# Team Vestas Wind grounded in the VOR



## PaulinVictoria

Volvo Ocean Race / Team Vestas Wind statement | Volvo Ocean Race 2014-2015


----------



## mbianka

Will be interesting to find out where their navigational failure was?


----------



## jzk

Sounds like a case of not paying attention.



mbianka said:


> Will be interesting to find out where their navigational failure was?


----------



## paulk

Aren't these guys supposed to be professionals? It's one thing to perhaps lose a rig when you get rolled in the Southern Ocean, or in a storm. But to run aground and lose the boat? Even if you draw 20+ feet, there are lots of deep places to sail fast in. I've been on a ketch where we banged the bottom while racing, but we raised the centerboard and kept going. Did they forget they're not in a dinghy?


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey, as they say, "it's just a matter of time before you run aground like a VOR sailor".


----------



## smackdaddy

Unfortunately, this is going to put a huge dent in Nico's sailing career. That sucks. I really admire the guy.

It sounds pretty dicey. They are in the middle of nowhere. I hope Alvi can help them.


----------



## smackdaddy

Just saw that the Vestas crew is safe on an island and Alvi is racing again:

Team Vestas Wind updates | Volvo Ocean Race 2014-2015


----------



## MedSailor

This makes me feel better about running into a rock at 6+knots in a Catalina 400 under spinnaker a couple years ago. 

(Wasn't the driver or navigator at the time btw)

Medsailor


----------



## drosymor

Professional or not, finding an uncharted reef the hard way is bound to ruin your day.


----------



## JonEisberg

drosymor said:


> Professional or not, finding an uncharted reef the hard way is bound to ruin your day.


Not exactly what I'd call "uncharted", that archipelago is actually indicated on the 12" globe I have sitting on my desk... 

0:28 seconds in, you can see the chart being used aboard ALVIMEDICA...

A Long Night Ahead - Team Alvimedica Talk with Team Vestas - YouTube


----------



## drosymor

I stand corrected. I should have looked closer.


----------



## Morild

All crew memebers are safe.
The picture shows the boat on the reef.


----------



## weinie

Is that Sea Tow in the foreground?


----------



## chall03

So when do we start the " Around the world races gone wrong thread"?

Maybe the SDR organisers could help these poor folk out running some sort of _don't hit reefs_ briefing pre departure.


----------



## Group9

Like a race car hitting a wall because the driver got too close trying to cut his time.

I'm sure they thought they were going to miss the reef by several feet.


----------



## mbianka

Skipper of the boat has phone conversation about being "shipwrecked" after hitting reef:
Marooned in the Indian Ocean, Skipper of Team Vestas Wind Describes Situation - gCaptain Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## Slayer

Here is a link to a good pic!

Vestas from the air | Volvo Ocean Race 2014-2015


----------



## mbianka

Very lucky there were no injuries as they hit at 19 knots. Though of course most might have been sleeping in their bunks. Looks like a pretty big reef wonder how many people were supposed to be on watch? A good reminder how things can break bad even with an experienced crew and a boat tricked out with all kinds of electronics.


----------



## Group9

Sad to see that boat all busted up, but that's racing, I guess. NASCAR sure goes through them fast. Glad no one was hurt.


----------



## MedSailor

Group9 said:


> Sad to see that boat all busted up, but that's racing, I guess. NASCAR sure goes through them fast. Glad no one was hurt.


I'll be honest. I only watch sailing for the crashes. 

MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> So when do we start the " Around the world races gone wrong thread"?
> 
> Maybe the SDR organisers could help these poor folk out running some sort of _don't hit reefs_ briefing pre departure.


Smartass.


----------



## piclarke

chall03 said:


> So when do we start the " Around the world races gone wrong thread"?
> 
> Maybe the SDR organisers could help these poor folk out running some sort of _don't hit reefs_ briefing pre departure.


Poor navigation

Have they not heard about hazard waypoints facilities on chart plotters

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/173018-volvo-ocean-race-weather-tracker-2014-a.html

:laugher


----------



## mbianka

On board video of when they hit the reef. Looks like some of the on deck crew felt something was not quite right. 
http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.htm..._campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29


----------



## joyinPNW

I never want to be in that position. Ever. That video was scary and absolutely painful to watch. And, rather than the usual blame game, I'd love to learn more of what led them to overlook their position. It's a helpful reminder that the small details can come back and bite you. I hope they can stay in the race-there was some talk on another site of making another boat quickly? Really?


----------



## smackdaddy

There is some great discussion on this going on over at SA. This looks like it's going to fall on Wouter.


----------



## chall03

joyinPNW said:


> I never want to be in that position. Ever. That video was scary and absolutely painful to watch. And, rather than the usual blame game, I'd love to learn more of what led them to overlook their position. It's a helpful reminder that the small details can come back and bite you. I hope they can stay in the race-there was some talk on another site of making another boat quickly? Really?


+1

Some the best sailors in the world on that boat. If they can get it so wrong, so could I....

Over to SA I go.


----------



## Morild

From Wouters (navigators) own Facebook page:

We finally have means of communications again, so a message is highly over due....

I am totally devastated and still in shock as the gravity of our grounding is slowly sinking in now that we are safely in Mauritius with finally some time to reflect on what happened.

We are very lucky that nobody was hurt, and a lot of that is credit to our team work in the seconds, minutes and hours after the crash.

I made a big mistake, but then we didn't make any others even though there were many difficult decision to be made and the situation was very challenging and grave indeed.

Once I can get power to the boats laptops (if they survived) I can look further into how we didn't see the reef on the electronic charts. I did check the area on the electronic chart before putting my head down for a rest after a very long day negotiating the tropical storm and what I saw was depths of 42 and 80m indicated. There is a very good article posted on http://blog.geogarage.com/&#8230;/questions-asked-about-volvo-oce&#8230; which highlights some of the zooming problem in the vectorised charts that we used. 
I can assure you that before every leg we diligently look at our route before we leave and I use both Google Earth, paper charts and other tools. However, our planned route changed just before we left, and with the focus on the start and the tricky conditions, I erroneously thought I would have enough information with me to look at the changes in our route as we went along. I was wrong. I am not trying to make any excuses - just trying to offer up some form of explanation and answer to some of your questions.

There are a number of lessons to be learned from this, which we hope will be able to relay in the time to come.

I am immensely grateful for all the support that we as a team, my family and myself have received from our wonderful friends, colleagues, family, Vestas, Powerhouse and Volvo. More over we are heavily in debt to the thorough support of Alvimedica throughout the first night, as well as the local fisherman and the coastguard of Ile du Sud in the atol. So I want to thank everybody so very much. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I am forever in your debt.

Wouter


----------



## chall03

Morild said:


> I did check the area on the electronic chart before putting my head down for a rest after a very long day negotiating the tropical storm and what I saw was depths of 42 and 80m indicated. There is a very good article posted on http://blog.geogarage.com/&#8230;/questions-asked-about-volvo-oce&#8230; which highlights some of the zooming problem in the vectorised charts that we used - wouter.


Seriously?

I'm not hugely into the blame game, but did a VOR navigator just realise the issues involved with zoom levels on vectorised charts?

I'm speechless.


----------



## mbianka

Did no one even look at some large scale paper charts of the area as a quick backup check? They did have paper charts on board too right?


----------



## Morild

mbianka said:


> Did no one even look at some large scale paper charts of the area as a quick backup check? They did have paper charts on board too right?


Only Dong-feng has paper-charts onboard in the current leg.


----------



## JonEisberg

Morild said:


> Only Dong-feng has paper-charts onboard in the current leg.


I'm almost certain all the competitors are required to have paper aboard according to the race rules...

Whether they're required to actually _LOOK AT_ them, is another matter entirely... )


----------



## jzk

This statement is a disappointment. He had much time to think about how he would own up to this, and at the end of the day, he wussed out.

1. If he thought they were going through a patch of 40m and 82m, then that warranted not only "zooming in," but discussion with other members of the crew.

2. Then he blames it on the "zoom problems" which is complete nonsense. All of the charts show depth contours at every zoom level such that it would warrant anyone paying attention to zoom in.

3. Then he tries to say that the mistake was not having everything he needed. He had everything he needed. He just didn't look at it.



Morild said:


> From Wouters (navigators) own Facebook page:
> 
> We finally have means of communications again, so a message is highly over due....
> 
> I am totally devastated and still in shock as the gravity of our grounding is slowly sinking in now that we are safely in Mauritius with finally some time to reflect on what happened.
> 
> We are very lucky that nobody was hurt, and a lot of that is credit to our team work in the seconds, minutes and hours after the crash.
> 
> I made a big mistake, but then we didn't make any others even though there were many difficult decision to be made and the situation was very challenging and grave indeed.
> 
> Once I can get power to the boats laptops (if they survived) I can look further into how we didn't see the reef on the electronic charts. I did check the area on the electronic chart before putting my head down for a rest after a very long day negotiating the tropical storm and what I saw was depths of 42 and 80m indicated. There is a very good article posted on http://blog.geogarage.com/&#8230;/questions-asked-about-volvo-oce&#8230; which highlights some of the zooming problem in the vectorised charts that we used.
> I can assure you that before every leg we diligently look at our route before we leave and I use both Google Earth, paper charts and other tools. However, our planned route changed just before we left, and with the focus on the start and the tricky conditions, I erroneously thought I would have enough information with me to look at the changes in our route as we went along. I was wrong. I am not trying to make any excuses - just trying to offer up some form of explanation and answer to some of your questions.
> 
> There are a number of lessons to be learned from this, which we hope will be able to relay in the time to come.
> 
> I am immensely grateful for all the support that we as a team, my family and myself have received from our wonderful friends, colleagues, family, Vestas, Powerhouse and Volvo. More over we are heavily in debt to the thorough support of Alvimedica throughout the first night, as well as the local fisherman and the coastguard of Ile du Sud in the atol. So I want to thank everybody so very much. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
> 
> I am forever in your debt.
> 
> Wouter


----------



## tankersteve

I am a bit amazed at the hubris and superiority exhibited by many here. These are world class sailors. They have exceptional tools. A serious mistake was made, potentially by the navigator, or maybe the helmsman. We don't know yet.

Anyone look at how long they had been up prior to the incident? How stressed they were by preparing and dealing with the storm that eventually didn't impact them as severely as anticpated? 

Many seem quite content to offer their amazing insights from their comfortable homes, such as assuming they were asleep, not reviewing their course with paper charts (this is a rather long race - that would be a pretty tedious and likely overwhelming task, and likely low on the priority list), etc. 

I guess I am tired of the second-guessing from armchair experts before the facts are fully revealed. Calling out the navigator for not fully owning the incident at this point is pretty harsh too. He just had an incredibly stressful 48 hours, may have some legal liability concerns, to say nothing of his future employability, and some expect a soup-to-nuts mea culpa? 

I guess this isn't the forum for carefully considered examination of the incident and all the possible factors that will have to be examined to determine what went wrong and what the lessons to be learned actually are. Perhaps this forum is too open to anyone to offer their wonderful insight and expertise, regardless of their own experience or complete lack thereof. No vetting of who the truly knowledgable are and who needs to learn to stay in their lane. Is the forum too big for mods to do that, or is it not in the interest of the sponsors to provide timely, vetted, and knowledgable advice?

Tankersteve


----------



## joyinPNW

Agreed. But, these comments are nothing compared with other forums I've read where people are generally viciously unkind. It's disheartening and prevents many of us from learning actual lessons. I think it's very likely that the accident occurred due to a variety of reasons, with fatigue underlying all of them. We all have an _opportunity_ to view this and learn from it.


----------



## Faster

tankersteve said:


> I am a bit amazed at the hubris and superiority exhibited by many here. These are world class sailors. They have exceptional tools. A serious mistake was made, potentially by the navigator, or maybe the helmsman. We don't know yet.......
> 
> .........I guess this isn't the forum for carefully considered examination of the incident and all the possible factors that will have to be examined to determine what went wrong and what the lessons to be learned actually are. Perhaps this forum is too open to anyone to offer their wonderful insight and expertise, regardless of their own experience or complete lack thereof. No vetting of who the truly knowledgable are and who needs to learn to stay in their lane. * Is the forum too big for mods to do that*, or is it not in the interest of the sponsors to provide timely, vetted, and knowledgable advice?
> 
> Tankersteve


Steve... welcome to the world of internet experts... 

These forums are mostly similar in that regard.. I think of it as a virtual neighourhood pub where a group of like-interested people hang out and discuss various issues.. There's always a guy in the room who actually knows, another who doesn't but thinks he does.. and yet others who sit quietly, nurse their beers, and make up their own minds about the others and the issues at hand.

As to the mods vetting participants, just not going to happen. We are unpaid volunteers with no resources besides additional 'access' and permissions to modify some parts of the forum and postings. We have no means of checking anyone out, beyond banning the spammers and troublemakers once their true colours are shown.

It doesn't take too long for any of the participants/members here to make a reasonable assessment of 'the regulars' and to decide for yourself whether you want to take/use/respect their advice or point of view.

This incident is most amazing in that nobody was hurt.. I feel for all the crew, and most especially for whomever is going to end up wearing this - I'm sure it was not intentional, and equally sure it could be career ending for someone too.


----------



## clip68

tankersteve said:


> No vetting of who the truly knowledgable are and who needs to learn to stay in their lane. Is the forum too big for mods to do that, or is it not in the interest of the sponsors to provide timely, vetted, and knowledgable advice?
> 
> Tankersteve


Evidently you've not been around forums much, or the internet for that matter. Posts are not vetted for accuracy. The mods are here to make sure the rules aren't abused and to help folks with technical problems.

This is the internet. Anyone can say anything with impunity because they are anonymous. Caveat emptor is the phrase on ANYTHING internet. Thinking otherwise is to making yourself a fool.

-Chris


----------



## kjango

two words....open forum Got it ???


----------



## killarney_sailor

Damn, that would spoil your day (year, forever). We managed to avoid that shoal on our way to Mauritius. It is pretty big and well-marked.


----------



## single2coil

Paul, thanks for keeping up the race interest. Nice to have a different subject


----------



## theonecalledtom

This incident sucks for the VOR, Team Vestas and most of all Wouter. He got lucky, as he must know, as everyone got out of this okay, though the environmental costs are not insignificant.

Sure he made a mistake but speaking as someone who's run aground a few times [plus a litany of other mistakes made while sailing], once at 7 knots in an area I knew was full of shoals and while sailing out of the channels I can only imagine the role that both fatigue and complacency took on this.

I won't make that particular mistake again and I'm pretty sure he won't make his again. I'd hire him....


----------



## jzk

What is your assessment of how these world class sailors with the best navigation equipment avialable crashed into a well charted reef?

It it too much to ask for a little responsibility?

How about "I am the captain, and full responsibility lies with me. Not only am I in charge of everything, but I should have been looking at the charts as well."

Instead, we got a load of how the CEO can't micromanage everyone all the time.

And the navigator: "I just missed it. I should have been paying closer attention."

Instead we have a bunch of crap about zoom levels, course changes, and his mistake being that he didn't bring the proper tools.

How would you feel if these world class sailors drove your kid's bus into a parked car, but all the kids made it out with just some bumps and bruises? Would you, not being a bus driver, have a right to a say in the matter?

But here is the thing. Anyone here that has ever been in charge of a boat should know enough to prevent this from happening let alone the world class sailors.



tankersteve said:


> I am a bit amazed at the hubris and superiority exhibited by many here. These are world class sailors. They have exceptional tools. A serious mistake was made, potentially by the navigator, or maybe the helmsman. We don't know yet.
> 
> Anyone look at how long they had been up prior to the incident? How stressed they were by preparing and dealing with the storm that eventually didn't impact them as severely as anticpated?
> 
> Many seem quite content to offer their amazing insights from their comfortable homes, such as assuming they were asleep, not reviewing their course with paper charts (this is a rather long race - that would be a pretty tedious and likely overwhelming task, and likely low on the priority list), etc.
> 
> I guess I am tired of the second-guessing from armchair experts before the facts are fully revealed. Calling out the navigator for not fully owning the incident at this point is pretty harsh too. He just had an incredibly stressful 48 hours, may have some legal liability concerns, to say nothing of his future employability, and some expect a soup-to-nuts mea culpa?
> 
> I guess this isn't the forum for carefully considered examination of the incident and all the possible factors that will have to be examined to determine what went wrong and what the lessons to be learned actually are. Perhaps this forum is too open to anyone to offer their wonderful insight and expertise, regardless of their own experience or complete lack thereof. No vetting of who the truly knowledgable are and who needs to learn to stay in their lane. Is the forum too big for mods to do that, or is it not in the interest of the sponsors to provide timely, vetted, and knowledgable advice?
> 
> Tankersteve


----------



## chall03

tankersteve said:


> Perhaps this forum is too open to anyone to offer their wonderful insight and expertise, regardless of their own experience or complete lack thereof. No vetting of who the truly knowledgable are and who needs to learn to stay in their lane. Is the forum too big for mods to do that, or is it not in the interest of the sponsors to provide timely, vetted, and knowledgable advice?
> 
> Tankersteve


I understand your frustration with threads like this. I believe though one of the great things about this forum is that it is indeed open to anyone to express their opinion which in the past has led to some very enlightening discussions.

It is up to you to decide who is worth listening to and who is not.

Before throwing around the 'armchair sailor' line you might be surpirsed by the level and diversity of experience in this thread.

As for blame I agree, it's premature and I sure there will be plenty of that going on behind the scenes but I actually read Wouter's FB post as him quite happily putting his hand up and admitting mistakes had been made.

I did just find the comment about zoom levels on vector charts coming from him ummm _surprising_..


----------



## theonecalledtom

I also read that post as someone saying they ****** up.

"I made a big mistake".


----------



## piclarke

Morild said:


> From Wouters (navigators) own Facebook page:
> 
> We finally have means of communications again, so a message is highly over due....
> 
> I am totally devastated and still in shock as the gravity of our grounding is slowly sinking in now that we are safely in Mauritius with finally some time to reflect on what happened.
> 
> We are very lucky that nobody was hurt, and a lot of that is credit to our team work in the seconds, minutes and hours after the crash.
> 
> I made a big mistake, but then we didn't make any others even though there were many difficult decision to be made and the situation was very challenging and grave indeed.
> 
> Once I can get power to the boats laptops (if they survived) I can look further into how we didn't see the reef on the electronic charts. I did check the area on the electronic chart before putting my head down for a rest after a very long day negotiating the tropical storm and what I saw was depths of 42 and 80m indicated. There is a very good article posted on http://blog.geogarage.com/&#8230;/questions-asked-about-volvo-oce&#8230; which highlights some of the zooming problem in the vectorised charts that we used.
> I can assure you that before every leg we diligently look at our route before we leave and I use both Google Earth, paper charts and other tools. However, our planned route changed just before we left, and with the focus on the start and the tricky conditions, I erroneously thought I would have enough information with me to look at the changes in our route as we went along. I was wrong. I am not trying to make any excuses - just trying to offer up some form of explanation and answer to some of your questions.
> 
> There are a number of lessons to be learned from this, which we hope will be able to relay in the time to come.
> 
> I am immensely grateful for all the support that we as a team, my family and myself have received from our wonderful friends, colleagues, family, Vestas, Powerhouse and Volvo. More over we are heavily in debt to the thorough support of Alvimedica throughout the first night, as well as the local fisherman and the coastguard of Ile du Sud in the atol. So I want to thank everybody so very much. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
> 
> I am forever in your debt.
> 
> Wouter


From

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/173018-volvo-ocean-race-weather-tracker-2014-a.html

*HAZARD WAYPOINTS*

*Most GPS,s mine does a Garmin.

The First thing a astute navigator does on land before departing port and while sober, refreshed, not tired and having time whilst the others are doing other things is - Adding or replacing hazard waypoints to the hazard waypoint list on the GPS's including handhelds depending on how many [HW] can be stored plus giving the list to all crew members and asking them to place them add to their handheld GPS"s. *

When doing a route with all the waypoints [ could be 46 waypoints ] for the intended track from the paper charts cords LAT and Long to three decimal's places you then scan the paper charts with the path drawn - connected [on the paper charts] and observe the hazards to which ever distance the nav - skipper deems prudent to avoid, either side, in case crew fall asleep - making coffee etc. or to alert them for extra care near hazards. To do this obtain the co ords lat and longitude from the paper charts of all the hazards the vessel is going to pass close by and then enter the hazard waypoint list [GPS] and place / enter them with a code or name for the hazard [ as separate waypoints] re enter the waypoints the distance you want a alarm to sound - flash should the vessel enter the area between the hazard and the waypoint lat and longs co ordinances when using / navigating with the highway route page - screen. The hazards [ icon ] also appear automatically on the highway route path page and the marks you want to be the closest distance to.

Hazards waypoints are there permanently until removed from the list.

This is also can be done using C maps. When the route is completed, [check the route ] there is provision for the programme to scan / check [ scan route ] the route highway co ordinates path both sides simultaneously .

highway path width distance say =.250 nms

and highlights - pauses for a carry on command from the nearby hazard.

The paper charts Co ords are entered [ Not so many meters from the electronic chart impression ]

C maps and electronic charts are not accurate unless on a commercial shipping lane or a commercial PORT land harbour. [ Harbour mode ]

The electronic charts can be adjusted if aligned with the port land leading markers, [ snail trail ] but that is visual and not satellite pin pointed but narrows the inaccuracy, depending on your eye sight and the helmsman steering a straight course [Wheel or Tiller ].

Aljazeera last evening had close shots filmed on the reef re the crew removing all their removable equipment. The film crew where obvious standing on the dry reef [ Must have been low tide - boat high and dry sitting on the rudders and canting keel with very little water surrounding the boat. Looked a large reef and would be well chartered - if not it will be now.

All the hype and worry re a tropical cyclone. All the photos even from Alvinmedic at daylight showed calm seas. All the internet wind data showed approx. 35 to 47 Klph at the centre wind speeds. 
They where sailing around the edge and the depression weather system moved eastwards away from them also before they grounded. Also surely they where constantly receiving advice from their shore crew which probably stated the path off the leading boats ahead, which passed close by during daylight hours. They the leading boat even made a comment re "darkness hours" how easy it would have been for them to hit the reef if it had off been night hours sailing conditions. They where so close they could see the reef from the deck not by having a crew aloft on the spreaders on spot watch. Their shore crew probably advised them the route to take knowing they would have daylight visual and the following night time boats would not and hey presto with a bit of luck we will eliminate the girls and a couple of other boats. *Well they the spiders caught the flies did they not with the web.*

The weather system at no time was a category 3 or higher cyclone. The had stronger more powerful weather systems around the horn and cape.

No further comment.


----------



## paulk

According to the Vestas website the reef they hit was high enough to enable them to walk to a dry area(!). Does that make it an island? If they were doing 19 knots, there must have been wind, and therefore waves breaking on and near the shore. No one saw anything? No one questioned anything? How much experience does it take to ask "What's that line of white stuff we're sailing into in five minutes? What's that noise?" Perhaps ISAF needs to adjust their "pro" status. I wouldn't pay them to sail with me.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Something seemed a bit odd in the video. They were on port tack sailing free when they hit. I assume they would still be in the trades there and should have been on starboard going from South Africa toward Indonesia. Anyone know anything about their course.

Also seemed a bit less than 19 knots or at least it was not that hard a hit - more like they skidded up. Notice that none of the deck crew fell or even seemed to lose their balance.


----------



## mbianka

killarney_sailor said:


> Something seemed a bit odd in the video. They were on port tack sailing free when they hit. I assume they would still be in the trades there and should have been on starboard going from South Africa toward Indonesia. Anyone know anything about their course.
> 
> Also seemed a bit less than 19 knots or at least it was not that hard a hit - more like they skidded up. Notice that none of the deck crew fell or even seemed to lose their balance.


I think they lucked out because they were on that tack and heeled over enough that the keel rode up and over the reef (it was still attached in the photos) so it slowed the boat down gently or at least more gently than if the keel had hit the reef first and the boat pitch poled and came to a sudden stop. I think they would have had a lot more injuries on board if that had happened. It looks like it was the rudders that really stopped the boat before at least one of them tore off.

One thing that has been bothering me about the Navigators mea culpa. He was asleep at the time. Certainly well deserved and needed by all in the type of sailing these guys do. I have no problem with him getting some rest. But, what about the on duty crew? I'm sure each and every one knows plotting and navigation and are not just winch grinders. Did not one of them take a look to see where they were during their watch. I mean jeez is it to much to just look at a chart and plot a location when underway. I've been on freighters and schooners where that was normal procedure no matter what whiz bang electronics where on the bridge. If you wait until you hear surf breaking you are probably too late.


----------



## smackdaddy

mbianka said:


> I think they lucked out because they were on that tack and heeled over enough that the keel rode up and over the reef (it was still attached in the photos) so it slowed the boat down gently or at least more gently than if the keel had hit the reef first and the boat pitch poled and came to a sudden stop. I think they would have had a lot more injuries on board if that had happened. It looks like it was the rudders that really stopped the boat before at least one of them tore off.
> 
> One thing that has been bothering me about the Navigators mea culpa. He was asleep at the time. Certainly well deserved and needed by all in the type of sailing these guys do. I have no problem with him getting some rest. But, what about the on duty crew? I'm sure each and every one knows plotting and navigation and are not just winch grinders. Did not one of them take a look to see where they were during their watch. I mean jeez is it to much to just look at a chart and plot a location when underway. I've been on freighters and schooners where that was normal procedure no matter what whiz bang electronics where on the bridge. If you wait until you hear surf breaking you are probably too late.


That's what is bad about his. It appears that it's Nico in the companionway/cockpit pulling on his foulies. The other guys are driving and trimming - not navigating. Nico tells them about the shoaling when they look to port concerned. They're going to do what he says.

I'm a huge fan of Nico's. But he definitely seems to be the guy in charge here as they hit the bricks. I think this falls on him.


----------



## chall03

I can see the ISAF solution: VOR in Brentboats.


----------



## jzk

If that is true, and it sure seems like it could be, then his statement about how a Captain has to be able to trust others to do their job is just an even bigger pile of crap than it was before.



smackdaddy said:


> That's what is bad about his. It appears that it's Nico in the companionway/cockpit pulling on his foulies. The other guys are driving and trimming - not navigating. Nico tells them about the shoaling when they look to port concerned. They're going to do what he says.
> 
> I'm a huge fan of Nico's. But he definitely seems to be the guy in charge here as they hit the bricks. I think this falls on him.


----------



## mbianka

jzk said:


> If that is true, and it sure seems like it could be, then his statement about how a Captain has to be able to trust others to do their job is just an even bigger pile of crap than it was before.


I keep thinking about the Ronald Reagan line about treaties with the Russians.: "Trust but, verify" Always a good idea when navigating on ones own boat too in these days of electronic chart plotters and other electronic tools that we have at our disposal.


----------



## JonEisberg

tankersteve said:


> Many seem quite content to offer their amazing insights from their comfortable homes, such as assuming they were asleep, *not reviewing their course with paper charts (this is a rather long race - that would be a pretty tedious and likely overwhelming task, and likely low on the priority list)*, etc.


I don't know, sounds like it should have been a bit higher on their priority list, this incident might have been easily avoided with a simple glance at British Admiralty 4072, the Indian Ocean - Western Part, which includes the entire distance to be sailed between Cape Town and Abu Dhabi...










It's always amusing to see the sort of knee-jerk reaction the mere mention of the value of paper charts can often provoke in these discussions... Immediately, it's often taken as a suggestion that the navigators an event like the VOR should be reverting to the use of sextants and taffrail logs, or something... 

Bottom line is, VESTAS ran up on a reef within a mile or two of within one of the very few lighhouses in the Indian Ocean between Mauritius and the entrance to the Persian Gulf...

Of course, there's a high probability it might have been inoperative, or burning dim... Hell, it may very well no longer even exist...

However, the light on Ile du Sud, and Cocos Island, _ARE CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE SMALL-SCALE PAPER CHART OF THE ENTIRE WESTERN HALF OF THE FREAKIN' INDIAN OCEAN_ pictured above, and a simple glance at that chart would have indicated their presence...

At the press conference this morning, the skipper and navigator admitted their mistake was as simple as the failure to zoom in sufficiently on their e-charts. They thought they were merely passing over another 'seamount', with minimum depths of 40 meters... The navigator was probably looking at a chart view about the scale/level of zooming as this screen shot of the C-Map of the area:










Surely, I cannot be the only one who finds it absolutely mind-boggling that Cocos Island and the lighthouse upon it are shown on a paper chart the scale of BA 4072, and yet on that level of zooming in on C-Map, there is no indication whatsoever that either exists?

One thing I can't help but to wonder about, is the fact that the Cargados Carajos _*SHOALS*_ are, to say the least, rather unfortunately _named_... When I think of "shoals", places like Nantucket, Diamond, Frying Pan, and Canaveral are what first come to mind - spots that can often be _sailed over_, at least benign conditions... An archipelago with a large drying reef structure, numerous islands - at least one of which is minimally inhabited - I doubt hardly fits most people's notion of what constitutes an area of "shoals"... Do you suppose if, instead, Wouter had seen "Cargados Carojos _REEF_ instead on his computer screen, he just _might_ have bothered to zoom in a bit more? 

Anyone who relies on e-charting alone, really owes it to themselves to have a closer look at that C-Map screen shot, above... There are at least 2 very strange things going on, there...

First, the comparison of the Cargados Shoals, with the Nazareth Bank further north. The Nazareth Bank is exactly that, simply a "bank"... A vast underwater plateau of comparatively shoal water, no portion of which rises above the surface... And yet, a number of "Obstructions" are charted, and indicated...

However, at the same time, down in the Cargados archipelago - which features several islands, and extensive reef, and the lighthouse on Ile du Sud adjacent to the scene of the grounding - there is NOTHING indicated to suggest that area is nothing more there than "shoals"... To a fatigued navigator looking at that view, it could easily appear that the Nazareth Bank is the spot that might require paying more attention to, by navigating clear of the charted "obstructions", no?

Also, notice the horizontal line of demarcation passing through the lower portion of the Nazareth Bank... The classic "quilting" effect often seen on e-charts, where different scales are meeting on the same chart at a particular level of zooming, the bathymetric lines on the lower portion ending at that line, and so on... One doesn't have to think very hard, to imagine how problematic this sort of thing can easily become when relying on e-charts for planning and navigation...

Obviously, the notion of referring to a paper chart in today's world, aboard a VOR 65, sounds ludicrous to many here... But I'd bet anything, that had even the simplest act of plotting their Noon-to-Noon runs on BA 4072 been followed as part of the navigator's routine, that elemental, time-honored procedure known to most any passagemaker would have likely prevented this grounding... Far from being "tedious", or "overwhelming" as you suggest, such plotting would not likely have taken more than 2 minutes of his time each day... Wouter would have had to have been blind, or catatonic with fatigue, not to have noticed a freakin' ISLAND with a damn LIGHTHOUSE on it, directly in their path, within an inch or two of their position at noon that day on that single sheet of paper...

Of course, a similar thing can be accomplished electronically, no doubt... Has far more to do with the establishment of a procedure, a routine, than the tools that are being used... But there's still a hell of a lot to be said for the Old School way maintaining a record of fixes on a regular interval, might have helped Wouter get his head out of the obsessive game of weather routing and tactics, and back to the ability to better see the forest for the trees in terms of the safe navigation of the yacht...


----------



## killarney_sailor

Don't disagree with you Jon, but when we are doing a long ocean passage on a Navionics chart I layout the waypoint, could be 2000 mils away, at a small scale and the move along the rhumb line created at a large enough scale to show we anything that I should know about along the way. If there anything I mark and perhaps a waypoint that will keep me save. I also make sure to everyone on board that it is OK to be above the mark (or below depending on the circumstance). I could imagine it is more of an issue with a race where you have to miss something but don't want to sail any further the needed. In this case, the warning about above or below the rhumb line is extra importance.

The question of seamounts is an interesting one. There are lots of them in this area and just south of Madagascar. The prevailing wisdom is to sail 200 south of Madagascar to avoid them because sea conditions above them can be bad. We were going to anchor in a bay at the tip of the island and were within 3 miles or so of the coast. I zoomed in to check the depths of every seamount so I could avoid any that were shallow (<100').

Your comment on things like isolated lighthouses being shown was interesting. I think they show things like that because there is so little to show between Australia and Africa -just a few islands Christmas, Cocos-Keeling, Rodrigues (i had never heard of it until I looked at Indian Ocean crossing guide), and Mauritius. All are well worth a visit by the way.


----------



## piclarke

killarney_sailor said:


> Don't disagree with you Jon, but when we are doing a long ocean passage on a Navionics chart I layout the waypoint, could be 2000 mils away, at a small scale and the move along the rhumb line created at a large enough scale to show we anything that I should know about along the way. If there anything I mark and perhaps a waypoint that will keep me save. I also make sure to everyone on board that it is OK to be above the mark (or below depending on the circumstance). I could imagine it is more of an issue with a race where you have to miss something but don't want to sail any further the needed. In this case, the warning about above or below the rhumb line is extra importance.
> 
> The question of seamounts is an interesting one. There are lots of them in this area and just south of Madagascar. The prevailing wisdom is to sail 200 south of Madagascar to avoid them because sea conditions above them can be bad. We were going to anchor in a bay at the tip of the island and were within 3 miles or so of the coast. I zoomed in to check the depths of every seamount so I could avoid any that were shallow (<100').
> 
> Your comment on things like isolated lighthouses being shown was interesting. I think they show things like that because there is so little to show between Australia and Africa -just a few islands Christmas, Cocos-Keeling, Rodrigues (i had never heard of it until I looked at Indian Ocean crossing guide), and Mauritius. All are well worth a visit by the way.


See entry posted 3/12/ 2014. PIC

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/173018-volvo-ocean-race-


----------



## chall03

Well said Jon/Killarney.

I guess what I find interesting is that all of the above points raised by Jon were covered in my RYA Dayskipper.

I was waiting for a explanation that might make more sense here than what we have so far heard.I was waiting for some series of events on a VOR boat that would mean that this was understandable, while still clearly not being excusable.

But instead it seems they didn't zoom in or check a chart and hit a reef.

No armchair sailing here or tut tutting, just seeing a sober reminder to all of us that no matter how good a sailor you think you are you can't get complacent.


----------



## JonEisberg

Here's an excellent take on this incident, relative to ECS... From David Burch of Starpath:

David Burch Navigation Blog: Don't Blame eCharts for Anything

In addition, I suspect few of us have any idea how different the "navigation" these guys are doing is from what most of us do. They have become primarily Weather Routers, and Tacticians, pure 'navigation' has almost assumed a secondary role... VESTAS was reminded of that, the hard way...

But it really is staggering, the amount of stuff these guys are dealing with. This excerpt from a post over on SA helps give some idea, the incredible complexity of working with a routing program such as Expedition (emphasis mine):



> Navigating/Weather Routing skills with the opportunities and constraints of short-crewed offshore/ocean racing boats (particularly where wind speed and boat speed are the nearly constantly the same), simply cannot be compared with other norms people may be familiar with. By way of example:
> 
> Modern racing navigation programs like Expedition, Adrena etc are extremely powerful and sophisticated. In fact only those at the very top of the game use these programs to their full potential. *At any one time a navigator may be manipulating dozens or more weather/current orientated routes including their own and those of other competitors. Overlaying this are the tactical route options that may not be weather related.
> 
> Putting aside covering competitors, a Navigators numerous route options will possible cover more than a thousand square miles for just the next 24 hours and tens of thousand of square miles beyond that. To add to the complexity these routes will all change many times a day due to onboard peer review, outside weather updates, onboard weather analysis, real time over the deck weather and observations, competitor route changes etc, This is all being done while doing around 400 - 500 mile a day!!! This offshore environment should not be confused with coastal racing where landforms and short races of say 600 mile or so reduce course options and therefore reduce workload let alone compare it with cruising navigation techniques.*
> 
> As a consequence of this complex and exhausting process it is literally impossible to "zoom in" every time on a selected route and check it out for say obstructions, then drag out updated paper charts and other references to spot discrepancies which are an accepted shortfall in modern electronic charting.
> 
> To counter this problem a race navigator does as much planning as possible before leaving the dock where there is more time to make appropriate race notes and external information is readily to hand. For instance once this race is underway the internet and say Google Earth is off-limits. As Wouter attested to he followed these normal practises of pre-race planning for Leg 2 to the letter using the Sailing Instructions as issued.


In short, the navigators on these boats have a LOT going on beyond simple 'navigation'... Particularly, with the racing having turned out to be as close as it's been among the fleet, in what has essentially become a One Design Race. The guy quoted above makes a good point that had never occurred to me - that these guys are likely to be often assessing the optimal routing OF THEIR COMPETITORS, as well, in an effort to assess their next move. And in this particular instance, with the added work load of having to route around the periphery of a tropical storm that was creating a very unstable and complex weather situation... There was likely a massive amount of other information and graphic display being overlaid on their charts of the Indian Ocean...

As you say, how some of the other competitors dealt with this situation will also be critical to understanding how this happened... Particularly DONGFENG, who passed incredibly close to the reef after a last minute gybe, and had the good fortune to arrive there in daylight... Hopefully, others will be candid in their debriefs in assessing their own "There but for the grace of..." moments as they approached this hazard...


----------



## jzk

So what you are saying is that, in an effort to compete in a sporting event, they neglected basic seamanship causing huge damages and putting lives at risk.



JonEisberg said:


> Here's an excellent take on this incident, relative to ECS... From David Burch of Starpath:
> 
> David Burch Navigation Blog: Don't Blame eCharts for Anything
> 
> In addition, I suspect few of us have any idea how different the "navigation" these guys are doing is from what most of us do. They have become primarily Weather Routers, and Tacticians, pure 'navigation' has almost assumed a secondary role... VESTAS was reminded of that, the hard way...
> 
> But it really is staggering, the amount of stuff these guys are dealing with. This excerpt from a post over on SA helps give some idea, the incredible complexity of working with a routing program such as Expedition (emphasis mine):
> 
> In short, the navigators on these boats have a LOT going on beyond simple 'navigation'... Particularly, with the racing having turned out to be as close as it's been among the fleet, in what has essentially become a One Design Race. The guy quoted above makes a good point that had never occurred to me - that these guys are likely to be often assessing the optimal routing OF THEIR COMPETITORS, as well, in an effort to assess their next move. And in this particular instance, with the added work load of having to route around the periphery of a tropical storm that was creating a very unstable and complex weather situation... There was likely a massive amount of other information and graphic display being overlaid on their charts of the Indian Ocean...
> 
> As you say, how some of the other competitors dealt with this situation will also be critical to understanding how this happened... Particularly DONGFENG, who passed incredibly close to the reef after a last minute gybe, and had the good fortune to arrive there in daylight... Hopefully, others will be candid in their debriefs in assessing their own "There but for the grace of..." moments as they approached this hazard...


----------



## jzk

So what you are saying is that the reason that you don't sail your boat into well marked islands is because you, on a periodic basis as required, look at the chart to be absolutely certain you have clear water ahead.



killarney_sailor said:


> Don't disagree with you Jon, but when we are doing a long ocean passage on a Navionics chart I layout the waypoint, could be 2000 mils away, at a small scale and the move along the rhumb line created at a large enough scale to show we anything that I should know about along the way. If there anything I mark and perhaps a waypoint that will keep me save. I also make sure to everyone on board that it is OK to be above the mark (or below depending on the circumstance). I could imagine it is more of an issue with a race where you have to miss something but don't want to sail any further the needed. In this case, the warning about above or below the rhumb line is extra importance.
> 
> The question of seamounts is an interesting one. There are lots of them in this area and just south of Madagascar. The prevailing wisdom is to sail 200 south of Madagascar to avoid them because sea conditions above them can be bad. We were going to anchor in a bay at the tip of the island and were within 3 miles or so of the coast. I zoomed in to check the depths of every seamount so I could avoid any that were shallow (<100').
> 
> Your comment on things like isolated lighthouses being shown was interesting. I think they show things like that because there is so little to show between Australia and Africa -just a few islands Christmas, Cocos-Keeling, Rodrigues (i had never heard of it until I looked at Indian Ocean crossing guide), and Mauritius. All are well worth a visit by the way.


----------



## killarney_sailor

We check the entire route at large scale when we set a distant waypoint. When we are on the passage, if we need to change course for some reason, we repeat the process. When we are sailing we have the scale set so that obstructions will show. More importantly we will see any AIS targets.


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> So what you are saying is that, in an effort to compete in a sporting event, they neglected basic seamanship causing huge damages and putting lives at risk.


Not exactly...

Every time an F1 or Indy Car driver leaves the pits, he "neglects" what most of us consider to be 'safe driving practices', and puts lives at risk... And, every crew in the VOR is risking their lives, and the possibility of "huge damages" to their boats, every time they leave the dock at the start of another leg...

I would suggest, instead, that they _'FAILED'_ to adhere to what I consider to be basic and prudent principles of safe navigation, the likely cause being fatigue, exacerbated by the complexity of the job at hand. I'm not willing to ascribe the sort of willful 'intent' to be 'grossly negligent' that you obviously want to see these guys crucified for...

People sometimes screw up... Often, inexplicably... Even the greats, such as the fastest man who ever lived, with the laps winding down, a 55 second lead over his nearest rival, and the race all but won...


----------



## jzk

Why do you feel that calling their act "gross negligence" is the same as crucifying them?

I call it gross negligence because, it was gross negligence. I think you agree with me. Your definition of failing to adhere to basic prudent principles of safe navigation is pretty close. There is no way this should happen, fatigue or no fatigue. Even mentioning the word "fatigue" means that they put something else ahead of monitoring the charts.

They are not formula one racers living on the edge. They can do everything necessary to sail fast and still have time to check the chart. You know that is true. It is like saying that they were too busy to wipe their ass. I submit, that no matter how busy one is, there is always time to wipe one's ass.

Not only was it a dereliction of basic seamanship, but it can't be good for winning races either to have your boat on that reef.

Yes, people commit gross negligence. I would wager that there are few that have walked this Earth without stepping in it once or twice.

I am not even calling for them to lose their jobs. Just a little responsibility. "Not only am I the captain, responsible for everything, but I should have been looking at the charts also..."

"I just missed it. There is no excuse for not looking further at the chart when I saw those depth contour lines. There is no reason for this to happen."

Why the need to dance around this? Would you do it if we were talking about your kid's bus driver?



JonEisberg said:


> Not exactly...
> 
> Every time an F1 or Indy Car driver leaves the pits, he "neglects" what most of us consider to be 'safe driving practices', and puts lives at risk... And, every crew in the VOR is risking their lives, and the possibility of "huge damages" to their boats, every time they leave the dock at the start of another leg...
> 
> I would suggest, instead, that they _'FAILED'_ to adhere to what I consider to be basic and prudent principles of safe navigation, the likely cause being fatigue, exacerbated by the complexity of the job at hand. I'm not willing to ascribe the sort of willful 'intent' to be 'grossly negligent' that you obviously want to see these guys crucified for...
> 
> People sometimes screw up... Often, inexplicably... Even the greats, such as the fastest man who ever lived, with the laps winding down, and the race all but won...


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> I call it gross negligence because, it was gross negligence. I think you agree with me. Your definition of failing to adhere to basic prudent principles of safe navigation is pretty close. There is no way this should happen, fatigue or no fatigue. Even mentioning the word "fatigue" means that they put something else ahead of monitoring the charts.


We'll just have to agree to disagree, my interpretation of "gross negligence" differs somewhat from yours, obviously... And, I have little desire to debate the precise definition of the phrase, as a legal term...

So, then, would you categorize the sort of calculated risk all singlehanded sailors take as being "grossly negligent"? They are, by definition, willfully disregarding one of the most basic tenets of prudent seamanship, in their failure to maintain a proper lookout at all times...

Seems to me that in this instance, "negligence" might be largely a matter of _IF_ you happen to have had your mistake result in running up on a reef. How do we know pretty much the identical navigational procedures practiced aboard VESTAS were not being practiced aboard other boats, as well? DONGFENG had the good fortune to arrive at Cocos Island during daylight, after all, and SCA was the only boat to pass the reefs to the east... Do you know for a fact whether they even knew they were there, or if they might simply have been 'Lucky'?


----------



## JonEisberg

piclarke said:


> See entry posted 3/12/ 2014. PIC
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/173018-volvo-ocean-race-


Methinks you need to learn how to link to the individual post you're referring to...


----------



## christian.hess

im going to chime in here

how is VOLVO OCEAN RACING not LIKE FORMULA 1

its the exact same thing

calculated racing risks

reducing weight, improving speed and performance at the cost of reliabiliy, testing equipment, cutting corners in order to improve speed, speed speed speed speed speed

seriously I wonder how people dont get the basics of this kind of stuff yet draw conclusions that are for the most part erroneous

there is no doubt that racing oceans is a calculated risk...a risk for speed a risk for winning...navigating as so includes givens...these givens sometimes include racing in bad weather, cutting corners, racing in wrong seasons, racing fast despite the risk etc...

you navigate to win not be last and safe

why isnt this understood?


----------



## jzk

One of the elements of negligence is damages. So, yes, could be that many mariners are behaving negligently, but without that reef in the way at the time, they weren't negligent.

The singlehanded sailor question is a good one. The standard is that of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. It is impossible to be awake for 24/7. What would a reasonably prudent person do?

A reasonably prudent person checks the charts to ensure there is clear water ahead. That is what you do. You, I suspect, would never sail into a well charted island on a beautiful night.

I think it is just a wrong message to send to the world that this is the sort of normal risk that is inherent in sailing. This is the exact sort of thing that never has to happen.



JonEisberg said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree, my interpretation of "gross negligence" differs somewhat from yours, obviously... And, I have little desire to debate the precise definition of the phrase, as a legal term...
> 
> So, then, would you categorize the sort of calculated risk all singlehanded sailors take as being "grossly negligent"? They are, by definition, willfully disregarding one of the most basic tenets of prudent seamanship, in their failure to maintain a proper lookout at all times...
> 
> Seems to me that in this instance, "negligence" might be largely a matter of _IF_ you happen to have had your mistake result in running up on a reef. How do we know pretty much the identical navigational procedures practiced aboard VESTAS were not being practiced aboard other boats, as well? DONGFENG had the good fortune to arrive at Cocos Island during daylight, after all, and SCA was the only boat to pass the reefs to the east... Do you know for a fact whether they even knew they were there, or if they might simply have been 'Lucky'?


----------



## jzk

In Formula One, you take all sorts of risks. Someone could spin in front of you sending you into a wall.

What are the risks of the Volvo Ocean Race? Is one of the inherent risks that you could sail into a well charted island on a beautiful night? I don't think that has to be a risk. I don't think there is anything inherent about the VOR that means you must take that risk. You take that risk only if you willfully fail to check for clear water ahead - something that every Volvo Ocean Race sailor knows exactly how to do.

You could hit a container, etc. Bad weather. But not a well charted island on a nice night.



christian.hess said:


> im going to chime in here
> 
> how is VOLVO OCEAN RACING not LIKE FORMULA 1
> 
> its the exact same thing
> 
> calculated racing risks
> 
> reducing weight, improving speed and performance at the cost of reliabiliy, testing equipment, cutting corners in order to improve speed, speed speed speed speed speed
> 
> seriously I wonder how people dont get the basics of this kind of stuff yet draw conclusions that are for the most part erroneous
> 
> there is no doubt that racing oceans is a calculated risk...a risk for speed a risk for winning...navigating as so includes givens...these givens sometimes include racing in bad weather, cutting corners, racing in wrong seasons, racing fast despite the risk etc...
> 
> you navigate to win not be last and safe
> 
> why isnt this understood?


----------



## chall03

I get the formula one analogy, but it is flawed, chiefly because formula one takes place in very controlled conditions. Ocean racing does not.

My double standard sensors are also going off. I wonder if _Rebel heart_ had hit that reef what the reaction would be here?

That these guys are racing( and at an elite level)doesn't change the burden of seamanship nor should it erode it. I still regularly helm a Sydney 38 for twilights/club races and if I hit a chartered rock I doubt 'I was trying to win' or 'its like formula one' would get me very far with anyone. It's BS.

With hindsight the video footage is great and the media spin is all well managed but the reality is that this incident could of seen people killed. Whatever term you sum it up with it is slightly more than a bad day at the office.


----------



## jzk

The formula one analogy has its place, but not here. Like formula one, these guys live on the edge. But the edge of what? Sailing into well charted islands because they neglected to look at the chart? I don't think so.



chall03 said:


> I get the formula one analogy, but it is flawed, chiefly because formula one takes place in very controlled conditions. Ocean racing does not.
> 
> My double standard sensors are also going off. I wonder if _Rebel heart_ had hit that reef what the reaction would be here?
> 
> That these guys are racing( and at an elite level)doesn't change the burden of seamanship nor should it erode it. I still regularly helm a Sydney 38 for twilights/club races and if I hit a chartered rock I doubt 'I was trying to win' or 'its like formula one' would get me very far with anyone. It's BS.
> 
> With hindsight the video footage is great and the media spin is all well managed but the reality is that this incident could of seen people killed. Whatever term you sum it up with it is slightly more than a bad day at the office.


----------



## jzk

That is it, my friend. What if it here HR sailing the "Flyin' Hawaiian" into the reef?



chall03 said:


> My double standard sensors are also going off. I wonder if _Rebel heart_ had hit that reef what the reaction would be here?


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> A reasonably prudent person checks the charts to ensure there is clear water ahead. That is what you do. You, I suspect, would never sail into a well charted island on a beautiful night.


Well, I would certainly prefer to believe I would never be capable of making such a mistake... However, if my experience in life, and time on the water, has taught me one thing, it would be to _Never Say Never..._ 

If guys with the sailing resumes like Verbraak and Nicholson are capable of making such a mistake, it would be supremely arrogant of me to assert that under no circumstances might I ever do the same...

Hence, my argument throughout this discussion here and elsewhere, is that my personal preference for the use of paper charts _IN ADDITION TO_ reliance upon ECS for navigation affords me the best protection against making such a grievous error...

Others' mileage may vary, as always...


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> My double standard sensors are also going off. I wonder if _Rebel heart_ had hit that reef what the reaction would be here?


I can't speak for others here, but I don't think my own reaction would be substantively different. If they, too, had been relying solely on ECS for their route planning and navigation, I'd fault them for not adhering to the same time-honored - albeit hopelessly _Old Fashioned_ - practice of maintaining a running plot of their position on paper, as well...

Who knows what the circumstances on REBEL HEART might be, but likely fatigue would have been a major player, as well... We'll never know, of course...


----------



## jzk

I have paper charts as well. But I don't plot on them. I think they are nice to give a large overall view of the route. And, I like to use them to help pick harbors to visit. Unless you put a 32" screen at your nav table, they can't be beat for overall perspective.

But as far as navigating, I have navionics on the tablet and phone. I have the Nexus classic display vintage 2000 both at the helm and chart table. And I have a nice Garmin handheld. The key, I think is backup. If, for you, backup means paper, great.

And, I think you are saying that we are all capable of gross negligence. We are. And we should consciously endeavor to avoid it lest we put our dreams up on the reef. I don't know about you, but my "sponsor" isn't about to have a party for me and hand me another ride if I put my boat up on the reef.

And, as far as comparing resumes, while you can be a bit of an ass sometimes in the forums, I bet your seamanship skills rival or are better than theirs. Maybe you can't call wind shifts like them or trim the main like them. On the other hand, I bet your race tactic skills are better than their charting skills.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, I would certainly prefer to believe I would never be capable of making such a mistake... However, if my experience in life, and time on the water, has taught me one thing, it would be to _Never Say Never..._
> 
> If guys with the sailing resumes like Verbraak and Nicholson are capable of making such a mistake, it would be supremely arrogant of me to assert that under no circumstances might I ever do the same...
> 
> Hence, my argument throughout this discussion here and elsewhere, is that my personal preference for the use of paper charts _IN ADDITION TO_ reliance upon ECS for navigation affords me the best protection against making such a grievous error...
> 
> Others' mileage may vary, as always...


----------



## christian.hess

people just dont get it

there are absolutely double standard sensors here bordering on the hypocritical...

the ocean will never be a controlled scenario or race course however over all these centuries and milenia of racing...there are some generalties to where and how you can sail those places...

however neptune can always hand your ass in a plate if you get cocky or tricky like trying to cut corners

while the FORMULA 1 analogy is flawed in the controlled scenario sense its absolutely the same in any elite racing scenario in any sport

you are always on the edge

the edge is t be defined but climbing mount everest unassisted on no oxygen is on the edge likewise a marathon runner is on the edge just like a solo sailor is on the edge on a mini pogo 21 is on the edge

there is a reason there are sports called extreme sports, there is a reason why southern ocean sailing is more extreme than doing a transpac, there is a reason many things are labeled as so

while I agree with those arguing paper charts and plotting a simple course on paper(thats how I have always done it...electric is backup for me) its absolutely damn foolish of us to think that they, the racers will be doing something so damn slow and "tedious" as that when they are trying to hit 40 knots downwind in the southern indian ocean or wherever

why people always try to compare themselves to these guys or extreme racers and draw analogies is beyond me

especially when racers are willingly going out to sea knowing that if they fall off THEY WILL NOT BE PICKED up given the circumstances

they go knowing that and *race for the thrill the adrenaline*

not to prove that they can sail without paper charts like us or whatever

its beyond me why people want to hold themselves in the same light as those that are obviously much better at this than us...despite the fact THAT HUMANS MAKE ERRORS

which is what this navigator on this boat did

plain and simple


----------



## christian.hess

chall03 said:


> I get the formula one analogy, but it is flawed, chiefly because formula one takes place in very controlled conditions. Ocean racing does not.
> 
> My double standard sensors are also going off. I wonder if _Rebel heart_ had hit that reef what the reaction would be here?
> 
> That these guys are racing( and at an elite level)doesn't change the burden of seamanship nor should it erode it. I still regularly helm a Sydney 38 for twilights/club races and if I hit a chartered rock I doubt 'I was trying to win' or 'its like formula one' would get me very far with anyone. It's BS.
> 
> With hindsight the video footage is great and the media spin is all well managed but the reality is that this incident could of seen people killed. Whatever term you sum it up with it is slightly more than a bad day at the office.


I agree with you however the reality is that racers at this level do cut corners for that extra .1 knot or speed...

how many times have racers hit something, run aground or even died(think farallones race last year off san francisco) were doing exactly this CUTTING CORNERS resulted in death

it happens all the time...wether we ant to accept it or not is on US not THEM

they go for it...good or bad


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> I agree with you however the reality is that racers at this level do cut corners for that extra .1 knot or speed...
> 
> how many times have racers hit something, run aground or even died(think farallones race last year off san francisco) were doing exactly this CUTTING CORNERS resulted in death
> 
> it happens all the time...wether we ant to accept it or not is on US not THEM
> 
> they go for it...good or bad


I understand and am not suggesting that this level of sailing is anything other than taking risks to get the edge.

It's elite sport they are tremendous sailors and I am a huge follower of the VOR.

BUT........They hit a chartered reef because they didn't zoom in.


----------



## jzk

How much extra speed did they get from not looking at the chart/not zooming in? I submit that it cost them all of their speed.



christian.hess said:


> I agree with you however the reality is that racers at this level do cut corners for that extra .1 knot or speed...
> 
> how many times have racers hit something, run aground or even died(think farallones race last year off san francisco) were doing exactly this CUTTING CORNERS resulted in death
> 
> it happens all the time...wether we ant to accept it or not is on US not THEM
> 
> they go for it...good or bad


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think one difference between a race and an ordinary passage has been hinted at here but not said explicitly. If you are in a long distance, pro race like this the first three (or ten) things on your priority list are about going fast. #11 might be to have a safe passage. If you are out there on a ma and pa passage, the first ten priorities are about safety. Performance might be #11 or not on the list at all.


----------



## sailingfool

The sailors on Vestas operate at a different level than ours, or than mine anyway. I have no difficulty seeing how this mistake can be made, I've hit something hard in error too...

I think the most interesting perspectives on Vestas' grounding might eventually come form the other VOR'65s, the ones that did not run aground. They are the level at which Vestas does operate. Did they have this shoal marked and carefully avoid it? Did anyone see it only because it was daylight. Was avoiding it so humdrum and obvious a task, that there could not be any shred of benefit to suggest a heads up to race control for the folks following in darkness? Might be interesting and insightful...


----------



## MedSailor

killarney_sailor said:


> I think one difference between a race and an ordinary passage has been hinted at here but not said explicitly. If you are in a long distance, pro race like this the first three (or ten) things on your priority list are about going fast. #11 might be to have a safe passage. If you are out there on a ma and pa passage, the first ten priorities are about safety. Performance might be #11 or not on the list at all.


+1

I was on a boat just over a year ago that hit a rock at nearly 7 knots. We hit it because we were racing. Though, lots of things contributed and a series of errors were made, it's because we were racing that we struck the rock.

We knew it was out there, we knew where it was, but we lost situational awareness and didn't realize we had gotten into the area of the rock as quickly as we did. We knew we'd have to avoid it post start, but the post start spinnaker jybing duels were protracted and distracting.

Never would have happened on a cruise...

MedSailor


----------



## chall03

sailingfool said:


> The sailors on Vestas operate at a different level that ours, or mine anyway. I have no difficulty seeing how this mistake can be made, I'd hit something hard in error too...
> 
> I think the most interesting perspectives on Vestas' grounding might eventually come form the other VOR'65s, the ones that did not run aground. They are the level at which Vestas does operate. Did they have this shoal marked and carefully avoid it? Did anyone see it only because it was daylight. Was avoiding it so humdrum and obvious, that there could not be any shred of benefit to suggest a heads up to race control for the folks following in darkness? Might be interesting and insightful...


+1

There is a reef just inside Sydney Harbour that I have had near misses with racing as has just about everyone who has raced on Sydney Harbour( Sow and Pigs Reef).

John @ Morgans Cloud has just summed it up pretty well..
The Loss of ?Team Vestas Wind?


----------



## mbianka

killarney_sailor said:


> I think one difference between a race and an ordinary passage has been hinted at here but not said explicitly. If you are in a long distance, pro race like this the first three (or ten) things on your priority list are about going fast. #11 might be to have a safe passage. If you are out there on a ma and pa passage, the first ten priorities are about safety. Performance might be #11 or not on the list at all.


Hmmm It sounds like these fellows are playing a form of Russian Roulette with sailboats. Team Vesta lost this one. They are just lucky they all were able to walk away from the boat. Other racers have not been so lucky. Even in ocean racing you can't win if you never get to the destination. Navigation and knowing where you are is still rather important or should be. As Team Vesta found out the hard way. No pun intended.


----------



## jzk

That has not been my experience. I think it is your experience because you are a prudent, competent mariner, and, in your travels, you probably associate with others that are the same. In the long distance races that I have done Chicago-Mac, Fort Lauderdale - Key West, etc., safety is at the top of the list. It is almost grueling to meet the safety requirements of those races. I would venture to say that for the Chicago-Mac race, the boats all had jacklines run during the race but most removed them for the delivery back.

On the other hand, many recreational boaters don't even give a second thought to safety. They make "passages" with little to no safety equipment. They are lucky to have life jackets for everyone. Often times the focus is partying, music, drinking, watching movies, etc.

But you are probably hitting the root cause right on the head. They were worried about making the boat go fast, tactics, weather, etc., and lost sight of basic seamanship. They were probably just not looking. The zoom thing is probably just an excuse which is a very natural human instinct when one screws up this bad. If pressed, they would probably drop that whole line of reasoning because it would tend to show incompetence rather than just taking one's eye off the ball.



killarney_sailor said:


> I think one difference between a race and an ordinary passage has been hinted at here but not said explicitly. If you are in a long distance, pro race like this the first three (or ten) things on your priority list are about going fast. #11 might be to have a safe passage. If you are out there on a ma and pa passage, the first ten priorities are about safety. Performance might be #11 or not on the list at all.


----------



## jzk

On the other hand, I think that many racing sailors just don't know that much about basic seamanship. For some reason, there is a high incidence of catastrophes involved in delivering boats back from the Chicago Mac race. It might be to lack of crew, and it might also be to the nature of boating in Chicago.

In Chicago, there is ample depth, for the most part, everywhere. People assume that they can just go anywhere. I don't think there is a whole lot of "looking at the chart" going on. One time, on the way back from the Chicago Mac, we were in Pentwater or somewhere on the beach. We had entered the inlet the previous day with much caution as the chart indicated shoaling, etc. We even called in for some local knowledge. Stay to the left, etc. When we were on the beach, we saw this Farr 40 cruising toward the inlet at full speed. It was pretty clear what was going to happen and they hit the sand full speed. Luckily, it was sand but they buried it pretty good. If it were rocks, and there was wind & seas, that would have been it. I just think they assumed that if there was an inlet, they could enter.


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> They were probably just not looking. The zoom thing is probably just an excuse which is a very natural human instinct when one screws up this bad. If pressed, they would probably drop that whole line of reasoning because it would tend to show incompetence rather than just taking one's eye off the ball.


Well, it's been obvious from the beginning of the discussion over on SA that you've determined both Verbraak and Nicholson are incompetent, or "grossly negligent", or worse - and no matter what explanation they offer, or whatever admission of mistakes/failures on their part the make, those will be insufficient, and do nothing to change your mind...

I think most of us consider the failure to zoom in sufficiently to be a very plausible explanation, and in fact the only one that really makes any sense. That would appear to be confirmed by the video, when Nicholson says they are passing over the "shoals" with the depth of 40 meters the navigator had told him to expect.

You're free to believe what you want to believe, of course, but I would hope most fellow sailors out there are taking these guys at their word, instead of accusing them of trying to cover their asses by dissembling, BS-ing, fabricating an alternative scenario, or just flat out lying about what occurred that night...


----------



## jzk

Had we not seen the zoomed out views, then you might have a point. If they were sailing towards what appeared in those views and actually looked, and then didn't know to zoom, it is incompetence.

I am suggesting that it is probably more of not paying attention. Getting a 100% accurate account from them in the position that they were in is really difficult. People have natural biases. Especially when they screw up.

I am disappointed with their statements so far. Is that ok with you? These guys put a multi-million dollar state of the art racing machine with the best navigational technology on the reef of a well charted island on a beautiful night. They put all of their lives at risk. No tethers, no pfds, etc. I think it warrants some discussion. I think it warrants the tough questions. Yet their statements might have the word "mistake" and "breakdown" contained there in, but if you actually read the whole thing, they are quite lame. I trusted my guys, and they had a breakdown. Are you kidding me? Can you imagine the BP CEO saying some crap like that?

But instead the SA crew just wants to stroke them as the teen idol heroes they are to them. That is fine. Free country. But they would not afford others not in their "cool group" the same treatment. Think of how many Mac 26 owners there are that practice decent seamanship. How are they treated over there?

Muddling this event with excuses does not serve our sport. The message should be clear. This never has to happen. There are very easy measures that anyone can learn to employ that will prevent this 100% of the time. They simply didn't do that. End of story.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, it's been obvious from the beginning of the discussion over on SA that you've determined both Verbraak and Nicholson are incompetent, or "grossly negligent", or worse - and no matter what explanation they offer, or whatever admission of mistakes/failures on their part the make, those will be insufficient, and do nothing to change your mind...
> 
> I think most of us consider the failure to zoom in sufficiently to be a very plausible explanation, and in fact the only one that really makes any sense. That would appear to be confirmed by the video, when Nicholson says they are passing over the "shoals" with the depth of 40 meters the navigator had told him to expect.
> 
> You're free to believe what you want to believe, of course, but I would hope most fellow sailors out there are taking these guys at their word, instead of accusing them of trying to cover their asses by dissembling, BS-ing, fabricating an alternative scenario, or just flat out lying about what occurred that night...


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> Had we not seen the zoomed out views, then you might have a point. If they were sailing towards what appeared in those views and actually looked, and then didn't know to zoom, it is incompetence.


Right, shots of the nav computer's display taken _AFTER_ the grounding are clear proof of what Wouter was looking at _PRIOR_ to the incident... Certainly, "incompetence" can be the only explanation for his failure to zoom in further, no other factor - such as extreme _FATIGUE_, for instance - could have possibly played any role, right?



jzk said:


> Yet their statements might have the word "mistake" and "breakdown" contained there in, but if you actually read the whole thing, they are quite lame. I trusted my guys, and they had a breakdown. Are you kidding me? *Can you imagine the BP CEO saying some crap like that?*


Uhhh, perhaps not the best example you might have come up with...



> WASHINGTON - Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, facing relentless questioning by Congressional Democrats on Thursday, denied any personal responsibility for the decisions that led to the calamitous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
> ...
> "I had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well, none whatsoever," he said.
> ...
> But, he said, he played no role in decisions on how the well was drilled and could not recall reading any of the numerous alarming reports about problems with finishing the well in the hours and days before it exploded.
> ...
> "I'm not stonewalling," said Mr. Hayward, the 53-year-old Englishman. "I simply wasn't involved in the decision-making."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18spill.html?_r=0


----------



## jzk

Or, maybe it is the perfect example. How did Tony fare after that? And, he wasn't even.on the rig. Chris could and should go over to the chart and check the water ahead periodically. And he was on deck for the crash. Was he on watch? judge found.BP.employees guilty of gross negligence. Can you imagine if preventing that spill were as easy as preventing Vestas wind from sailing into an Island?



JonEisberg:2428330 said:


> jzk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not seen the zoomed out views, then you might have a point. If they were sailing towards what appeared in those views and actually looked, and then didn't know to zoom, it is incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, shots of the nav computer's display taken _AFTER_ the grounding are clear proof of what Wouter was looking at _PRIOR_ to the incident... Certainly, "incompetence" can be the only explanation for his failure to zoom in further, no other factor such as extreme _FATIGUE_ could have possibly played any role, right?
> 
> 
> 
> jzk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet their statements might have the word "mistake" and "breakdown" contained there in, but if you actually read the whole thing, they are quite lame. I trusted my guys, and they had a breakdown. Are you kidding me? *Can you imagine the BP CEO saying some crap like that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, perhaps not the best example you might have come up with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON - Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, facing relentless questioning by Congressional Democrats on Thursday, denied any personal responsibility for the decisions that led to the calamitous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
> ...
> "I had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well, none whatsoever," he said.
> ...
> But, he said, he played no role in decisions on how the well was drilled and could not recall reading any of the numerous alarming reports about problems with finishing the well in the hours and days before it exploded.
> ...
> "I'm not stonewalling," said Mr. Hayward, the 53-year-old Englishman. "I simply wasn't involved in the decision-making."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18spill.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## christian.hess

chall03 said:


> I understand and am not suggesting that this level of sailing is anything other than taking risks to get the edge.
> 
> It's elite sport they are tremendous sailors and I am a huge follower of the VOR.
> 
> BUT........They hit a chartered reef because they didn't zoom in.


Bingo I dont think any sane person is arguing this at least im not...


----------



## Zdanowicz

For what it's worth, it looks like NBCSN has picked up coverage of the VOR. Looks like they are broadcasting it on Sundays but it seems like the time varies.


----------



## Uricanejack

jzk said:


> Had we not seen the zoomed out views, then you might have a point. If they were sailing towards what appeared in those views and actually looked, and then didn't know to zoom, it is incompetence.
> 
> I am suggesting that it is probably more of not paying attention. Getting a 100% accurate account from them in the position that they were in is really difficult. People have natural biases. Especially when they screw up.
> 
> I am disappointed with their statements so far. Is that ok with you? These guys put a multi-million dollar state of the art racing machine with the best navigational technology on the reef of a well charted island on a beautiful night. They put all of their lives at risk. No tethers, no pfds, etc. I think it warrants some discussion. I think it warrants the tough questions. Yet their statements might have the word "mistake" and "breakdown" contained there in, but if you actually read the whole thing, they are quite lame. I trusted my guys, and they had a breakdown. Are you kidding me? Can you imagine the BP CEO saying some crap like that?
> 
> But instead the SA crew just wants to stroke them as the teen idol heroes they are to them. That is fine. Free country. But they would not afford others not in their "cool group" the same treatment. Think of how many Mac 26 owners there are that practice decent seamanship. How are they treated over there?
> 
> Muddling this event with excuses does not serve our sport. The message should be clear. This never has to happen. There are very easy measures that anyone can learn to employ that will prevent this 100% of the time. They simply didn't do that. End of story.


"Oh good God" are you guys going to start this here. I've already stopped reading SA because of it.


----------



## Uricanejack

If I had any sense I would just ignore these threads. But I’m a fool who can’t resist an argument. 

A whole lot of BS about blame, negligence, and incompetence from people who appear to have no idea about how to investigate, learn from an accident and prevent a recurrence.

The old fashioned idea of blaming and firing the Captain or any one else will change nothing. 

This does not mean I don’t believe the Skipper or Navigator did anything wrong. 
It means I am more interested in why they made an error and why that error was not detected.

Simple Fact All Humans Make Errors. 
Sometimes Some OF The Best Humans Make The Worst Errors. 

There is a very good reason why organisations like the NTSB, MAIB, TSB are legally mandated to investigate accidents without blaming anyone. All statements to these organisations are privileged and cannot be used latter in court criminally or civilly. 
This incident happened on a private yacht with no passengers and no injuries. Its extremely unlikely any investigation of this type will take place.

The organisations who run the race and own the boats or teams involved may choose to investigate the incident. 
If they have a modern safety culture, they will investigate in the similar way. Its not realistic to say they will never blame or take action. It should be very low on their priorities and just safety culture only be invoked in the case of a culpable act. 
Even then dealt with entirely separately from the incident investigation.

Back to the incident itself. It almost certainly did not happen just because the navigator didn’t zoom in
The following is just my opinion based on minimal second and third hand information and may be complete bollocks.
. 
This would just be one event in a series or chain of events which all came together or just lined up perfectly to allow this to happen. 
There will have been a number of safety measures which should have caught an error which did not. 

With this incident we can probably say from the information we have so far. 

We can eliminate mechanical failure. 
We can’t quite eliminate navigational system failure. (Probably will be eliminated) 

Which leaves Human Factors. 
Note I’m not saying Human Errors any idiot could tell you the navigator made a mistake. Big Deal. 

A very simple time line of what we know up until they hit the moment they hit the reef.
(It may have all sorts of errors) 

Pre-race briefings, 

The boats Left Cape town. 
The boats have been racing for a number of days. 

The race encounters a tropical Storm. 

The Race Organisers Open an area of the Indian Ocean previously out of bounds to the race to facilitate the all the race boats avoiding the storm 

The Navigator with unknown discussion with Skipper Changes his planned route to avoid the storm. 

Skipper has delegated and apparently abdicated the navigation to the Navigator. Without checking the route on the navigational computer himself.

The Navigator has changed routing due to avoiding a tropical storm. 

The Navigator’s primary focus has been on the meteorology and boat speed rather than on the geographical position with relation to possible hazards( Navigator assumes he is far out in open ocean well clear of any land) 

The navigator Checks his new route but fails to zoom in and does not notice the vessel is heading directly towards a shoal. 

The Skipper has accepted the Navigators route. Without checking the route personally or going over it with the Navigator.
The Skipper has been advised there will be some seamounts with minimum depths 40 to 80 meters. Both skipper and navigator appear to have gone off duty leaving the deck crew under the impression they can sail through the night as fast as possible on current heading without expecting any hazards. 

The deck crew are sailing a route or heading as directed by navigator they have been told to expect some sea mounts with depths as low as 40 and 80 meters 

There was a Change of watch and handover from the off watch crew. 
Unknown if before or after the watch change. 

At an undetermined time prior to the grounding. The Skipper and Navigator went bellow and the Navigator turned in. we don’t know if the skipper was turned in or just down bellow. It would appear neither was at the navigation system. 

Deck crew are sailing in pitch darkness focusing on sailing a prescribed tack heading and speed maximising performance with constant sail trim adjustments. 

Don’t know exactly who is on deck or what their exact roles are. (We can deduce from web site. A watch captain, a genoa trimmer and a main trimmer.)

30 to 40 seconds from hitting the shoal. The deck crew were surprised or confused by unexpected sights and sounds. 

Deck crew are trying to figure out what’s going on. Others are coming up on deck

Before the crew can determine what’s happening.
The boat hits. 

From the above simple time line you can see the Navigators error was not even the immediate or direct cause of the grounding.

The immediate or direct cause was the on watch deck crew had no situational awareness of the boats position relative to the shoal. 
The on watch deck crew had no idea there was a possibility of a shoal near there intended track
. 
The Navigators error in the use of his equipment possible based on an assumption is just one of many factors which led to this situation. 

The Skipper trusting the navigator without checking for errors is just another one of many factors. This is a critical failure leaving the boat vulnerable to a single error by a single individual. Still not a root cause.

To find the route cause. A full causal factor analysis is required at each stage where the navigational error could possible have been detected. And at each stage where all the navigational decisions are made. Going back through the change of routing for the storm. 
The original routing. 

Even the race planning and exclusion areas. and changing of exclusion areas. 
For example explaining why areas were excluded and warning competitors to be aware of the hazards in an area when its opened. 

The same situations may well have existed on some of the other vessels but through luck they passed clear of the shoals.
Or at least in the case of the Vessel which stood by during the night. The skipper and Navigator had noticed the shoal and remarked on it just 15 minutes before hand. 

Many other race boats are probably organised along similar lines and are susceptible to the same set of circumstances. Or similar circumstances where one single persons error could put the whole boat in jeopardy. 

A lot has been said about the electronic navigation system which appears to be an integrated system with a computer rather than a simple plotter. 
This is a whole process, what training did the crew receive in its use and limitations particularly what training did the Skipper and the Navigator receive? 

How about the designer and the builder. how well did they understand its limitations.? 
What about the race organisers? How well did they understand it. What did they provide for back up?

Could it be improved.? 
Perhaps sole reliance on this system is not a good idea?.
Was fatigue a factor?
Was crew size a factor?

Ultimately you will find quite a few people have made errors which they could learn from. 

I would expect a report to find problems with and make recommendations about.

The composition of the crew on watch and their situational awareness. 
(There should be someone on watch actively aware of the vessels position, course, speed and the proximity navigational hazards which may be encountered. A review of this should form part of during any watch handover. All crew should be aware of what may be encountered during their watch).

The communication between the Skipper, Navigator, Watch captains and rest of the crew. And make some recommendations along crew training along the lines of CRM and BRM from the aviation and marine industries.

The over reliance on a single person for navigation and over reliance on electronic systems. Together with training in the use of the navigational systems.

The passage planning process. particularly crew or team briefing about the route and possible changes to the route which could be encountered.

The over all race planning and routing and possible hazards including possible alternate routing due to weather. 

Those who are willing to accept there role in the chain of events and learn from them should be given the opportunity to do so and sail again. 

Personally I don’t race or know any of the individuals involved.

I would be willing to sail with the Navigator on this kind of voyage he is willing to learn. 
The Skipper I thought I would be willing to sail with him as well in the future. When I heard his statement I’m not quite sure he gets his role. It’s early yet and media statements immediately after the event a full of emotion. 
I probably would sail with him. 

In any event nobody cares what I think or who I would be willing to sail with.


----------



## jzk

Navigator put them on a course for an island without knowing the island was there. Not a direct cause?

Watch captain did not look at the charts and did not know where they are. Another direct cause.

Captain took responsibility as "captain" but then tossed the crew under the bus. Kind of lame. Especially since he was on deck for the crash not knowing where they were.

How can they prevent this? Attention to basic seamanship. Someone needs to be checking the chart often enough such that no part of it ever gets traversed blindly. This didn't happen.

The watch captain should have access to an electronic chart at all times. This can be their tablet, handheld GPS, or a chartplotter on deck. Imagine if at the first second those guys noticed there was something going on, someone could have looked at the chart and called for a course change.

Fatigue is an important issue in a race such as this. But there is time to check the chart. No experience? Most here do passages without 4 guys on watch at all times. Saying that no one was able to check the charts was lame.



Uricanejack said:


> If I had any sense I would just ignore these threads. But I'm a fool who can't resist an argument.
> 
> A whole lot of BS about blame, negligence, and incompetence from people who appear to have no idea about how to investigate, learn from an accident and prevent a recurrence.
> 
> The old fashioned idea of blaming and firing the Captain or any one else will change nothing.
> 
> This does not mean I don't believe the Skipper or Navigator did anything wrong.
> It means I am more interested in why they made an error and why that error was not detected.
> 
> Simple Fact All Humans Make Errors.
> Sometimes Some OF The Best Humans Make The Worst Errors.
> 
> There is a very good reason why organisations like the NTSB, MAIB, TSB are legally mandated to investigate accidents without blaming anyone. All statements to these organisations are privileged and cannot be used latter in court criminally or civilly.
> This incident happened on a private yacht with no passengers and no injuries. Its extremely unlikely any investigation of this type will take place.
> 
> The organisations who run the race and own the boats or teams involved may choose to investigate the incident.
> If they have a modern safety culture, they will investigate in the similar way. Its not realistic to say they will never blame or take action. It should be very low on their priorities and just safety culture only be invoked in the case of a culpable act.
> Even then dealt with entirely separately from the incident investigation.
> 
> Back to the incident itself. It almost certainly did not happen just because the navigator didn't zoom in
> The following is just my opinion based on minimal second and third hand information and may be complete bollocks.
> .
> This would just be one event in a series or chain of events which all came together or just lined up perfectly to allow this to happen.
> There will have been a number of safety measures which should have caught an error which did not.
> 
> With this incident we can probably say from the information we have so far.
> 
> We can eliminate mechanical failure.
> We can't quite eliminate navigational system failure. (Probably will be eliminated)
> 
> Which leaves Human Factors.
> Note I'm not saying Human Errors any idiot could tell you the navigator made a mistake. Big Deal.
> 
> A very simple time line of what we know up until they hit the moment they hit the reef.
> (It may have all sorts of errors)
> 
> Pre-race briefings,
> 
> The boats Left Cape town.
> The boats have been racing for a number of days.
> 
> The race encounters a tropical Storm.
> 
> The Race Organisers Open an area of the Indian Ocean previously out of bounds to the race to facilitate the all the race boats avoiding the storm
> 
> The Navigator with unknown discussion with Skipper Changes his planned route to avoid the storm.
> 
> Skipper has delegated and apparently abdicated the navigation to the Navigator. Without checking the route on the navigational computer himself.
> 
> The Navigator has changed routing due to avoiding a tropical storm.
> 
> The Navigator's primary focus has been on the meteorology and boat speed rather than on the geographical position with relation to possible hazards( Navigator assumes he is far out in open ocean well clear of any land)
> 
> The navigator Checks his new route but fails to zoom in and does not notice the vessel is heading directly towards a shoal.
> 
> The Skipper has accepted the Navigators route. Without checking the route personally or going over it with the Navigator.
> The Skipper has been advised there will be some seamounts with minimum depths 40 to 80 meters. Both skipper and navigator appear to have gone off duty leaving the deck crew under the impression they can sail through the night as fast as possible on current heading without expecting any hazards.
> 
> The deck crew are sailing a route or heading as directed by navigator they have been told to expect some sea mounts with depths as low as 40 and 80 meters
> 
> There was a Change of watch and handover from the off watch crew.
> Unknown if before or after the watch change.
> 
> At an undetermined time prior to the grounding. The Skipper and Navigator went bellow and the Navigator turned in. we don't know if the skipper was turned in or just down bellow. It would appear neither was at the navigation system.
> 
> Deck crew are sailing in pitch darkness focusing on sailing a prescribed tack heading and speed maximising performance with constant sail trim adjustments.
> 
> Don't know exactly who is on deck or what their exact roles are. (We can deduce from web site. A watch captain, a genoa trimmer and a main trimmer.)
> 
> 30 to 40 seconds from hitting the shoal. The deck crew were surprised or confused by unexpected sights and sounds.
> 
> Deck crew are trying to figure out what's going on. Others are coming up on deck
> 
> Before the crew can determine what's happening.
> The boat hits.
> 
> From the above simple time line you can see the Navigators error was not even the immediate or direct cause of the grounding.
> 
> The immediate or direct cause was the on watch deck crew had no situational awareness of the boats position relative to the shoal.
> The on watch deck crew had no idea there was a possibility of a shoal near there intended track
> .
> The Navigators error in the use of his equipment possible based on an assumption is just one of many factors which led to this situation.
> 
> The Skipper trusting the navigator without checking for errors is just another one of many factors. This is a critical failure leaving the boat vulnerable to a single error by a single individual. Still not a root cause.
> 
> To find the route cause. A full causal factor analysis is required at each stage where the navigational error could possible have been detected. And at each stage where all the navigational decisions are made. Going back through the change of routing for the storm.
> The original routing.
> 
> Even the race planning and exclusion areas. and changing of exclusion areas.
> For example explaining why areas were excluded and warning competitors to be aware of the hazards in an area when its opened.
> 
> The same situations may well have existed on some of the other vessels but through luck they passed clear of the shoals.
> Or at least in the case of the Vessel which stood by during the night. The skipper and Navigator had noticed the shoal and remarked on it just 15 minutes before hand.
> 
> Many other race boats are probably organised along similar lines and are susceptible to the same set of circumstances. Or similar circumstances where one single persons error could put the whole boat in jeopardy.
> 
> A lot has been said about the electronic navigation system which appears to be an integrated system with a computer rather than a simple plotter.
> This is a whole process, what training did the crew receive in its use and limitations particularly what training did the Skipper and the Navigator receive?
> 
> How about the designer and the builder. how well did they understand its limitations.?
> What about the race organisers? How well did they understand it. What did they provide for back up?
> 
> Could it be improved.?
> Perhaps sole reliance on this system is not a good idea?.
> Was fatigue a factor?
> Was crew size a factor?
> 
> Ultimately you will find quite a few people have made errors which they could learn from.
> 
> I would expect a report to find problems with and make recommendations about.
> 
> The composition of the crew on watch and their situational awareness.
> (There should be someone on watch actively aware of the vessels position, course, speed and the proximity navigational hazards which may be encountered. A review of this should form part of during any watch handover. All crew should be aware of what may be encountered during their watch).
> 
> The communication between the Skipper, Navigator, Watch captains and rest of the crew. And make some recommendations along crew training along the lines of CRM and BRM from the aviation and marine industries.
> 
> The over reliance on a single person for navigation and over reliance on electronic systems. Together with training in the use of the navigational systems.
> 
> The passage planning process. particularly crew or team briefing about the route and possible changes to the route which could be encountered.
> 
> The over all race planning and routing and possible hazards including possible alternate routing due to weather.
> 
> Those who are willing to accept there role in the chain of events and learn from them should be given the opportunity to do so and sail again.
> 
> Personally I don't race or know any of the individuals involved.
> 
> I would be willing to sail with the Navigator on this kind of voyage he is willing to learn.
> The Skipper I thought I would be willing to sail with him as well in the future. When I heard his statement I'm not quite sure he gets his role. It's early yet and media statements immediately after the event a full of emotion.
> I probably would sail with him.
> 
> In any event nobody cares what I think or who I would be willing to sail with.


----------



## Minnewaska

I don't get the point of debating whether these guys should be banned, unless you are in the crowd that writes the $25 million check to send them around the world. If that crowd doesn't trust these guys, they're out. If they do, they're in. It's simple. Self correcting.

I've seen my share of proverbial lynch mobs in various settings. Never empower the mob, even if you think they are correct. Once they succeed, they always look for their next victim. Next thing you know, it's you.


----------



## jzk

I only saw one comment about banning them. I don't even know what that means. How do you "ban" them?

If we were discussing the BP oil spill, would we have "standing" to do so? Or what if we were discussing the bus driver that was texting and veered off the highway into the parked car. If we weren't one of the injured passengers, would we have "standing" to discuss the incident?

And if we never drove a bus before, would we still be "qualified" to discuss it? Or would we be armchair busdriver experts? Or is it true that one need not be a bus driver to be able to analyse the accident?



Minnewaska said:


> I don't get the point of debating whether these guys should be banned, unless you are in the crowd that writes the $25 million check to send them around the world. If that crowd doesn't trust these guys, they're out. If they do, they're in. It's simple. Self correcting.
> 
> I've seen my share of proverbial lynch mobs in various settings. Never empower the mob, even if you think they are correct. Once they succeed, they always look for their next victim. Next thing you know, it's you.


----------



## christian.hess

lynch mobs well put minnewaska

these threads dont know why either but it brings out the worst in people never the best

blaming is so easy

pinpointing the exact cause is always hard

whoever wants to pinppoint now is being part of a lynch mob...and hope he or she is never on the receiving end of a lynch mob

there is no arguing with or correcting a lynch mob and sense cant be put into them

I just dont get why people cant let the details come out first and just LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES others make and remember them so one hopefully doesnt commit the same mistake

why cant people understand that humans err?

no matter how damn good your are or think you are

uricane jack posted some really well thought out "thoughts" pardon the redundance...

cant we just leave it at that?


----------



## bob77903

There's only one guy here, and over at SA, (same one) that keeps harping basic seamanship. The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was. But, some horse's rear end won't accept that. Seems until they say exactly what MR MARITIME LAWYER wants them to say, he never will shut his freak'n pie hole....


----------



## jzk

Well, Bob, get used to disappointment. I am going to discuss this issue on this and whatever other forum I choose for as long as I feel.like it. And, as long as people like you continue to.post misinformation about it, I am going to call you on it.



bob77903:2433610 said:


> There's only one guy here, and over at SA, (same one) that keeps harping basic seamanship. The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was. But, some horse's rear end won't accept that. Seems until they say exactly what MR MARITIME LAWYER wants them to say, he never will shut his freak'n pie hole....


----------



## bob77903

Hell, I'll bite. What misinformation did I post? Please call me on it....


----------



## jzk

Ok, Bob, here you go.

You posted: "The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was."

So far two crew of Vestas have spoken, that I know of.

First, Captain Chris. See the video I posted. He said that he is responsible as Captain, but he has to be able to trust his crew. And the breakdown occurred with the crew. Firstly, this is terrible leadership. In his second statement, he tries to exonerate himself by throwing his crew under the bus. But Chris, why weren't you looking at the charts? Why didn't you know where your boat was? Do you delegate everything? Is it above you to go over to the plotter and verify your position once and a while?

Navigator said that he didn't zoom in. But then he said that his "mistake" was thinking he had everything he needed trying to blame the course change. Sorry, but he had everything he needed. He had the charts. He had two perfectly good independent charting systems.

Watch Captain? Where are you? Or was it Chris. He seems to have been on deck talking about 40m. Is that a good time to check out the chart? He was on watch and didn't know where his boat was. Mistake.

So when you say they admitted exactly what the mistake was, not by a long shot.

And, by the way, what exactly is it about my having practiced maritime law that is relevant here?

If these "professionals" were in charge of the Exxon Valdez and plowed it into a well charted reef under the same circumstances, I don't think they would be getting quite the hero's welcome that they seem to be getting.

I just ask for a little honest responsibility. Tell the world that it was unacceptable for this to happen. It NEVER has to happen. They were focused on everything else but the safety of the boat.



bob77903 said:


> Hell, I'll bite. What misinformation did I post? Please call me on it....


----------



## bob77903

jzk said:


> Ok, Bob, here you go.
> 
> You posted: "The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was."
> 
> So far two crew of Vestas have spoken, that I know of.
> 
> First, Captain Chris. See the video I posted. He said that he is responsible as Captain, but he has to be able to trust his crew. And the breakdown occurred with the crew. Firstly, this is terrible leadership. In his second statement, he tries to exonerate himself by throwing his crew under the bus. But Chris, why weren't you looking at the charts? Why didn't you know where your boat was? Do you delegate everything? Is it above you to go over to the plotter and verify your position once and a while?
> 
> Navigator said that he didn't zoom in. But then he said that his "mistake" was thinking he had everything he needed trying to blame the course change. Sorry, but he had everything he needed. He had the charts. He had two perfectly good independent charting systems.
> 
> Watch Captain? Where are you? Or was it Chris. He seems to have been on deck talking about 40m. Is that a good time to check out the chart? He was on watch and didn't know where his boat was. Mistake.
> 
> So when you say they admitted exactly what the mistake was, not by a long shot.
> 
> And, by the way, what exactly is it about my having practiced maritime law that is relevant here?
> 
> If these "professionals" were in charge of the Exxon Valdez and plowed it into a well charted reef under the same circumstances, I don't think they would be getting quite the hero's welcome that they seem to be getting.
> 
> I just ask for a little honest responsibility. Tell the world that it was unacceptable for this to happen. It NEVER has to happen. They were focused on everything else but the safety of the boat.


I posted "The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was". That sir is not misinformation, it is FACT. So I ask again, please tell me what is misinformation in my post.....


----------



## jzk

Would you like smaller words? The mistake they admitted to was not the one they made!



bob77903:2433906 said:


> jzk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Bob, here you go.
> 
> You posted: "The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was."
> 
> So far two crew of Vestas have spoken, that I know of.
> 
> First, Captain Chris. See the video I posted. He said that he is responsible as Captain, but he has to be able to trust his crew. And the breakdown occurred with the crew. Firstly, this is terrible leadership. In his second statement, he tries to exonerate himself by throwing his crew under the bus. But Chris, why weren't you looking at the charts? Why didn't you know where your boat was? Do you delegate everything? Is it above you to go over to the plotter and verify your position once and a while?
> 
> Navigator said that he didn't zoom in. But then he said that his "mistake" was thinking he had everything he needed trying to blame the course change. Sorry, but he had everything he needed. He had the charts. He had two perfectly good independent charting systems.
> 
> Watch Captain? Where are you? Or was it Chris. He seems to have been on deck talking about 40m. Is that a good time to check out the chart? He was on watch and didn't know where his boat was. Mistake.
> 
> So when you say they admitted exactly what the mistake was, not by a long shot.
> 
> And, by the way, what exactly is it about my having practiced maritime law that is relevant here?
> 
> If these "professionals" were in charge of the Exxon Valdez and plowed it into a well charted reef under the same circumstances, I don't think they would be getting quite the hero's welcome that they seem to be getting.
> 
> I just ask for a little honest responsibility. Tell the world that it was unacceptable for this to happen. It NEVER has to happen. They were focused on everything else but the safety of the boat.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted "The crew of Vestas has admitted that they made a mistake, and, exactly what the mistake was". That sir is not misinformation, it is FACT. So I ask again, please tell me what is misinformation in my post.....
Click to expand...


----------



## bob77903

jzk said:


> Would you like smaller words? The mistake they admitted to was not the one they made!


You sir can't handle the truth can you. Again, what misinformation did I post. If the navigator had zoomed in, his admitted mistake, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we. Vestas Wind would be in Abu Dhabi, or closing in on it now. So the mistake that the team admitted "exactly", is "I didn't zoom in".

I don't deal in shoulda, woulda, coulda's. The facts speak for themselves. Nobody here wants to hear my theory's on what took place, what might have been, my strongly held feelings.

That's what you've been doing now for 3-4 days, whatever the time frame has been. Your opinion of the happenings, and the way the crew needs to behave, and statements they should make.

The facts are the facts. Because they don't suit your fancy has no bearing on the outcome what so ever.

I know my posting this certainly won't stop your ongoing tirade on this matter, but it seems to me your blind to the fact that not one person has supported your cause here or elsewhere. There are some pretty smart sailors, racers, people on these forums, even other lawyers. Might want to ponder on that fact.....Oh, and I've said all I need to....Again, facts are facts.....cya


----------



## jzk

This is an Internet forum titled with the very subject that I am discussing. Discuss if you like, or not. But why the control.freak.nonsense? Capt's statement was lame, and navigator 's was just not true. He had all of the information he needed to avoid this disaster. And that should be his message.

Notice the series of "likes" given to.my posts here.



bob77903:2434050 said:


> jzk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like smaller words? The mistake they admitted to was not the one they made!
> 
> 
> 
> You sir can't handle the truth can you. Again, what misinformation did I post. If the navigator had zoomed in, his admitted mistake, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we. Vestas Wind would be in Abu Dhabi, or closing in on it now. So the mistake that the team admitted "exactly", is "I didn't zoom in".
> 
> I don't deal in shoulda, woulda, coulda's. The facts speak for themselves. Nobody here wants to hear my theory's on what took place, what might have been, my strongly held feelings.
> 
> That's what you've been doing now for 3-4 days, whatever the time frame has been. Your opinion of the happenings, and the way the crew needs to behave, and statements they should make.
> 
> The facts are the facts. Because they don't suit your fancy has no bearing on the outcome what so ever.
> 
> I know my posting this certainly won't stop your ongoing tirade on this matter, but it seems to me your blind to the fact that not one person has supported your cause here or elsewhere. There are some pretty smart sailors, racers,people on these forums, even other lawyers. Might want to ponder on that fact.....Oh, and I've said all I need to....Again, facts are facts.....cya
Click to expand...


----------



## JonEisberg

bob77903 said:


> You sir can't handle the truth can you. Again, what misinformation did I post. If the navigator had zoomed in, his admitted mistake, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we. Vestas Wind would be in Abu Dhabi, or closing in on it now. So the mistake that the team admitted "exactly", is "I didn't zoom in".
> 
> I don't deal in shoulda, woulda, coulda's. The facts speak for themselves. Nobody here wants to hear my theory's on what took place, what might have been, my strongly held feelings.
> 
> That's what you've been doing now for 3-4 days, whatever the time frame has been. Your opinion of the happenings, and the way the crew needs to behave, and statements they should make.
> 
> The facts are the facts. Because they don't suit your fancy has no bearing on the outcome what so ever.
> 
> I know my posting this certainly won't stop your ongoing tirade on this matter, but it seems to me your blind to the fact that not one person has supported your cause here or elsewhere. There are some pretty smart sailors, racers, people on these forums, even other lawyers. Might want to ponder on that fact.....Oh, and I've said all I need to....Again, facts are facts.....cya


How ironic that it turns out to be a lawyer who has been incessantly scolding the skipper for not owning up to his mistake, or accepting full responsibility for such "gross negligence", dissembling about the "real" mistake that was made, 'throwing his crew under the bus', demanding that as mere "observers" of the VOR we are "owed" a full explanation of the events, blah, blah, blah, blah...

However, does anyone have any doubt whatsoever, that if this skipper was his _CLIENT_ facing potential liability due to his negligence, our expert in maritime law would effectively put a muzzle on Nicholson, and prevent him from uttering so much as _a single word _about this incident in public?

YCMTSU...


----------



## jzk

So Jon, at what point are we allowed to discuss, on an internet forum, how a team of highly professional sailors sailed their six million dollar high tech racing machine equipped with its hundred thousand dollar navigation system, into a well charted island putting the entire crew in grave danger?

And the truth is that you are the one continuously diverging from the actual topics of this thread just to take shots at me. Not only that, you copy and past my posts onto a completely different forum to do the same.

If the crew's conduct amounted to gross negligence, why can't I call it gross negligence?

And the truth is that you have no idea what my advice would be, so you are just, once again, talking out of your ass with absolutely no foundation whatsoever.

I don't know the insurance situation of this boat. But I suspect that the sailors are covered and there is no concern with them admitting fault.

Really, this is a big PR issue for Vestas as a company. It would be best for them if their guys were seen as responsible, stand up guys and not throwing excuses around. A better suggestion might be for Chris to take responsibility both as Captain and also as someone that is supposed to be "checking what is going on" personally. Navigator should just say "I just missed it. It wasn't the zoom, the course change or anything else. I just missed it, and I should know better."

For you to suggest that we all don't have "standing" to discuss this event is just laughable. We have just as much standing as baseball fans discussing Bill Buckner's error or any other blunder in the history of sports. Except this blunder cost six million dollars and put lives at risk. How many lives did Bill Buckner put at risk? Could you see if he came out and said that he doesn't owe an explanation to anyone?



JonEisberg said:


> How ironic that it turns out to be a lawyer who has been incessantly scolding the skipper for not owning up to his mistake, or accepting full responsibility for such "gross negligence", dissembling about the "real" mistake that was made, 'throwing his crew under the bus', demanding that as mere "observers" of the VOR we are "owed" a full explanation of the events, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> However, does anyone have any doubt whatsoever, that if this skipper was his _CLIENT_ facing potential liability due to his negligence, our expert in maritime law would effectively put a muzzle on Nicholson, and prevent him from uttering so much as _a single word _about this incident in public?
> 
> YCMTSU...


----------



## jzk

I listened to that first part of the SA interview with Chris. It seems he genuinely delegates the responsibility of making sure there is enough depth to the navigator. He also noted that the crew size had nothing to do with it.

For one of the Mac's I did, one of my crew was "navigator" complete with Expedition. But I still looked at the chart. We were constantly discussing his ideas and what he was seeing. I really just can't imagine not knowing, first hand, what was coming up. There were parts where we were gybing down wind through some shallows, and I just couldn't imagine just 100% delegating that assurance to a crew member.


----------



## Uricanejack

jzk said:


> So Jon, at what point are we allowed to discuss, on an internet forum, how a team of highly professional sailors sailed their six million dollar high tech racing machine equipped with its hundred thousand dollar navigation system, into a well charted island putting the entire crew in grave danger?
> 
> And the truth is that you are the one continuously diverging from the actual topics of this thread just to take shots at me. Not only that, you copy and past my posts onto a completely different forum to do the same.
> 
> If the crew's conduct amounted to gross negligence, why can't I call it gross negligence?
> 
> And the truth is that you have no idea what my advice would be, so you are just, once again, talking out of your ass with absolutely no foundation whatsoever.
> 
> I don't know the insurance situation of this boat. But I suspect that the sailors are covered and there is no concern with them admitting fault.
> 
> Really, this is a big PR issue for Vestas as a company. It would be best for them if their guys were seen as responsible, stand up guys and not throwing excuses around. A better suggestion might be for Chris to take responsibility both as Captain and also as someone that is supposed to be "checking what is going on" personally. Navigator should just say "I just missed it. It wasn't the zoom, the course change or anything else. I just missed it, and I should know better."
> 
> For you to suggest that we all don't have "standing" to discuss this event is just laughable. We have just as much standing as baseball fans discussing Bill Buckner's error or any other blunder in the history of sports. Except this blunder cost six million dollars and put lives at risk. How many lives did Bill Buckner put at risk? Could you see if he came out and said that he doesn't owe an explanation to anyone?


Ummm. "The navigator should say I just missed it" He did say that and went on to say he thought he just missed it because because he didn't zoom.

Perhalps you missed it.
What more do you want


----------



## christian.hess

and another thread that just goes to ****

seriously man this isnt helping anyone understand better how to avoid a collision or be a better seaman

what this is doing on this forum is scaring any sane person or sailor from ever commenting and discussing these issues in an inteligent manner here or elsewhere.

because aregue one point to death you lose focus!

which is what has happened here

peace guys

ps. SNAP OUT OF IT!


----------



## christian.hess

jzk said:


> I listened to that first part of the SA interview with Chris. It seems he genuinely delegates the responsibility of making sure there is enough depth to the navigator. He also noted that the crew size had nothing to do with it.
> 
> For one of the Mac's I did, one of my crew was "navigator" complete with Expedition. But I still looked at the chart. We were constantly discussing his ideas and what he was seeing. I really just can't imagine not knowing, first hand, what was coming up. *There were parts where we were gybing down wind through some shallows, and I just couldn't imagine just 100% delegating that assurance to a crew member.*


interesting how I mentioned this about racers taking exceptional risks when racing huh?

as captain you ALWAYS delegate and ALWAYS accept full responisbility of the boats and crews actions

so if you want to argue this then be prepared to be on the receiving end of a lot of grief if anything happens in one of your mac races or other races

its very easy to be so damn argumentative and narrow visioned about these things until something similar and or catastrophic happens to YOU on your WATCH

it seems to me that despite your vast experience especially racing that you cant come to terms with the fact that humans ERR

if youre one of those guys that always says NOT ON MY WATCH and we are always perfect, guess what? one of these days youll be in a situation where your tongue will be hurting from all the biting it will get

its hard to accept ones fault and if skipper of your crew and or boat and or navigator etc

however the first rule in overcoming MISTAKES and improve is to ACCEPT them

which it seems has been done

or not?

that shows maturity on the part of these racers

again this is nothing against you jzk as a person or racer or sailor...just against the sentiments being expressed...

life and sailing arent perfect...never will be...so bare with the mistakes a bit and improve based on past experiences

just my 3 cents


----------



## jzk

Honestly, I don't understand your point. We were gybing through places where there were depth issues. I looked at the chart to be sure. It just takes a minute.

In human errors, there are degrees of errors. There is the bus driver that is texting and veers into a parked car on a highway killing people. If that happens, can we discuss it? If your kid's bus driver did that, would you discuss it?

I wrecked a car once when I was 20 driving too fast with a couple of girls in the car. It was gross negligence. I have not cause any accidents since. So what?

So what? To err is human. Can we discuss those errors on the forums now and then? If the Exxon Valdez goes aground because the captain is drunk and Exxon knew he was a drunk, can we discuss that? Can we assign fault? Or are we not allowed?



christian.hess said:


> interesting how I mentioned this about racers taking exceptional risks when racing huh?
> 
> as captain you ALWAYS delegate and ALWAYS accept full responisbility of the boats and crews actions
> 
> so if you want to argue this then be prepared to be on the receiving end of a lot of grief if anything happens in one of your mac races or other races
> 
> its very easy to be so damn argumentative and narrow visioned about these things until something similar and or catastrophic happens to YOU on your WATCH
> 
> it seems to me that despite your vast experience especially racing that you cant come to terms with the fact that humans ERR
> 
> if youre one of those guys that always says NOT ON MY WATCH and we are always perfect, guess what? one of these days youll be in a situation where your tongue will be hurting from all the biting it will get
> 
> its hard to accept ones fault and if skipper of your crew and or boat and or navigator etc
> 
> however the first rule in overcoming MISTAKES and improve is to ACCEPT them
> 
> which it seems has been done
> 
> or not?
> 
> that shows maturity on the part of these racers
> 
> again this is nothing against you jzk as a person or racer or sailor...just against the sentiments being expressed...
> 
> life and sailing arent perfect...never will be...so bare with the mistakes a bit and improve based on past experiences
> 
> just my 3 cents


----------



## jzk

Uricanejack said:


> Ummm. "The navigator should say I just missed it" He did say that and went on to say he thought he just missed it because because he didn't zoom.
> 
> Perhalps you missed it.
> What more do you want


Ummm...read his whole statement. I already quoted it many times.


----------



## JonEisberg

jzk said:


> If the crew's conduct amounted to gross negligence, why can't I call it gross negligence?


You certainly may, no one is stopping you... Likewise, myself and others have the right to disagree with your assessment...



jzk said:


> And the truth is that you have no idea what my advice would be, so you are just, once again, talking out of your ass with absolutely no foundation whatsoever.


"Reading is Fundamental..." I posed a hypothetical situation, indicated by my use of the word "IF", and went with a hunch or guess, implicit in my use of the word "Doubt"...

I'll stick with my hunch... You seem like a pretty smart lawyer, so I would guess that _IF_ you had a client like Nicholson who _MIGHT_ be facing some form of civil liability, you would probably prefer that he had not already publicly admitted his mistake, to be posted on Facebook and YouTube, was giving interviews to Sailing Anarchy, and so on... I'm _guessing_ that any good lawyer would implore his client to keep his mouth shut, instead... And, I would hazard a further guess that most others here might be tempted to take that bet, as well...

I could be wrong, of course...



jzk said:


> For you to suggest that we all don't have "standing" to discuss this event is just laughable.


Nah, what's laughable is that you believe I've actually asserted that... Would you care to show us where I've done so?


----------



## christian.hess

jzk said:


> Honestly, I don't understand your point. We were gybing through places where there were depth issues. I looked at the chart to be sure. It just takes a minute.
> 
> In human errors, there are degrees of errors. There is the bus driver that is texting and veers into a parked car on a highway killing people. If that happens, can we discuss it? If your kid's bus driver did that, would you discuss it?
> 
> I wrecked a car once when I was 20 driving too fast with a couple of girls in the car. It was gross negligence. I have not cause any accidents since. So what?
> 
> So what? To err is human. Can we discuss those errors on the forums now and then? If the Exxon Valdez goes aground because the captain is drunk and Exxon knew he was a drunk, can we discuss that? Can we assign fault? Or are we not allowed?


I mentioned this, my POINT that racers take calculated risks, sometimes they make it sometimes they dont like this scenario and say the farrallones scenario where they cut the rocks short and went into the surf to save some distance

my POINT and the only one Im even close to arguing here is these things happen with frequency all over the world WHEN RACING

moreso than normal sailing or cruising or adventuring or voyaging whatever you want to call it simply because there is a timed GOAL

none of this would of emerged if they took a wide berth right, ZOOM OR NOT

think about it...

if you are gybing through shoals thats not normal to a day sailor or cruiser out there

miss one gybe and all hell breaks loose

so how can you not extrapolate this simple scenario down to the indian ocean and say huh?

maybe its not that different...

*calculated risks are just risks that dont **** up...*

ps. my point about this got laughs from some on here...which is what makes me laugh more at them for thinking that this crap doesnt happen...


----------



## jzk

Listen to the interview. They were not looking at the chart. Navigator briefs them, and then that seems to be it. Captain doesn't seem to think it is important to check the chart. This is not a risk of racing. This is a lack of seamanship. They had time to do this. Doing it does not interfere with the racing.



christian.hess said:


> I mentioned this, my POINT that racers take calculated risks, sometimes they make it sometimes they dont like this scenario and say the farrallones scenario where they cut the rocks short and went into the surf to save some distance
> 
> my POINT and the only one Im even close to arguing here is these things happen with frequency all over the world WHEN RACING
> 
> moreso than normal sailing or cruising or adventuring or voyaging whatever you want to call it simply because there is a timed GOAL
> 
> none of this would of emerged if they took a wide berth right, ZOOM OR NOT
> 
> think about it...
> 
> if you are gybing through shoals thats not normal to a day sailor or cruiser out there
> 
> miss one gybe and all hell breaks loose
> 
> so how can you not extrapolate this simple scenario down to the indian ocean and say huh?
> 
> maybe its not that different...
> 
> *calculated risks are just risks that dont **** up...*
> 
> ps. my point about this got laughs from some on here...which is what makes me laugh more at them for thinking that this crap doesnt happen...


----------



## christian.hess

I will not continue to argue about something which has no ending...pertaining to this thread or elsewehere my thoughts and actions(for the future) on the matter are deeply ingrained in myself and if I race or cruise with my family or deliver a boat or whatever I know what to do and how to act...God forbid anything happens and as we all know it DOES and WILL

I always know that I dont know everything and never will and never will be perfect...I can always learn and will continue to do so

in my case I could argue Im not as skilled as a navigator as I am a very good and conservative seaman per se...

im a good helmsman but maybe not the best racer or tactician...dunno really

I know this, others should as well

so my stance is that both the skipper and navigator are at fault...as is the crew for not being more alert

thats about it...as skipper he should take full responsibilty...I beleive the navigator has as well

what I dont understand from you is why do you want more info or explanations? what is going to change?

if for example we later find out that they hit the reef cause the skipper said **** all you guys we are going straight and not around it...

would that change the arguments?

*again I say this because racing skippers do this ALL THE TIME*

anyone sailed in san francisco bay here? im sure there are, who doesnt know an asshat skipper know it all and do it all?

so my second point I guess is what if the info you are getting from the interviews is a cover up, or what they are suppposed to say...what if what the navigator and or skipper are saying or not the truth

what if the bowman only really knows the truth about what happened?

how can we argue so adamantly when we dont know what really really really happened

this is like arguing what happened to the malaysia airlines based on a sighting from the maldives.

ps. I havent seen the vids and or interviews and have no interest in seeing them as they dont change what HAPPENED and what we can learn from them

the real truth here is that they hit a reef

big ******* whoop

how many times has this happened in sailing, past and present and will in the future

racing or not is a given and I dont see what all the hooplah is...

negligence yes
recklesness OF COURSE IT is!!!!!!!!!!!! VOR RACING FOR PETES SAKE not beer can racing at the lake club right?
akin to murder or driving drunk or death thats a stretch(all crew pretty much sign a letter waiving their rights and that death is and can happen)
fatigue, light headedness, bad calls and shots YUP

whats new here? nothing

just sayin Im not getting the hard arguments here


----------



## jzk

Well see, Christian, here is the thing. This is an internet forum. They have them on all sorts of topics. This particular topic is the "Team Vestas Wind grounded in the VOR" topic. So, if someone wants to discuss that topic, they can. Or, if you prefer another topic, there are many more. So, you don't have to discuss anything here if you don't want to.

But why are trying to control what I discuss? Control freak problems?



christian.hess said:


> I will not continue to argue about something which has no ending...pertaining to this thread or elsewehere my thoughts and actions(for the future) on the matter are deeply ingrained in myself and if I race or cruise with my family or deliver a boat or whatever I know what to do and how to act...God forbid anything happens and as we all know it DOES and WILL
> 
> I always know that I dont know everything and never will and never will be perfect...I can always learn and will continue to do so
> 
> in my case I could argue Im not as skilled as a navigator as I am a very good and conservative seaman per se...
> 
> im a good helmsman but maybe not the best racer or tactician...dunno really
> 
> I know this, others should as well
> 
> so my stance is that both the skipper and navigator are at fault...as is the crew for not being more alert
> 
> thats about it...as skipper he should take full responsibilty...I beleive the navigator has as well
> 
> what I dont understand from you is why do you want more info or explanations? what is going to change?
> 
> if for example we later find out that they hit the reef cause the skipper said **** all you guys we are going straight and not around it...
> 
> would that change the arguments?
> 
> *again I say this because racing skippers do this ALL THE TIME*
> 
> anyone sailed in san francisco bay here? im sure there are, who doesnt know an asshat skipper know it all and do it all?
> 
> so my second point I guess is what if the info you are getting from the interviews is a cover up, or what they are suppposed to say...what if what the navigator and or skipper are saying or not the truth
> 
> what if the bowman only really knows the truth about what happened?
> 
> how can we argue so adamantly when we dont know what really really really happened
> 
> this is like arguing what happened to the malaysia airlines based on a sighting from the maldives.
> 
> ps. I havent seen the vids and or interviews and have no interest in seeing them as they dont change what HAPPENED and what we can learn from them
> 
> the real truth here is that they hit a reef
> 
> big ******* whoop
> 
> how many times has this happened in sailing, past and present and will in the future
> 
> racing or not is a given and I dont see what all the hooplah is...
> 
> negligence yes
> recklesness OF COURSE IT is!!!!!!!!!!!! VOR RACING FOR PETES SAKE not beer can racing at the lake club right?
> akin to murder or driving drunk or death thats a stretch(all crew pretty much sign a letter waiving their rights and that death is and can happen)
> fatigue, light headedness, bad calls and shots YUP
> 
> whats new here? nothing
> 
> just sayin Im not getting the hard arguments here


----------



## christian.hess

what are you talking about man? how on earth am I controlling what you discuss...for one you arent discussing.

can you see beyond your own points?

Im discussing certain points I think are pertinent..are you so damn egotistical that you cant READ

READ!!! or is that telling you what to do? if not you are just arguing with yourself

where in my post is there anything similar to what you are talking about...?

I am part of this internet forum and I am discussing...very OPENLY and cordially... I might not if I decide not to or see it unfit for me to continue doing so...am I control freak for that?

are you insane man? be respectful...

what I wont do is argue ad nauseum certain points only *you* think are pertinent...

you are belaboring certain points...you think you are discussing when in fact you sound like a damn broken record and despite what you think of your input you sir have actually drifted from what this thread is about...

others have pointed out this to you...

if you cant see this then like others I wont even bother discussing anymore

ps. can I simply ask and this is in all sincerity what in my post triggered such a ridiculous copy paste from you?

its almost as if you dont read and ridicule and think you are embarrassing me an others by not even referencing my post well

the same thing you talked to jon about you are doing with me...

out of the blue

sorry man but you cant argue or discuss if all you do is belabor a point ad naseum...


----------



## jzk

It was when you said: "what I dont understand from you is why do you want more info or explanations? what is going to change?"

Why shouldn't there be more explanations? Baseball games provide more explanations than this, why shouldn't these guys destroying a six million dollar yacht and putting lives at risk?

If I misunderstood you, my apologies.

I respond to others posts because they say things like "they already admitted their mistake, what more do you want?"

If one wants to analyze what happened here, I want them to actually read what was said.

Now the interview is coming out, and I am getting the very strong impression that Captain Chris simply didn't concern himself with things like checking the chart. Maybe they went 12 hours at a time with no one checking. That is fine if they KNOW that they are in deep water for a certain amount of time, but when they also KNOW they are approaching some shallows, an independent review of the charts should happen. I suspect it is what you would do, no?



christian.hess said:


> what are you talking about man? how on earth am I controlling what you discuss...for one you arent discussing.
> 
> can you see beyond your own points?
> 
> Im discussing certain points I think are pertinent..are you so damn egotistical that you cant READ
> 
> READ!!! or is that telling you what to do? if not you are just arguing with yourself
> 
> where in my post is there anything similar to what you are talking about...?
> 
> I am part of this internet forum and I am discussing...very OPENLY and cordially... I might not if I decide not to or see it unfit for me to continue doing so...am I control freak for that?
> 
> are you insane man? be respectful...
> 
> what I wont do is argue ad nauseum certain points only *you* think are pertinent...
> 
> you are belaboring certain points...you think you are discussing when in fact you sound like a damn broken record and despite what you think of your input you sir have actually drifted from what this thread is about...
> 
> others have pointed out this to you...
> 
> if you cant see this then like others I wont even bother discussing anymore
> 
> ps. can I simply ask and this is in all sincerity what in my post triggered such a ridiculous copy paste from you?
> 
> its almost as if you dont read and ridicule and think you are embarrassing me an others by not even referencing my post well
> 
> the same thing you talked to jon about you are doing with me...
> 
> out of the blue
> 
> sorry man but you cant argue or discuss if all you do is belabor a point ad naseum...


----------



## christian.hess

yes...I would(double and triple check, quadruple check) now bare with me...does this change what happened to vesta? or what caused the hit?

whatever becomes of this incident:

whatever a racing comittee decides:

doesnt affect me really and what I would do...all it does is maybe change blame on that boat

have you read for example the report on the farrallones race where people died on a simple 50 miles race? for almost the exact same situation/reason?

they were cutting a "race course short" the same thing can be said for hitting a reef

they were racing

if they are fatigued and on for 12 hours, crew that is...helming 30 minutes a piece(skipper, navigator, and other highly selected crew,) before crashing to their bunks(yes this is about as long as helmsmen last in VOR in vigorous racing in the southern ocean) why is it so hard to see that its very possible the captain in race mode, stressed and fatigued conceded the navigator authority on the matter?

have you ever delegated and commanded authority and responsibilty? I think we all have at some point in our lives...likewise we have all received orders and have been ordered to be somewhere do something and or act some way.

for example as a cook if I tell someone to make a sauce...I give them the exact instructions and for some reason it sucks...however I DONT CHECK AND TASTE THAT SAUCE BEFORE SERVICE

whos fault is that?

if im the chef MINE not the damn cook who cooked the sauce despite my instructions

see the volvo race for one isnt SOLO racing

so there is always a battalion of people lead by a skipper, first mate, navigator and so on...

my last point here is that I dont DISAGREE with wanting to know more...know what really happened this usually happens after a big debriefing and investigation led by a 3rd party committee, usually with persons in the business that are FAMILIAR with these scenarios...like the farallones committee.

I think it shows determination on your part and that you want to know to help yourself understand how these things happen

me too

however it doesnt change my thoughts INITIALLY or after the matter much as I know that in the end what happened is common and happens because 1 or more mistakes and factors cause these incidents

not 1

not 1 guy

not 1 boat or wave or puff of wind or reef

not 1 UNZOOM of the chart plotter for sure.

its a combination of mistakes and events that cause a "tragedy" like this

for example the titanic sank because of POOR RIVET manufacturing causing the bulkheads to not seal properly and the hull to crack instead of bend and giveway in certain areas when they hit the iceberg...the rivets were of POOR METALLURGY

however it also sank because before leaving port some dumbass yelled ITS UNSINKABLE

draw your own conclusions mine are clear

humans err, mistakes are made...they are usually not single mistakes but a combination of mistakes in series leading up to demise

if anything I think thats the one thing WE CAN ALL AGREE ON HERE on this thrread at least

peace


----------



## jzk

Fair enough. But the truth is that these guys are not being subject to enough scrutiny. Imagine if they crashed a bus into a downtown office building, but luckily no one was hurt. Would there be questions? Would there be questions even from those that didn't own the bus or the office building?

The reason this is relevant for us is that we sail vessels. We have to do the very thing they should have done lest we crash our vessels as well.



christian.hess said:


> yes...I would(double and triple check, quadruple check) now bare with me...does this change what happened to vesta? or what caused the hit?
> 
> whatever becomes of this incident:
> 
> whatever a racing comittee decides:
> 
> doesnt affect me really and what I would do...all it does is maybe change blame on that boat
> 
> have you read for example the report on the farrallones race where people died on a simple 50 miles race? for almost the exact same situation/reason?
> 
> they were cutting a "race course short" the same thing can be said for hitting a reef
> 
> they were racing
> 
> if they are fatigued and on for 12 hours, crew that is...helming 30 minutes a piece(skipper, navigator, and other highly selected crew,) before crashing to their bunks(yes this is about as long as helmsmen last in VOR in vigorous racing in the southern ocean) why is it so hard to see that its very possible the captain in race mode, stressed and fatigued conceded the navigator authority on the matter?
> 
> have you ever delegated and commanded authority and responsibilty? I think we all have at some point in our lives...likewise we have all received orders and have been ordered to be somewhere do something and or act some way.
> 
> for example as a cook if I tell someone to make a sauce...I give them the exact instructions and for some reason it sucks...however I DONT CHECK AND TASTE THAT SAUCE BEFORE SERVICE
> 
> whos fault is that?
> 
> if im the chef MINE not the damn cook who cooked the sauce despite my instructions
> 
> see the volvo race for one isnt SOLO racing
> 
> so there is always a battalion of people lead by a skipper, first mate, navigator and so on...
> 
> my last point here is that I dont DISAGREE with wanting to know more...know what really happened this usually happens after a big debriefing and investigation led by a 3rd party committee, usually with persons in the business that are FAMILIAR with these scenarios...like the farallones committee.
> 
> I think it shows determination on your part and that you want to know to help yourself understand how these things happen
> 
> me too
> 
> however it doesnt change my thoughts INITIALLY or after the matter much as I know that in the end what happened is common and happens because 1 or more mistakes and factors cause these incidents
> 
> not 1
> 
> not 1 guy
> 
> not 1 boat or wave or puff of wind or reef
> 
> not 1 UNZOOM of the chart plotter for sure.
> 
> its a combination of mistakes and events that cause a "tragedy" like this
> 
> for example the titanic sank because of POOR RIVET manufacturing causing the bulkheads to not seal properly and the hull to crack instead of bend and giveway in certain areas when they hit the iceberg...the rivets were of POOR METALLURGY
> 
> however it also sank because before leaving port some dumbass yelled ITS UNSINKABLE
> 
> draw your own conclusions mine are clear
> 
> humans err, mistakes are made...they are usually not single mistakes but a combination of mistakes in series leading up to demise
> 
> if anything I think thats the one thing WE CAN ALL AGREE ON HERE on this thrread at least
> 
> peace


----------



## Uricanejack

jzk said:


> Ummm...read his whole statement. I already quoted it many times.


I have.

I heard or saw and after I listened. I came to a completely different conclusion to you.


----------



## jzk

Wouter said: "However, our planned route changed just before we left, and with the focus on the start and the tricky conditions, I erroneously thought I would have enough information with me to look at the changes in our route as we went along. I was wrong."

He didn't have enough information with him? He had the chart on two independent plotters and even paper. He had everything he needed to keep this from happening.

No one on the watch was looking at the chart. And Captain Chris was serving as a "floater" meaning he goes around and helps out wherever there is need. He had just put in a reef a bit before the crash, etc. He has time to check the chart. But it is not something that occurred to him that needed to be done. It is as simple as that.



Uricanejack said:


> I have.
> 
> I heard or saw and after I listened. I came to a completely different conclusion to you.


----------



## christian.hess

jzk said:


> Fair enough. * But the truth is that these guys are not being subject to enough scrutiny. Imagine if they crashed a bus into a downtown office building,* but luckily no one was hurt. Would there be questions? Would there be questions even from those that didn't own the bus or the office building?
> 
> The reason this is relevant for us is that we sail vessels. We have to do the very thing they should have done lest we crash our vessels as well.


no they are not...they are racing privately funded racing vessels around the globe for fame and fortune and reputation

they are not driving kids to school on cocaine or recklessly driving around a playground

if you want to compare racing to killing or injuring innocent bystanders and fans look at WRC or motorsports around the world

not sailing

what scrutiny would change how people race oceans?

they excel at something called once upon a time YACHTING

they are racing the oceans...THEIR playground...on their terms with their rules and those of the oceans

anyone who thinks this isnt true just ask them

you think they are out there wondering what ammendment was just made to colregs? hell no!

really


----------



## jzk

They most certainly do not "excel" at YACHTING. The proof is up on the reef.



christian.hess said:


> no they are not...they are racing privately funded racing vessels around the globe for fame and fortune and reputation
> 
> they are not driving kids to school on cocaine or recklessly driving around a playground
> 
> if you want to compare racing to killing or injuring innocent bystanders and fans look at WRC or motorsports around the world
> 
> not sailing
> 
> what scrutiny would change how people race oceans?
> 
> they excel at something called once upon a time YACHTING
> 
> they are racing the oceans...THEIR playground...on their terms with their rules and those of the oceans
> 
> anyone who thinks this isnt true just ask them
> 
> you think they are out there wondering what ammendment was just made to colregs? hell no!
> 
> really


----------



## christian.hess

I WAS SPEAKING FOR VOR RACERS AS A WHOLE you need or should see the bigger picture jzk we are simply on different levels here on how we see this

I think it has to do with the fact that you are a racer and maybe you think you could do better than them

as a whole VOR RACERS ARE THE BEST AT SAILING OCEANS if you want to pinpoint say vesta are the worst of the best

is that clear?

please understand this...they are not mom and pop racing volvo65


----------



## jzk

I can do ok in a race, but would never compare my racing skills to theirs. Basic seamanship on the other hand? They didn't have it. That is the tragedy here. It is something every bayliner or mac26 owner should have before they leave the dock, let alone these guys.



christian.hess said:


> I WAS SPEAKING FOR VOR RACERS AS A WHOLE you need or should see the bigger picture jzk we are simply on different levels here on how we see this
> 
> I think it has to do with the fact that you are a racer and maybe you think you could do better than them
> 
> as a whole VOR RACERS ARE THE BEST AT SAILING OCEANS if you want to pinpoint say vesta are the worst of the best
> 
> is that clear?
> 
> please understand this...they are not mom and pop racing volvo65


----------



## christian.hess

devils advocate here is basic seamanship the same if youer in a volvo65 and a plastic tub bayliner sailing at 3 knots

you dont think there are different parameters between racing the southern ocean pedal to the metal on million dollar budgets versus grandma on a buccanner?

are there not racing rules and normal sailing rules of the road

are there not exceptions and amendments to these rules?

are there not race comittees?

Im just saying here and playing devils advocate...

the only thing we agree on here is that one or more people on vestas made 1 or more mistakes at 1 or more places in time

other than that me you and others here have very different views on how this happened however the majority overwhelmingly dont feel a need to pinpoint FAULT

I think thats about all I can say...

its all verbal diahrea after say the first thoughtfull posts

damage is done

lets wait for the real investigation comittee to argue what could of should of been done with testimoney, witnesses, etc...


----------



## paulk

It would seem that professional sailors want us to think they are the best. It's better for their self-images. Since they try to sail full-time they certainly have an advantage over most of us who work at something else and sail as a diversion. Magazines certainly seem to push this principle, since it allows for splashy articles and "exclusive" interviews with this "expert" group. There are a lot of professional cooks working at McDonalds too. They're not necessarily the best cooks just because they're getting paid for it.


----------



## jzk

No, basic seamanship is the same. They didn't look where they were going. This wasn't about racing on the edge. It is not an either or. Looking at the chart would have not cost them anything in the race. It would have only been a benefit as they would be in port now.



christian.hess said:


> devils advocate here is basic seamanship the same if youer in a volvo65 and a plastic tub bayliner sailing at 3 knots
> 
> you dont think there are different parameters between racing the southern ocean pedal to the metal on million dollar budgets versus grandma on a buccanner?
> 
> are there not racing rules and normal sailing rules of the road
> 
> are there not exceptions and amendments to these rules?
> 
> are there not race comittees?
> 
> Im just saying here and playing devils advocate...
> 
> the only thing we agree on here is that one or more people on vestas made 1 or more mistakes at 1 or more places in time
> 
> other than that me you and others here have very different views on how this happened however the majority overwhelmingly dont feel a need to pinpoint FAULT
> 
> I think thats about all I can say...
> 
> its all verbal diahrea after say the first thoughtfull posts
> 
> damage is done
> 
> lets wait for the real investigation comittee to argue what could of should of been done with testimoney, witnesses, etc...


----------



## christian.hess

really jzk really?

have you ever been fatigued day sailing at 3 knots on a 21 footer after helming 30 minutes and you cant check your chart because there is just so much going on?

its just too much

like sailing at 40 knots fearing a broach in 60 knot winds...in huge rollers, with crew or not

same principles and ideas and decisions apply

I mean come on man

give in a bit on your theories here...


----------



## christian.hess

paulk said:


> It would seem that professional sailors want us to think they are the best. It's better for their self-images. Since they try to sail full-time they certainly have an advantage over most of us who work at something else and sail as a diversion. Magazines certainly seem to push this principle, since it allows for splashy articles and "exclusive" interviews with this "expert" group. There are a lot of professional cooks working at McDonalds too. They're not necessarily the best cooks just because they're getting paid for it.


if you think Im implying this then I must have done something wrong wording however to think that mom and pop or you or me or anyone on here is just going to hop on a volvo65 and call the shots and not make mistakes just like a hot shot chef or cook thinks he can just pop into a 3 star michelin restaurant and prove everyone wrong that just aint gonna happen

there is a reason the french for example are the best at solo sailing, racing, cuisine and many other things like other countries excel at other sports and hobbies and passions

for one they start at a young age and are ingrained in the spirit of the sea and all they live for and dream for is to race the ocean...with or without crew

experience alone out there is more than any course or book will teach

racing on top? I mean come on..


----------



## jzk

Actually, in the interview, Chris said it was not about having too few crew or anything like that.

They weren't fearing a broach in 60 knot winds. They were sailing along on a beautiful night. Chris wasn't really doing anything at the time. He was "floating." He had time to check the chart. They have a professional team on a watch system. They have plenty of guys to cover all the bases. They have way more resources available than you or I do when we sail. Yet, if you don't want to lose your vessel, you better check that chart.

I hear what you are trying to say about inherent risks in extreme sports, but that is just not what happened here. It was more about incompetence. And, I mean that in the most respectful way possible. I am incompetent at heart surgery, so I don't do it. If I ever were going to do heart surgery, I should get competent first. Well, these guys just didn't know that they should be checking the chart. They took their navigator's word and left it at that.



christian.hess said:


> really jzk really?
> 
> have you ever been fatigued day sailing at 3 knots on a 21 footer after helming 30 minutes and you cant check your chart because there is just so much going on?
> 
> its just too much
> 
> like sailing at 40 knots fearing a broach in 60 knot winds...in huge rollers, with crew or not
> 
> same principles and ideas and decisions apply
> 
> I mean come on man
> 
> give in a bit on your theories here...


----------



## christian.hess

so are you laying more blame on the captain for floating then?

you know like a general saluting the troops at the front line?

what are you getting at? that he was incompetent for that

what would make you happy in the investigations

that the captain be fired and navigator too...what?

Im trying to see your point here...but what is the outcome of this?

ok team vesta as a whole was incompetent in this years vor.

now what?


----------



## Bill-Rangatira




----------



## jzk

Floating means he wasn't busy 100% of the time. He was available to reef the main, help change a sail, etc.

In Formula One, the drivers live on the edge. A crash can happen any time even if exercising every possible bit of care. But if you crash because your crew guy didn't put the lug nuts on the wheel in the pit, well that has nothing to do with living on the edge. It is just inexcusable incompetence.



christian.hess said:


> so are you laying more blame on the captain for floating then?
> 
> you know like a general saluting the troops at the front line?
> 
> what are you getting at? that he was incompetent for that
> 
> what would make you happy in the investigations
> 
> that the captain be fired and navigator too...what?
> 
> Im trying to see your point here...but what is the outcome of this?
> 
> ok team vesta as a whole was incompetent in this years vor.
> 
> now what?


----------



## Minnewaska

Not all human error is the same. On a scale of one to ten, a one being that you forgot to put the head seat down before leaving the dock and ten being Capt Walbridge sailing the POS wooden Bounty into a hurricane, I would put this VOR nav mistake at a 7. This was a mistake made under fatigue, exhaustion, etc. Still a mistake, but not without some margin for understanding human fallibility, while sailing around the planet. 

This post is not directed at any other in particular. So before anyone repeats their points above, I've already read them. Spare yourself.

If you want to weigh in on where you would rate them on the 1 to 10 scale of human error, knock yourself out. Maybe just a number and a couple of sentences? If you can't make your point in under a couple hundred words, you're probably wrong.


----------



## christian.hess

7 captain(I think thats a fair number)
6 navigator or first mate
5 helmsman(whoever it was)
4 bowman or lookout
3 rest of the crew and so on and so forth

peace Im out guys(for real this time, jajaja)


----------



## jzk

If this was a mistake made under fatigue or exhaustion, then the captain is at fault. They have enough crew to properly manage watches to avoid those things. Even Chris himself confirmed this.

10 watch captain.
10 captain in his hands on role on deck 
7 navigator
7 captain as captain.
7 everyone else on deck but the helmsman.

I can't think of any reason to fault the helmsman. In a race like that, a helmsman has a single point of focus. The guys do everything else.



Minnewaska:2436810 said:


> Not all human error is the same. On a scale of one to ten, a one being that you forgot to put the head seat down before leaving the dock and ten being Capt Walbridge sailing the POS wooden Bounty into a hurricane, I would put this VOR nav mistake at a 7. This was a mistake made under fatigue, exhaustion, etc. Still a mistake, but not without some margin for understanding human fallibility, while sailing around the planet.
> 
> This post is not directed at any other in particular. So before anyone repeats their points above, I've already read them. Spare yourself.
> 
> If you want to weigh in on where you would rate them on the 1 to 10 scale of human error, knock yourself out. Maybe just a number and a couple of sentences? If you can't make your point in under a couple hundred words, you're probably wrong.


----------



## Minnewaska

So this Captain is as guilty as sailing the Bounty directly into a hurricane, with full knowledge of it being there? I don't see it. At the least, these guys were not aware they were about to hit the shoal.


----------



## jzk

Well the Bounty problem was more than just sailing into a hurricane. They were taking on water and had not maintained their pumps, if I remember correctly.

Sailing blindfolded ranks up their pretty high. That is what these guys were doing. They just got some information from a navigator that went off watch, and never looked at the chart.

That being said, I will amend my answers such that the 10s are now 9s.



Minnewaska said:


> So this Captain is as guilty as sailing the Bounty directly into a hurricane, with full knowledge of it being there? I don't see it. At the least, these guys were not aware they were about to hit the shoal.


----------



## Bill-Rangatira

jzk said:


> If this was a mistake made under fatigue or exhaustion, then the captain is at fault. They have enough crew to properly manage watches to avoid those things. Even Chris himself confirmed this.
> 
> 10 watch captain.
> 10 captain in his hands on role on deck
> 7 navigator
> 7 captain as captain.
> 7 everyone else on deck but the helmsman.
> 
> I can't think of any reason to fault the helmsman. In a race like that, a helmsman has a single point of focus. The guys do everything else.


the trimmers have a focus as well as do the other crew members
every person has their job to do 
so why blame anyone it happened no one was seriously hurt 
they lost the leg and have been punished enough
there is no evidence of intentional wrong doing 
uke


----------



## MedSailor

Minnewaska said:


> If you want to weigh in on where you would rate them on the 1 to 10 scale of human error, knock yourself out.


Captain Hazelwood. Exxon Valdez: 10 & 1/5. 

If you don't get it, try saying it out loud. 

MedSailor


----------



## Minnewaska

More like 10 and a quart.


----------



## jacaranda2014

christian.hess said:


> so are you laying more blame on the captain for floating then?
> 
> you know like a general saluting the troops at the front line?
> 
> what are you getting at? that he was incompetent for that
> 
> what would make you happy in the investigations
> 
> that the captain be fired and navigator too...what?
> 
> Im trying to see your point here...but what is the outcome of this?
> 
> ok team vesta as a whole was incompetent in this years vor.
> 
> now what?


Both The Captain and the Navigator must be held to account.

The Captain should have given specific instructions re the reef before the start on the 2 leg. They both new about the reef or should have.

Plus Chris should have checked what precautions he had instigated re the approach to and passing the reef at a safe distance and to have hazard info entered re the chart plotter GPS data allocation provisions, which also includes narrators comments provisions that can be placed on the maps for the crew to adhere to like [ TITLE " make sure the Captain and the navigator are on watch and the navigator is at the nav station." ]


----------



## jacaranda2014

christian.hess said:


> I mentioned this, my POINT that racers take calculated risks, sometimes they make it sometimes they dont like this scenario and say the farrallones scenario where they cut the rocks short and went into the surf to save some distance
> 
> my POINT and the only one Im even close to arguing here is these things happen with frequency all over the world WHEN RACING
> 
> moreso than normal sailing or cruising or adventuring or voyaging whatever you want to call it simply because there is a timed GOAL
> 
> none of this would of emerged if they took a wide berth right, ZOOM OR NOT
> 
> think about it...
> 
> if you are gybing through shoals thats not normal to a day sailor or cruiser out there
> 
> miss one gybe and all hell breaks loose
> 
> so how can you not extrapolate this simple scenario down to the indian ocean and say huh?
> 
> maybe its not that different...
> 
> *calculated risks are just risks that dont **** up...*
> 
> ps. my point about this got laughs from some on here...which is what makes me laugh more at them for thinking that this crap doesnt happen...


Totally avoidable and shame on them.


----------



## jacaranda2014

white74 said:


> the trimmers have a focus as well as do the other crew members
> every person has their job to do
> so why blame anyone it happened no one was seriously hurt
> they lost the leg and have been punished enough
> there is no evidence of intentional wrong doing
> uke


But they could have all been killed. Imagine if the sea was 30ft higher well spaced swells.


----------



## jacaranda2014

bob77903 said:


> Hell, I'll bite. What misinformation did I post? Please call me on it....


You Didn't.


----------



## mbianka

First video Interview with Vestas Skipper Chris Nicholson since the grounding:
Team Vestas Wind Skipper Chris Nicholson and Sailing Anarchy's Alan Block After Shipwreck - First Video Interview on Vimeo

Carry on!


----------



## Mabinogion

Been following this topic across many forums.
Basics appear to be the same wherever you look:
Didn't know where they were
Not using full capabilities of e.charts i.e zooming in, alarm functions 
Not using paper charts
Not using radar
19 kts at night
Not looking at depth sounder despite 40 metres being mentioned
Not clipped on or wearing pfd/locator equipment (before anyone quips about the gear being uncomfortable and restricting movement etc - sufficient images exist showing them wearing immersion suits, pfd's and harnesses when they deemed it neccesary)
Failure to walk the course at sufficient zoom before starting or subsequently
Hit a known reef that was originally at the edge of an exclusion zone?
Lack of basic seamanship re. all the above
VOR 24/7 monitoring not picking up on sudden stop of 1 of only 7 vessels they were 'tracking' in the vicinity of known reefs. Had to be made aware by a call from the yacht!

Many of the posts I have read elsewhere mainly made by professionals, have alluded to most of the basics quoted above. Professional was not an adjective used by them to describe Vestas' crew or their actions and omissions.

An accident waiting to happen and thankfully not resulting in death or serious injury, more by luck than anything else.

I look forward to the eventual issue of the investigative report, and do not believe that any leeway will be made to cover these guys being sailors at the extreme edge and in it to win it. To win, you have first to complete the race.


----------



## Mabinogion

Well, its been 2 weeks since the last post on this particular VOR related thread, and looking at the other VOR related threads, even more weeks have passed.
Seems that VOR may not be as popular an interest item as some on other forums might believe, and that is worth a thread all of its own some time.
Possible interest to be resurrected when the report is issued into the grounding as intimated on another thread.


----------



## Donna_F

A bunch of SailNetters in the IRC sailing channel talk about the VOR every day. At least four are sailing the virtual race against each other (or however that works).


----------



## smackdaddy

It's really strange - but I've just not been as excited by this race. I say it's strange because I am a rabid fan of the VOR and I was really a fan of the one-design move. I thought it would be a great leveler that let the real talent shine through.

But Dong Feng is rockin' it. And I definitely give them credit for doing such a great job. At the same time, how are these "newbs" spanking the "best sailors in the world"?

I put that in quotes because Caudrelier and Peron and some of the others are certainly not newbs. But you get the point.

So what is it? Is this race really about the best all-round sailing in the world? Or is it something else?

I honestly don't know. But something about it bothers me. And I'm surprised at that.


----------



## Mabinogion

Thread opening up again?

The VOR is certainly different and seems quite a tale of marketing rather than the actual sailing as a visual entertainment.

I couldn't help comparing the interest in this race compared with say the Route du Rhum and one or two other big races like The Vendee Globe or the Sydney - Hobart.
It is obvious that the French and the Aussies have a recipe for success when it comes to public interest, whether it be the masses of small craft at the start or the phenomenal numbers of spectators thronging the cliff tops, the figures are obvious.

Yet VOR seems to have the Global Corporate players on board with mega bucks thrown at a fleet now reduced to 6 yachts with the Vestas grounding knocking one out of the running.

What does that indicate?

I am not sure, as the public attraction to what by any standards is a very small fleet of yachts seemingly playing follow my leader around a a global course is by comparison to the other races quite low.

ROI is bandied about freely elsewhere and I leave that to the accountants and PR Gurus to justify. Obviously there is publicity, but something else is missing?

It is amazing though that the difference between 1st and last on this leg is only 7hr 1m 5sec if my maths is right. That is pretty level racing by any standards, and the 1-2-3 split is just crazy.

So what is it that is causing such a lack of apparent interest on a broader front? Weird.

Oops, sorry, thread drift, my fault, apologies!


----------



## smackdaddy

No worries - I think it's a very valid question.

The one design thing was supposed to push things back to "the purity of sailing". Contrast that with the AC which was decried by many sailors as ONLY about technology - but was much bigger hit with the broader audience.

Maybe the purity of sailing isn't as interesting as it once was. Maybe it IS about technology.


----------



## Sabreman

> It's really strange - but I've just not been as excited by this race.


I've had the same feeling. During the last 2 editions I followed the race daily and sailed a virtual boat for most of the legs. I love the fact that they went with a class boat to level the field. But I just can't get engaged with this one. I follow, but sporadically.

I think that one problem is that other than Vestas grounding, not much has happened. And now you don't hear anything about the team (show us the boat being rebuilt, something!) During the last edition there was a delimitation and dismasting, and that was just during the first leg! Other legs had pirates, hurricanes, and similar drama. When I look at the photos and videos, the pictures are very tightly cropped but you can see virtually no spectators other than maybe 100 in the immediate area.

I'm ok with the sport at this level being corporate... all other team sports are. It's just that it's boring this time. When the difference between 1 and last after 20 days sailing is something like 6 hours, that means no drama.


----------

