huge pounding surf with a folded mast is simply "beached" without a very good chance of MOB, would not be the most observant sailor in the world.

This report was linked over at SA to give some perspective:

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets/Offshore/Hanson+Award/1999/3_1_99.pdf


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"anyone that concluded the boat on the rocks in huge pounding surf with a folded mast is simply "beached" without a very good chance of MOB, would not be the most observant sailor in the world."

By definition the most observant sailor in the world would be singularly unique. How close the rest of 'em are...What, you've never heard someone say "Get your eyes out of the boat" ? People get distracted, or fail to see the obvious. 

I've had the pleasure to be in surging surf among rocks and boulders, scuba diving. LIGHTLY surging. And I can tell you, with or without a boat there are places I'm just not going to be. Lee shore, rocks, breaking waves 30' tall ?! I don't think anyone would have the sense to say "Gee, is there anyone OUT HERE, out in the open water?" simply because the boat, and presumably whoever fell off it, was WASHED ONTO THE ROCKS. So you'd expect any MOB to be washed onto them as well, wouldn't you?

Or at best, you'd expect any MOB to be obvious in the water. Well, we know how that goes. We used to dive with small smoke flares in case we had to signal a pickup or distress, knowing that just waving and hollering at the boat "only" a couple of hundred yards away, they might never see us. Have you EVER met a sailor that had a smoke flare (they used to come in 35mm film cans) or aerial pen flares (sold in the UK but apparently discouraged as .45 caliber zip guns in the US) in their PFD?

Um, no. Not likely. And of course everyone says "have a whistle on your pfd" but if you've ever been IN the water, you know that the whistle is just a pacifier, in a 10mph wind someone 50 yards upwind of you can't hear it at all.

Most crew are out there to have fun. Doing serious safety prep, isn't fun. Heck, let's have a show of hands for who has EVER done a Safety At Sea seminar. (And I'll be the first to confess, I haven't been to one in the last five years.)

Look, there's a boat on the rocks. Whoa, dude, let me put that on twitter. YouTube. FoxNews. 

Remember, this race was NOT run under full offshore rules, you can't expect the racers to be held to the same standards for awareness or experience.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> "anyone that concluded the boat on the rocks in huge pounding surf with a folded mast is simply "beached" without a very good chance of MOB, would not be the most observant sailor in the world."
> 
> By definition the most observant sailor in the world would be singularly unique. *How close the rest of 'em are...What, you've never heard someone say "Get your eyes out of the boat" ? People get distracted, or fail to see the obvious.*
> 
> ...


Okay.

On the bolded parts - I think the issue is that no one stopped racing to see what, if anything, could be done. That's a problem. And the report simply points that out.

Also, that's why the other rescue in that second pdf report was so admirable...and awarded.

There are always a million reasons not to stop and help. So I guess we all have to make our choices. Personally, I'm going to take a SAS seminar.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Page 9, sec. 1.6.6 of the report, says Voss saw boats heading in both directions. I can't see any reason for boats heading in "both" directions, unless the ones going "backwards" were in fact trying to appraise the situation and remain on station.

We just don't know. As usual, there's conflicting information, even after the investigation.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> Page 9, sec. 1.6.6 of the report, says Voss saw boats heading in both directions. I can't see any reason for boats heading in "both" directions, unless the ones going "backwards" were in fact trying to appraise the situation and remain on station.
> 
> We just don't know. As usual, there's conflicting information, even after the investigation.


This is addressed in the last sentence of that same paragraph:



> He reported he was heartened to see several race boats off Maintop Bay, heading in both directions, which he interpreted *(incorrectly) *to mean the boats were standing by to help.


I don't remember details regarding why they said his interpretation that boats were standing by was "incorrect". Maybe it was that boats were rounding both ways, or that there were a couple of boats momentarily holding up, I don't know...

But I don't see a conflict in the language on this issue (other than Voss' "incorrect" interpretation).


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> *sea hunter-* I don't think they're suggesting that Type2/3 pfds don't work, just that there are limits in the intended use and performance of every vest type--and that would include Type1.
> 
> A Type3 is designed more for waterskiers and fly fishermen where "I fell down in the water" is the situation. A Type1 is designed to rotate you face up, which is pretty useful.
> 
> ...


Points taken. I raced off road motorcycles in the desert for many years and took on the responsibility to stay on the course as laid out rather than "cutting corners" to make time, and possibly going down an abandoned mine shaft. I agree that people should be responsible for their own actions and then let the chips fall where they may. However, I think the CG will yield to public outcry and make the organizers "do something" to appease the hand ringers. Well, they did, canceling all ocean races. I don't know what the race status is now but I would think the CG has the last word. Establishing waypoints is "something" that could be easily done and monitored and I think the organizers would be seen as making a "good faith" effort on behalf of the racers safety.

Paul T


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Smack, what did they say about tethers? Frankly, it seems that they really don’t have any substantive findings and like the USCG, are spreading blame around while not finding any specific deficiencies. I don’t understand the communications thing. I’m already required to submit my crew list along with their contact information no later than Wednesday before the race so it can be forwarded to the USCG. My MMSI number is part of race registration and I required to have a radio, a cockpit radio, and a cell telephone in a watertight case. Does this mean in the future, each crewmember also need to have their own radio and EPIRB? I am required to do a radio check-in before the start, check in if I abandon, If I’m out past a certain point in time, I must make hourly check ins, I must radio (or telephone) when I return under GG Bridge and before finishing – how much more communicating do we need to do?

The safe rounding thing is a good point. Unlike Smack, I’ve actually raced around the Farallones and frankly, the last thing I’m looking at is the depth sounder or GPS when actually rounding the north end. All my attention is taken up by safely steering through the waves. The “confused sea-state starts at the Golden Gate, 25 miles away and completely surrounds the Farallones). I have talked to fellow skippers and so far, everyone who races out there agrees with my assessment. Having everybody submit GPS tracks for each race isn’t very practical IMHO. Should we make every racer in America who races outside of protected bays and inlets buy a transponder? Add a couple hundred dollars to each race for renting this equipment is a sure fire way to kill the sport.

Sadly, 10-15 foot swells, 13 second periods and a 3 -5 foot wind wave is on the ragged edge and I personally wouldn’t risk the lives of my crew by choosing to “stand by” and wait for the helo to arrive. These conditions would mean that one wave in each set has the potential of rolling my boat so “heaving to” is out of the question and my heavy air tactics of running with the waves would put me far away in short order. My eye height on my boat is only about 6 feet above the waterline so most of the time I’m just looking at water in my immediate vicinity and would be of no help, unfortunately, in assisting the helicopter. I thought that passing boats were keeping a radio watch and providing updates to the USCG. I don’t know what else could be done without endangering additional mariners. For those of you (Smack) who say they would be “standing by to assist” frankly, have never really sailed in those conditions. This incident has weighed heavily on me, because I race the Gulf of Farallones and am intimately aware of how the conditions there can change and become life threatening.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

George - I didn't say anywhere that _I'd_ do something these racers didn't. I simply pointed out _what the report says_, and what that statement means in terms of how everyone in the world out there will read it. Rightly or wrongly, it's a black eye. Period.

Beau.V over on SA (a fairly knowledgeable/experienced dude in SF) summed that up as well as it can be.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=134043&view=findpost&p=3816409

So, again, _I'm_ not the issue here. I'm not making any judgements on anyone. I'm just posting what the report said.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

George, point taken on the waypoint. Having fished that area i can imagine that when you are that close things can get very busy, very fast. Do you or anyone else know what the CG has up its sleeve? As mentioned earlier my bet is that they will, or make the organizer, "do something". Wonder what it will be? I wouldn't be surprised to see them cancel that race, maybe more, permantely.

Paul T


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

George-
"Smack, what did they say about tethers?"
Among other things, that there was a bag full of tethers in the cockpit and jacklines rigged but the crew simply chose not to use them. And that if they had used them, they would have stayed on the boat and probably ridden it onto the tocks--and not drowned. I don't recall them concluding anything about requiring the use of tethers, but they do point out the failure to use them may have caused the drownings.

" Frankly, it seems that they really don’t have any substantive findings and like the USCG, are spreading blame around while not finding any specific deficiencies."
You may want to reread the report, tedious as it may be. Bear in mind that the authors have to be diplomatic. But they made it clear that the race organizers violated the terms of the event permit. That the race organizers made errors, like allowing one boat to check in with 8 SOB when their entry called for 7, and there was no ID for the 8th.
That the party in charge hadn't organized an offshore race in a decade, which is a polite way of saying, he probably wasn't prepared for the job this time.
That experienced persons should have been aware of the wave conditions, and that in future, in order to make sure everyone is aware of them, the race organizers should devote some time to addressing that point of education.
I saw a lot of points called out. No, they didn't levy all the blame on any one party, but they did point out there were multiple points of failure on the part of many.

" I don’t understand the communications thing. "
What's not to understand? The permit terms called for certain communications, which weren't honored. The racers who called in the incident, apparently couldn't give a proper description. (How many of us really would remember to call in a mayday in the sequence that the USCG prefers, with proper phonetics, with all the needed information and nothing to add confusion?) And how come none of the survivors remembered there was (as required) a cell phone in a waterproof container that they could have used when their VHFs didn't work? (I'm amazed a cell phone would work from out there, but the USCG seems to think it might.)
Lots of communications issues. And I'd bet that half of the radio calls to the USCG suffered from ordinary radio operator issues, i.e. folks start to talk before they have hit the transmit key, and part of what they say is garbled or lost every time. Little things like that add up.

George, I think it was all the way back on p.55 of the study that there was maps and photos. The folks who can't understand why boats wouldn't stand by, really ought to look at that bay. Couldn't find a better illustration of "dangerous lee shore" and a worse place to just hang out than off that bay.


----------



## Marcel D (Apr 15, 2012)

I have raced super bikes for 20 years and still lock up in some corners you push you crash. It is a very large loss, and will be felt for years to come. But at least some of us will stay a little further off a lee shore in the near future.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Marcel D said:


> I have raced super bikes for 20 years and still lock up in some corners you push you crash. It is a very large loss, and will be felt for years to come. But at least some of us will stay a little further off a lee shore in the near future.


Well said. My guess is that the CG will say something like this: "Even if it is inconvienent for the racers, you WILL establish waypoints (and probably a bunch of other stuff). "No waypoints, no race(s)"

Paul T


----------



## sea_hunter (Jul 26, 2000)

dabnis:906931 said:


> Marcel D said:
> 
> 
> > I have raced super bikes for 20 years and still lock up in some corners you push you crash. It is a very large loss, and will be felt for years to come. But at least some of us will stay a little further off a lee shore in the near future.
> ...


However tragic, this is one incident with most of the investigative evidence pointing squarely at the crew and skipper. The issue of rescue at the point of incident is mute, as any suggestion rescue at that point in time and place would have only added to this saddness. I doubt the USCG will do anything but make recommendations as this had little to do with the race, rather to a fatal conclusion of an insurmountable wave of seemingly insignificant mistakes.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

sea_hunter said:


> However tragic, this is one incident with most of the investigative evidence pointing squarely at the crew and skipper. The issue of rescue at the point of incident is mute, as any suggestion rescue at that point in time and place would have only added to this saddness. I doubt the USCG will do anything but make recommendations as this had little to do with the race, rather to a fatal conclusion of an insurmountable wave of seemingly insignificant mistakes.


Allow me to split hairs a bit here. No one, anywhere, has stated that the other boats should have gone into that break zone to try to rescue these people. That's a "red herring" argument.

What the report labeled as "troubling" is that _no one_ stood by in the area until the CG arrived. They all kept racing.

I personally agree with the report on this point. That is troubling.


----------



## sea_hunter (Jul 26, 2000)

smackdaddy:906953 said:


> Allow me to split hairs a bit here. No one, anywhere, has stated that the other boats should have gone into that break zone to try to rescue these people. That's a "red herring" argument.
> 
> What the report labeled as troubling is that _no one_ stood by in the area until the CG arrived. They all kept racing.
> 
> I personally agree with the report on this point. That is troubling.


With intimate knowledge of the area in this part of the world, standing by at this location, with the described sea conditions close enough to be any good would have been perilous. With the arrival of the USCG imminent, any other choice would be (or in this thread "not") academic.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

sea_hunter said:


> However tragic, this is one incident with most of the investigative evidence pointing squarely at the crew and skipper. The issue of rescue at the point of incident is mute, as any suggestion rescue at that point in time and place would have only added to this saddness. I doubt the USCG will do anything but make recommendations as this had little to do with the race, rather to a fatal conclusion of an insurmountable wave of seemingly insignificant mistakes.


The CG immediately cancelled ALL ocean races in that area. I don't know what the race status is now but I think it shows they are not bashfull about establishing restrictions with no doubt more to come.

Paul T


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Troubling can be good. It means that people have been forced to do something painful, i.e. think.

Personally, I look at the pictures (not having been there), the charts, the reports of the wx at the time, the sightings (of the beached boat, etc.) and my thouhgts are that seahunter is right. In order to remain off the mouth of that bay you'd be going back and forth, attermpting to gybe and come about repeatedly, while broadside to the same wave system that smashed the first boat into that same lee shore.

And even given the skill to hold that position safely, if the water is pushing everything onto the same lee shore and rocks that Slow Chase wrecked on, then anyone MOB in that bay would also be pushed up--making water recovery flat out impossible, not just unlikely or un-thought-of.

Troubling can be good.

But to Paul's point of establishing a safety mark: Right, perhaps the Brits could also establish one for the rounding of the Fastnet Light? Not that anyone hit those rocks in that particular disaster, but still, do we want to set precedent for keep-away zones for racing in general? If you establish the standard for one race, one rock, you have to do it for all of them, or you may become (in the US) liable for not conforming with existing safety standards and practices.

We teach drivers not to drink and drive, but it doesn't stop drunk driving. But we don't punish _everyone _because _a few guys _overestimated themselves or their situation. No matter how deadly the outcome. (And I think the USCG cancelled all race _event permits_--not all races. You only need a permit if the event hits certain criteria, and a clever organizer could probably work around that to run without one.)

Of course we could do what the Corps of Engineers did in NYC's Hell Gate, including a couple of islands that no one remembers the names of today. Blow the island up as a hazard to navigation and leave clear water on the spot. Works for me. Anyone else want to sign the petition?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

sea_hunter said:


> With intimate knowledge of the area in this part of the world, standing by at this location, with the described sea conditions close enough to be any good would have been perilous. With the arrival of the USCG imminent, any other choice would be (or in this thread "not") academic.


The problem is that the report says otherwise. Again, personally, I have absolutely no judgement on the details of the argument...I wasn't there, and I don't have enough experience to critique people or specifics. And I certainly agree with you that standing-by near a lee shore in rough conditions is not wise.

But, disregarding all of the "local knowledge" required to judge the specifics, _the report said that more could have been done by those racers_ who apparently did not stand-by in any capacity, in a broader area-of-safety, etc. - but simply continued to race.

That means something. This panel is not simply a bunch of clueless newbs.

Statements like yours above ("close enough to be any good", etc.) are being put out quite a bit to excuse these decisions. But what does "be any good" mean? If it _only_ means sail into the break zone to try to rescue, or stay close to the lee shore - that's one thing. But the panel listed several other things that _could have_ been done...things that _would have_ been "good"...but that weren't done.

It's exactly this black-and-white decision making that is being critiqued in this report.

Again, I personally can't judge what would have been the right course of action in that specific area at that specific time. No idea.

What I _can_ do (and what most other readers outside the area WILL do) is have an opinion on the general idea of whether it's better to continue to race after having just seen a fellow racing boat with a broken mast washed up on a rocky lee shore by huge waves. Or, whether it's better to lower the sails, motor to an area you feel is safe, and keep watch in the area as best you can until the CG arrives. Isn't that simply respect for your fellow sailors?

Maybe I'm alone in this general sentiment. But I don't like the idea of leaving people behind. Or is this Everest?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I fully agree with you, Smack. 

You may have heard that (military) sailors often play poker and shoot craps. This so that if anyone falls overboard, they can ask "Did he owe anyone money?" and his mates will do everything they can to rescue the fellow.

In the absence of a good craps game...I must have gotten glazed eyes and not seen that section of the report. If it said the other boats COULD have done something, but does not enumerate what they could have done, I think USSA would be able to respond to that. Surely some of the authors would recall what they were thinking of.

As a practical matter? I'm thinking that the expectation from the USCG would be for someone to remain on scene to "point to" the wreck, i.e. directing them in to it. Except, of course, that might be protocol but it hardly would be necessary, would it?

So, how'd you like to be the point of contact, and ask them?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Troubling can be good. It means that people have been forced to do something painful, i.e. think.
> 
> Personally, I look at the pictures (not having been there), the charts, the reports of the wx at the time, the sightings (of the beached boat, etc.) and my thouhgts are that seahunter is right. In order to remain off the mouth of that bay you'd be going back and forth, attermpting to gybe and come about repeatedly, while broadside to the same wave system that smashed the first boat into that same lee shore.
> 
> ...


Hello& all,

As mentioned in an earlier post, I think one should be responsible for their own actions. I agree, where does all the "touchy, feely" stuff end? However, as mentioned earlier, it is my opinion the CG will be pressured, in their own mind anyway, to "do something". I only offered the waypoints as probably the least invasive measure they could take. Or they could (may?) just permantely cancel ALL ocean races.

Paul T


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Paul, I would suggest safety seminars are less intrusive than painting big red X'es on the ocean. In the same way that a certain % of the crew is required to have SaS training for offshore races, the USCG could require some type of safety training or education level for crews on "event permit" races, as a condition of the permit. Of course that would mean some time and money, either to hold sessions or to produce an online course, but it would educate greater numbes of boaters, and that might be a better idea than trying to use technology as a cure.

Remember, the USCG can't cancel or prevent ocean races in general. Their only authority to do that would be on a vessel-by-vessel basis as "manifestly unsafe". What they've done is to cancel permits for events, and those permits are required only when a race creates a presence that might conflict with traffic in channels, restricted waters, etc. (There's a list of requirements somewhere online.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason for the cancellation was along the lines of "Oh, and you guys didn't think you had to follow the permit regulations that you had agreed to?" Wham, yes, pull the rug out from under the organizers to make Real Damned Sure they comply with things like check-in and attendance (crew list) procedures.

LSC had seven or eight SOB. SO now when the SAR teams go out, how many do they look for? Seven? Or eight? No one knows, and that complicates and endangers the response. How many assets do you keep out for how many hours, or days, trying to see if there is an 8th victim? Or not?

I couldn't see why the USCG would be po'd enough to cancel everything, but after hearing this, I certainly can.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

hello, I posted this "what could have been done" part of the report above:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...unt-low-speed-chase-tragedy-3.html#post906474

There are also several places in the report that talk more about this (interviews, etc.).


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Thank you, I missed that in the noise. 

I'm not sure how "might" applies, or how signaling to those ashore could have helped anything. Signalling? What, semaphore flashes? To tell them what? Not having been there, I can only think that if EVERYONE chose to move on, perhaps they had reasons to do so. Radio relays? Honestly, to who, about what? This sounds more like a "We weren't there, let's CYA on this". And if that's what they were doing (being diplomatic and CYA) I wouldn't expect any further clarification from them.



"Although it is unlikely that the outcome would have been changed in this case, there were many ways other boats might have provided aid by signaling with those on shore, searching for those in the water, or providing continuing relays for radio communication. This topic is required in the standard US Sailing Safety At Sea seminars recommended above. "


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Paul, I would suggest safety seminars are less intrusive than painting big red X'es on the ocean. In the same way that a certain % of the crew is required to have SaS training for offshore races, the USCG could require some type of safety training or education level for crews on "event permit" races, as a condition of the permit. Of course that would mean some time and money, either to hold sessions or to produce an online course, but it would educate greater numbes of boaters, and that might be a better idea than trying to use technology as a cure.
> 
> Remember, the USCG can't cancel or prevent ocean races in general. Their only authority to do that would be on a vessel-by-vessel basis as "manifestly unsafe". What they've done is to cancel permits for events, and those permits are required only when a race creates a presence that might conflict with traffic in channels, restricted waters, etc. (There's a list of requirements somewhere online.)
> 
> ...


I think the bottom line is that if the CG doesn't want the race to take place, it won't? Agree that education is easier than physical restrictions. However, I would have to think that the paid , professional skipper commanding LSC was fairly well "educated"? With no limitations he got too close, in my opinion. If this happened in a single handed race it would probably have been described as a tragic racing "accident". Five people dying puts it into the media feeding frenzy catagory, with, in my opinion, a knee jerk reaction from the CG to cancel ALL ocean races in that area. No doubt the CG will do "something".

Paul T


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I am pretty sure the stand down is over and there back in business 

At this point in time there have been MANY people killed because of a harness trapping them so now we have quick releases and safety cutters IF you can figure it out in the time you have before you drown 

At this point in time a bunch of people are alive (Rambler 100 for example keel failure) because nobody was wearing a harness when it inverted 

My money is pretty much on the harness BUT is can and still does go either way 

Again from SaS i have mentioned that boarding a life raft in a pool was NOT happening for over 60% one of the things i forgot was that figure approached 100% for people with and inflatable vest 

The inflatable vest kept there chest so far away from the raft they could not do the maneuver to stand and chuck themselves in until they did a manual deflation


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Guys, I haven’t had a chance to wade through the entire report yet (only was able to read the first few pages – doesn’t anybody do an “executive summary” anymore?) so I can only go by what Smack has written as a summary. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they did not come up with any specific findings or recommendations. Nothing like “wearing tethers will be mandatory”. Or “racers should round S. Farallone at least one half mile from shore”. But apparently the report had generalizations like “better training” and “communications”. Then there were the digs at the YRA directors and the other racers that day.

On the communications thing, what specifically was the problem? Did Quancy not use proper protocol when calling in the Mayday? For those of you unfamiliar with the area, S. Farallone is outside the range of 25w VHF. Effective communications are with the USCG who have really good and powerful radios and mountain top antennas. Even with race committees putting a relay radio at Lands end, effective communications only go about halfway to the islands. I thought I read that the emergency was passed from boat to boat – Perhaps this communication could have been done better?
The standing by thing bothers me as is the inadvertent slur to OYRA racers. These guys are the best group of sailors that I’ve ever met and they have a long tradition of rescuing and assisting mariners in peril. I know several of them who received USCG recognition for their deeds. This is not a callus bunch. We do what we can, but as skippers, we have a responsibility not to kill our own crews. I am dubious about the ability of “communicating” with somebody on shore from a half mile out to sea where the boat is rising and dropping 15-18 feet every thirteen seconds. It’s hard for you guys to understand this but once you reach the Farallones, you still have something like thirty miles to go before you reach “safe” waters. And you still have to cross the most dangerous part of the route (namely the Potato Patch and the South Shoal). These shoals have killed many more sailors than the Farallones. And by “standing by” for an hour or two would put most boats crossing the shoals after dark.

LSC was a tragic accident, she was a well founded boat skippered by a professional familiar with the area and sailed by an experienced crew. A simple miscalculation in their distance from shore and the sea state was the cause. I am all for increased safety awareness and have a personal stake in it as I race around the Farallones. Perhaps the safety briefings already done in the first skipper meeting could be “punched up” or done in every meeting? After the accident, the USCG cancelled permits for the next couple of races but from Memorial Day on, all the races have been held as scheduled. I know that all the previously issued permits were cancelled and had to be reapplied. Outside of the USCG putting a buoy on this point, (which I am in favor of, heck, they could move the mid-channel buoy from Bonita Channel that “protects” a rock thirty feet below the surface in an area that deep draft ships are restricted to go), I don’t see them doing much. The problem is this area is dangerous in high winds and sea states. There are still plenty of calm days when a half mile offset would not make since. I happen to know one of our YRA directors and I will be certain to “chat him up” the next time I see him at the club and report back.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"With no limitations he got too close, in my opinion."

Remember, Paul, that several other boats took the same track and had no problem. 

This isn't like picking the right line through the curves on a paved race track. The ocean isn't static, and the PLACE was apparently not the single real problem. Wave conditions were equally important. And as with so many things in life, timing can be everything. 

I know I've cringed when I see the places where some boats go rockhopping. Wouldn't catch me there, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop someone else from endangering their own boat. Their crew? Maybe momma didn't teach them, don't hitchhike with strangers. But they are adults, and free to make their own decisions.

Sage advice, I'll be glad to listen to. (Even when I know it is sometimes niether sage nor correct.) A nanny-state telling me I can't do things? Uh-uh. I know where that winds up.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Without having been there, it's impossible to assess whether other competitors could have assisted. That really is the height of armchair quarterbacking. I would guess that the boats that were close enough to see what was transpiring made the immediate decision that it was quite obviously foolish and dangerous to get close enough to be of any assistance whatsoever. I cannot imagine any sailor NOT helping if it was at all possible. Is anyone familiar with the spot? Would it have been possible for someone to come up behind and get ashore on the lee of that island and walk over to see if they could do anything from the shore? Maybe next time, a surf-capable RIB or even a couple of rescue jet skis could be stationed close-by so people in the water could be dragged out past the surf before being tossed on the rocks. Just a thought.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> "With no limitations he got too close, in my opinion."
> 
> Remember, Paul, that several other boats took the same track and had no problem.
> 
> ...


"Remember, Paul, that several other boats took the same track and had no problem." They were very lucky. 24 feet in big seas, and a northerly current, is in my opinion, WAY too close. I have sailed and fished these waters for many years and would no doubt be called a coward by the racer set because I am AFRAID to get that close to a very nasty lee shore. In my motorcyle racing experience it took me a while to learn that the throttle is adjustable. Again, I totally agree that one should be responsible for their own actions but the ones "in-charge" may not see it that way?

Paul T


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> The standing by thing bothers me as is the inadvertent slur to OYRA racers. These guys are the best group of sailors that I've ever met and they have a long tradition of rescuing and assisting mariners in peril. I know several of them who received USCG recognition for their deeds. This is not a callus bunch. We do what we can, but as skippers, we have a responsibility not to kill our own crews. I am dubious about the ability of "communicating" with somebody on shore from a half mile out to sea where the boat is rising and dropping 15-18 feet every thirteen seconds. It's hard for you guys to understand this but once you reach the Farallones, you still have something like thirty miles to go before you reach "safe" waters. And you still have to cross the most dangerous part of the route (namely the Potato Patch and the South Shoal). These shoals have killed many more sailors than the Farallones. And by "standing by" for an hour or two would put most boats crossing the shoals after dark.


George - I totally agree with everything said in your post. And my only point has been that this statement was indeed "a slur" on these sailors.

Ideally, it will lead to more discussion and perspective like you've provided in your post.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Is anyone familiar with the spot? Would it have been possible for someone to come up behind and get ashore on the lee of that island and walk over to see if they could do anything from the shore?"

smurph, you've missed a few posts and not read the appendix of the report, have you?

Those who know the area say it is dangerous, period. The appendix of the report makes it look like a great place to get hurt, from any angle.

Even an armchair quarterback knows a hundred-yard pass into a headwind ain't gonna happen.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> "Is anyone familiar with the spot? Would it have been possible for someone to come up behind and get ashore on the lee of that island and walk over to see if they could do anything from the shore?"
> 
> smurph, you've missed a few posts and not read the appendix of the report, have you?
> 
> ...


To the best of my knowledge the ONLY way to get ashore without dying is in a basket lift located at the research building south of where LSC went aground. From pictures, as I have not been on the island, it looks very steep and rocky.
Maybe, in dead flat calm conditions in the fall, one could get ashore but other than talking to someone, I doubt that anything could be done . When commercial fishing in that area we always stood well away, scary place.

Paul T

Paul T


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

hellosailor said:


> "Is anyone familiar with the spot? Would it have been possible for someone to come up behind and get ashore on the lee of that island and walk over to see if they could do anything from the shore?"
> 
> smurph, you've missed a few posts and not read the appendix of the report, have you?
> 
> ...


Yeah, you're right. I have not been following this thread for a while and just leafed through quickly today. Will have to read the report. The newest overhead pix make it look very nasty. Getting anywhere NEAR that white water is nuts. I would not choose to venture very close, certainly no where even remotely near that break. One of the pix does seem to show a spot around the back side where a boat could conceivably hold in the lee and send someone ashore but I'll bet no one even had a dink since they were racing.

I've been wondering what has become of the Ensenada accident. I thought the CG was going to issue a finding.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Although this thread is about sailboat racing here are a couple of links about the Farallones. 
The first one has an interesting video, a little bit long, but informative:

Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association protecting our ocean wilderness through public stewardship






Paul T


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

That is a harrowing (and extensive) report. The awful communications failures are something that can be addressed in the future. BUT, how can anyone be wearing a freaking belt pack preserver in an offshore race with 25 knot winds and 20' seas??? How is it that only one person had a tether attached to his harness? How is it that no one was checking depth? No one looking seaward (in the previous video as well)??? In the responses of sailors, it seems there was sloppiness virtually everywhere as if the whole culture of this race is rather nonchalant. Bet it won't be next year.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

smurphny said:


> That is a harrowing (and extensive) report. The awful communications failures are something that can be addressed in the future. BUT, how can anyone be wearing a freaking belt pack preserver in an offshore race with 25 knot winds and 20' seas??? How is it that only one person had a tether attached to his harness? How is it that no one was checking depth? No one looking seaward (in the previous video as well)??? In the responses of sailors, it seems there was sloppiness virtually everywhere as if the whole culture of this race is rather nonchalant. Bet it won't be next year.


Will there be one next year? Anyone know, and if so, what will be the requirements?

Paul T


----------



## sea_hunter (Jul 26, 2000)

hellosailor:907077 said:


> "Is anyone familiar with the spot? Would it have been possible for someone to come up behind and get ashore on the lee of that island and walk over to see if they could do anything from the shore?"
> 
> smurph, you've missed a few posts and not read the appendix of the report, have you?
> 
> ...


Again this is a place to keep away from. Anybody having experience with Pacific swells knows a small chunk of rock becomes a butt puckering experience. I did not check the swell report for that day (a NOAA service normally used by surfers) but the weather report supports large, long swells. I've seen swells here 20-30' by 1/4 to 1/2 mile long mostly with a slow rise, building quickly as the waters shallow. After a good blow, swells up to 50' by a mile long are not uncommon depending on tide and depth. When they get close to shore they sometimes draw water away from shore something like the way a tidal wave works. There is no way you can fight this tidal effect in a boat unless the power to weight ratio is high. The CG practices touch and goes in ribs but is an extremely dangerous maneuver. Landing on the Farallons is risky at the best of times and even heaving to would leave you a mile or more off shore of the islands and close to commercial traffic lanes, a very risky and almost useless position to stand watch.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Here is a video of a Santa Cruz 50 going up the east side of the island. If I am seeing it correctly at about 4:15 they are going by the approximate spot where LSC was hit and shortly thereafter went on the rocks. At about 5:27 they round the north end of the island and are starting the downhill run home. In all the videos we have taken in the open ocean the videos don't show how rough it really was so, in my estimation this was a pretty rough day, although not unusual for that time of year.

Farallones Race | Sail Feed

Paul T


----------



## sea_hunter (Jul 26, 2000)

dabnis:907394 said:


> Here is a video of a Santa Cruz 50 going up the east side of the island. If I am seeing it correctly at about 4:15 they are going by the approximate spot where LSC was hit and shortly thereafter went on the rocks. At about 5:27 they round the north end of the island and are starting the downhill run home. In all the videos we have taken in the open ocean the videos don't show how rough it really was so, in my estimation this was a pretty rough day, although not unusual for that time of year.
> 
> Farallones Race | Sail Feed
> 
> Paul T


Actually it wasn't that rough and this is normal this time of year in the area. The skiff of chop on the surface of the swell is from a change in wind direct; a sign the weather is changing. What you don't see unless you look very carefully at the horizon shot, is the range of the swell. That's what got them as close to shore the swell becomes like a big fist and the only way out is horsepower, which unfortunately, a sailboat lacks.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

From Latitude 38: Latitude 38 - The West's Premier Sailing & Marine Magazine.

"It may seem early to be worrying about next year's ocean races, but one reader asked the question, so we sought out an answer. Paul Thomas wrote, "Just curious if there will be a 2013 Full Crew Farallones Race and if so, what restrictions, if any, will apply to the course layout?

We sent Paul's question to Andy Newell, President of the Ocean Yacht Racing Association, the charter organization that runs San Francisco's ocean races as part of the YRA. "At this point we plan to have a Full Crew Farallones Race in 2013," said Newell. "I don't foresee any course restrictions, but we may opt for a port only rounding like the other races there. I do expect there will be new training requirements, like US Sailing Safety at Sea seminars and skippers meetings as suggested in the report from US Sailing on the Low Speed Chase incident."

No mention of the CG's position on the above?

Paul T


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

I do not think the US Coast Guard is quite as likely to dismiss the idea of a physical or virtual stand-off mark out of hand as "too burdensome". And if I were the USCG, "more education and awareness" would seem not a good enough answer. Also, I suspect that the organizing authorities might not have so much latitude in the future to water down the requirements for flotation equipment to where a professional skipper could be okay with a belt pack inflatable. And, it might not be surprising if wearing tethers became required under certain conditions.
-- As I understand it, the waves can refract part way around the Farallones, and do a certain amount of swirling and bouncing around the shallow areas, so that there is often not much of a lee shore. In other words, some of it is bad, and the rest is worse.
-- One thing that has not been addressed in the reports I've seen is whether the authorities might want to impose a no-go zone for racers on the basis of the Farallones being a marine sanctuary and critical marine habitat.


----------

