Spitfires doing great at Aruba, except for 1 !

OH WOW!!!! how is that posible?

Some bloody nacra 6.0 didn't know the rules of giving way and T-boned it. Thus taking off the bow section and hitting the crew with the mainbeam.

Sad part is that the Spitfire was most likely halve a leg ahead anyway. As was said earlier they was ranked 2nd in the placings and right behind current #1 Larsen and Pols sailing a Tornado.

Spifire was beating to windward on a port tack and the Nacra 6.0 was broad reaching downwind, also on a port tack.

At least that is what I know from Madforsailing.com news article

Wouter

I must be on some list because I am getting a full report emailed to me every morning from Diana Bogaards, who is there.
That Spitfire was meant to be coming to an Irish sailor at the end of the season - not now !
The awful thing is that the UK Nacra sailor who hit it seems also to be a Spitfire sailor !

Stuart Gummer is a top yotter too and could have come back with silver ware too....

Which Nacra was it that hit them ?

Simon Stannard on a Nacra 6
Both were disqualified from the race - not sure why.
Both were on port. Stannard was windward boat. Stuart was beating - Simon was running downwind, acording to the report.
John Beech went through his (Spitfire) mainsail yesterday, maybe he will borrow Stuarts.

The ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing 2001-2004 are very clear.

Section B - General Limitations
14. AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room

(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room, and

(b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage.

They have been very clear that "damage" means ANY damage and the right-of-way boat has to prove that the contact was unavoidable.

Ok, I have a few questions maybe you guys can help me with (not directly about this incident, but could include it) :

1) In this particular incident, if the boat coming downwind was under spinnaker, his visibility to leeward may have been seriously compromised (I find this a problem blasting downwind under kite.) At these speeds you won`t hear a call from a boat going upwind until you hit him, especially given that he is shouting against the wind. In this situation the boat beating can see him clearly, and, although it may compromise his position in the race, it would be safer to tack away and avoid a collision before it becomes critical. However, the current rules give him right-of-way, which makes it a difficult choice for him to make. (I`m sure the Spitfire sailor, in hindsight, wishes he had tacked away and lost a place or two, rather than what happened.) The situation becomes even more of a problem the closer the boats get, because the only avoiding action the spinnaker boat can make at the last moment is to head up onto a beat - with a kite up it means he will capsize onto the boat that is beating, causing a collision.

2) You are sailing a spinnaker boat in a mixed fleet - you get to the weather mark mid-fleet, and hoist the kite. Now you are passing boats without spinnakers, and because you are sailing deeper than they are your paths are converging with them, even though you are on the same tack. Now, non-spin cats gybe downwind, so you cannot expect them to sail a "proper course" toward the next mark, it doesn`t work like that in reality. Gybing at 90degree laylines IS their proper course. Now you find yourself to weather of a non-spin boat, and have to head up to avoid contact, but at the same time a gust hits you and you are forced to bear off to avoid capsizing onto the leeward boat, which would definitely cause an accident. The leeward boat, however, is not going to bear off to accommodate you, unless he is fully aware of how a spin. boat responds to gusts. In any case he will protest you for making him take avoiding action despite his right-of-way.

So we are left with one of two assumptions :
1) It is dangerous for spin. & non-spin boats to share a race-course under the current rules.
2) the current rules do not accommodate cat-sailing under spinnaker, and need to be looked at in this light with a view to making things safer.

Anybody have any thoughts on this ??(and no, I`m not taking the spinnaker off !! )

Cheers
Steve

And another point I just remembered, after having been sailed right through on two separate occasions, both times while being on starboard and been taken out by port boats.
(Both occasions were while sailing Dart catamarans, which are known for their inability to change direction in a hurry.)
- When you call starboard on another competitor on the upwind leg, and you visually make eye-contact with the other skipper (he looks at you under his mainsail), you must assume that he knows of his responsibility to take avoiding action.
It then becomes clear that, despite having seen you, he is making little effort to either tack away or bear off around your stern, so you call starboard on him again, he looks under his main again & sees you. By now it is getting a little too close for comfort.
Now he realises the stupidity of the situation he has put you both in, yanks on the tiller, stalls the rudders, a beautiful roostertail comes up from his rudders and he bears off, powers up some more becuase he`s too stupid to LET GO his mainsheet, and sails right through your port hull.
Now, the argument that I should have taken avoiding action is a bit flawed : At the speed we travel, if I were to tack away from potential collisions when I felt that I still had safe room to do so, I would be tacking maybe 30-50metres before the collision, since cats sail very quickly, but manouvre less quickly. If I were to protest him for not avoiding me, he would argue that I tacked away onto port a long way away from him, and that he was going to take avoiding action in the next 2 seconds. You will never win a protest if you tack away except at the point where a collision is imminent, at which point it is likely to happen, even if you do take avoiding action.
(I have since given up sailing Darts, partly becuase I don`t like having my boat in the factory being re-built after major regattas due to some brainless dingo sailing through my boat.)

Cheers
Steve

Hi steve,
I know what you are saying, sailing one up with kite makes vision even more difficult. Sailing at last years Wildcat reggatta at Forster with 125 cats with about 40 under spinnaker all on the same course was a eye opener in the true meaning of the phrase.
Ultimatly under spinnaker I found you just had to take the slower option sometimes when approaching boats from behind. As in sailing under rather than over the top or letting the spinnaker flog etc. It can help when approaching to make your intentions obvious hailing etc. if possible.
But all said and done the fastest way around the course is to stay out of trouble and anticipate problems before they arise even if you are in the right.

Regards Gary.

And then, of course, there`s the guy who (funny this, but I`ve also only seen it in the Dart fleet)approaches the bottom mark on starboard right at the mark, ie within the two boatlength circle, while 30 other boats, all approaching on port to round the mark & go upwind, have all jockeyed for their positions, establishing who has water & who doesn`t,overlapping boats are 6 deep, and he`s shouting "Starboard, starboard !!!!" at the top of his lungs, (funny, it`s also usually in an Austrian accent!!)
Of course, only SA Dart sailors will smile when they read this, but WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS GUY ?????

Sam, I understand the rule, but, when beating relatively slowly compared to a cat speeding downwind, how do you avoid a collision ? It says clearly that the Nacra crashed into the Spitfire and that the Nacra's front beam hit the Spitfire crew.
Also it looks like the Nacra did not have a spinnaker, so should have had reasonable visability.
Beating on port, the Spitfire should have seen the Nacra coming, but as Steve said, what do you do to take avoiding action ?. Remember it all happens very quickly. You are the cat beating: If you ease your sails and stop, the other guy will say that he was trying to bear off and go behind you. If you tack, you are turning towards him. If you bear off, you are picking up spead and he will say that he could have crossed you. How do you avoid a speeding cat coming at your side, as the Nacra must have been doing, if he was coming downwind on port ?
Naturally, we do not know the full story of this incident.

Point 1 above

It is the windwards boat's responsibility to take avoiding action. The crew of the nacra (in this case) should have been aware of the other boats(s) around it and taken approiate action. If the spitfire Had tacked, it could be argued that the spitfire was making it more difficult for the Nacra to avoid (considere if the Nacra Gybed as the spitfire tacked). The actual rule on avoiding the collision can be a bit arbitary in these situations.

Point 2 above

- I hope this is a joke. The proper course is defined as the course you would sail to get to the next mark quickest. Thus Gybing down wind is the proper course for both boats, just the Spi boat is going deeper.

The Spi boat has to go to go around the back or gybe. End of story.

"Point 1 above

It is the windwards boat's responsibility to take avoiding action. The crew of the nacra (in this case) should have been aware of the other boats(s) around it and taken appropriate action. If the spitfire Had tacked, it could be argued that the spitfire was making it more difficult for the Nacra to avoid (considere if the Nacra Gybed as the spitfire tacked). The actual rule on avoiding the collision can be a bit arbitary in these situations. "

Hi Simon, I agree with you here, but think of the situation I described. I`m not referring to this incident in particular, as I never saw it. I agree fully - it`s the windward boats responsibility to be aware of what boats are near him, on the same course or opposing courses, but the situation I describe can easily happen, and especially on a single-handed boat with a kite up, you CAN`T see directly to leeward.

"Point 2 above

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so you cannot expect them to sail a "proper course" toward the next mark, it doesn`t work like that in reality.

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

- I hope this is a joke. The proper course is defined as the course you would sail to get to the next mark quickest. Thus Gybing down wind is the proper course for both boats, just the Spi boat is going deeper.

The Spi boat has to go to go around the back or gybe. End of story."

Again, I agree with you, but you will inevitably find that you sometimes come around the weather mark, hoist the kite, and have your bows overlapped past the stern of a leeward boat, or you are close enough behind him that if you were to try & bear off behind him you would accelerate into the back of him since you have a kite up & he doesn`t. Now according to the rules he can luff you up quite considerably, and with the kite up this would result in a capsize onto him. But in a protest hearing, has the leeward boat not caused a collision if he does this ? Yes, as he prevented you from avoiding capsizing onto him. At which point does one rule switch off and the other rule switch on ?
No, my statement about proper course was not a joke - read it again & you`ll find I`m saying the same thing you are.(Gybing at 90degree laylines IS their proper course.)

What I`m asking is : are these rules, written before spinnakers were used extensively on cats, as safe as they can be, or could they be made safer ? Your answer indicates that you believe the rules are just great & should be left alone. I`m asking if anyone has any better ideas.
In paragliding the rules have been written for safety first, and who has right of way second, becuase a mid-air collision is a bit more problematic than a sailing incident in which your bow gets broken off - both the Spitfire sailors & Nacra sailors are still alive. Basically if you can see another pilot & he can`t see you, he has right of way (the rules are more involved than that but I`m using the comparison to illustrate a point.)

Anybody make a transparent spinnaker cloth ??

Sail safe & fast.
Cheers
Steve

Give him room and let him through. It is the rule !

You do understand why the rule is there, don't you ?

He can't go anywhere ! If he heads up than he will hit boats further back in the overlapping train. If he gibes than he'll hit the boat that have just rounded the bouy and are sailing (unsuspecting) upwind again. Also the bouy is considered an obstacle for a sailboat when it is in the 2 boatlength zone so you must give him way. But only if he has an overlap whne entering the 2 boatlength zone. Of course this 2 boatlength zone is a joke in cat sailing, we cover that distance in 2 seconds while mono's take longer.

The rule is clear and the reson for it is as well. The whole train of port boats has to give way by bearing off a little.

However, I also get very mad at newbies trying this rule trick at the C-mark as you must really have excellent boat control to enter the zone at full speed and gybe right on the mark. Otherwise a gigantic mess is about to follow with damage and bodily injuries.

Wouter

We often use a small wingmark as a B mark in our club races just to get some seperation between the boats going upwind and the ones going downwind. This seems to work well enough.

The wing is often only some 100-150 mtr away and slightly below a reaching leg.

The spi guy tend to go high, on a reach, and hoist their spis some distance above and away from the wingmark. They then make a leg to the port side of the course gybing some distance away from the wingmark giving them even more seperation of the upwind boats. They then gybe and sail straight for the kite or slighly above it when they are conpensating for the currents.

The non spi boats tend to broad reach directly to the wingmark thus seperating themselfs of the spi boat, (leaving room for the spi boats to bear off in gusts later on) and they almost always gybe right on the wingmark creating even more seperation between them and the spi boats. Near the mark the boats all meet but if you use a gate here than you allow the spi boats to round the mark gybing to port while the non spi boats round at the other mark by gibing to port tack. Again creating seperation. Of course the gate mark that is rounded by a gybe to starboard tack doesn't have the problem of the ISAF rule that we are discussing here. So If you are nervous than you aim for that one.

Ohh and one other thing. Because the gate has two marks you tend to seperate the boats arriving at the gate on different tacks over the two bouys, thus they often do not meet at a single mark. You have cut down seriously on the number of encounters that you have discribed in the other posts. Less encouters, less potential for [censored]-ups. Look at it from this way. Most boats approach the gate on a port tack will round the starboard marker (when viewed from the direction of sialing downwind). boats approaching the gate on a starboard tack will most often round the port mark. This is because you travel less distance this way. Only boats that are prefectly alligned with the middle of the gate will have to choose which mark they are going to round, this hardly happens. Having said this. Even when you come in high than it is no great loss to make a gybe right before the gate to avoid collision as this still gives you a short route to the other mark and also has the advantage of keeping clear air to the mark and after rounding it. So this gate setup actively encourages boats to stay away from eachother and this is what you see happening. As soon as two come close they tend to gybe away from eachother and round different gate marks. Mostly to keep clean air.

There is a lot of thing you can do with the race course to make it saver. I would almost say ask some Europeans, we have several years experience with these things by now.

Wouter

Spitfire sailors Chris and George 4th Overall.

Dermott & Steve,
I don't want to discuss the 1001 potential nuances of right-of-way.

The simple purpose of the rule is to PREVENT COLLISIONS.
In the old days, the right-of-way boats would "tap" burdened boats in order to prove that a foul has occurred.
For a beach cat that rarely caused any damage, but a 10ton lead sled "tapping" another could cause thousands of dollars in damage and injure people.

"I can't see" is absolutely NO excuse for hitting someone.
If you can't see around your spinnaker, you should not be using it.
Either leave it on the shore or buy a different boat.
We heard the same sad story from the Tiger sailors last year.
Every time I had a near miss with one of them, it was because they were both staring up at the spin.

A good sailor plans well ahead of the boat.
The statement "the only avoiding action the spinnaker boat can make at the last moment",
shows a skipper who doesn't know how to control his boat and doesn't plan ahead.
They are an accident trying to happen.
As Rick and all of the experts keep saying "get your head out of the boat".

Based upon your comments, the rule is needed now more than ever.

Strange occurance, but I agree with Sam here.

I also think that the most obvious escape route for a Spi boat is simply to bear off and go straight downwind. The only time this doesn't work is when a boat is right below you. But then, most likely, you were overtaking that boat on the luff side yourself. With a spi boat you very much have the choice to overtake him through his lee of gibe away before overtaking him. That the point about rounding B or the wingmark. If a non-spi boat is right below you than don't host that spi yet. If anything you stuffed up on the approach to the mark. You should overtaken him before reaching the mark. You should have sailed high then him and hoisted the spi before rounding the mark (often actually faster on a spi boat to do it like that) Or you should see what the no spi boat does and go the other way right after rounding the mark. Also If you pull the spi right after the winmark then you point straight down for about 3 seconds anyway. This is something the non -spi boat don't do. So in my experience you don't need to have any non-spi boat to your lee. With a little planning, you must always be able to keep them to your luff or behind you. Encountering boats going upwind is something you can learn to see well in advance. Okay, while singlehanding it is more difficult, but here you just have to choice a side of the course and if you go to the port side then you have CHOSEN to meet a whole lot of upwind boats. During you gybes you should make a quick scan and see what boats are crossing to your side and remember. When doublehanding I found that the skipper can relatively often put his feet in the toostraps and hang backward on his abdominal muscles and see under the boom and foot of the spi. Often this gives you a quick look of what is going on. Otherwise a large S-curve to straight downwind clears everything up for both of you. And if that still isn't enough than asking your crew to not look at the spi for a second but past the luff while you steer 20 degrees lower is a sure way the see what is ahead for the next few minutes.

I tend to remember the position of the other boats like a photograph and maybe 1 or 2 times a downwind leg I check wether they have tacked away or something. This seems to work well. When on a downwind leg the ONLY boats that can escape your view are the one that are going upwind through the middle of the course. Pretty much all others are to far to the side to of serious consideration. (you have passed these before they reach your position or you never go far enough to their side to meet them. And all boats sailing downwind with you, you must be able to see without much effort. Since you're sailing deeper and boat on collision course are then always to the luff side of your boat and away from the angle the spinnaker blocks.

In my view, it is all very doable and collisions are rare overhere. Actually I think we have a higher risk colliding at the start procedure here then when sailing on the course.

Also I seem to remember that the Nacra 6.0 that hit the Spitfire wasn't sailing with a spi, So what is his excuse ? I put it down to irresponsible sailing. If anything the nacra could have bore off violantly and avoided the whole collision in a relative easy manner. And so what if he had capsized (unlikely), pitchpoled ? His capsize spot was clear as it would be behind the spitfire. This was simply a crew that went :"Ohh, God, what do we do, I certainly don't want to get wet." Implicetly deciding to hit the spitfire and say sorry afterwards.

Now, spi crew must simply learn to work their spi and keep track of things on the course OR decide to stay away from the middle of the course and go off to the port side of the course. If the wind is less than than so be it. Safety rules and your insufficient ability demands it of you. With enough practice you can work up the ability that is sufficient to mix is up with other boats.

Wouter

I am not sure why I am included in Sam's lecture. I have raced a spinnaker cat for seven years and know the problems. I initially queried the decision to disqualify the Spitfire. I am the one who pointed out how difficult it was for the cat on the beat to avoid a cat flying downwind. I also pointed out that the Nacra did not have the excuse of a spinnaker blinding him (His SCHRS is 102).

Dermot, your third post:

Sam, I understand the rule, but, when beating relatively slowly compared to a cat speeding downwind, how do you avoid a collision ? It says clearly that the Nacra crashed into the Spitfire and that the Nacra's front beam hit the Spitfire crew.
Also it looks like the Nacra did not have a spinnaker, so should have had reasonable visability.
Beating on port, the Spitfire should have seen the Nacra coming, but as Steve said, what do you do to take avoiding action ?. Remember it all happens very quickly. You are the cat beating: If you ease your sails and stop, the other guy will say that he was trying to bear off and go behind you. If you tack, you are turning towards him. If you bear off, you are picking up spead and he will say that he could have crossed you. How do you avoid a speeding cat coming at your side, as the Nacra must have been doing, if he was coming downwind on port ?
Naturally, we do not know the full story of this incident.

Three times you asked how to avoid a collision.
Are you saying that you have been racing a spinnaker cat for seven years and don't know how to avoid a collision?
Either you have been very lucky or everyone else on the water is working hard to avoid you.

It is NOT difficult for a cat on a beat "to avoid a cat flying downwind".
That it just making an excuse for a poor skipper.

I repeat, "a spinnaker blinding him" is NO excuse!

Sam, It seem that you are being your usual angry aggressive self. All along I have being talking about the Spitfire, which was beating at the time it was hit by a cat which did not have a spinnaker, and you seem to think that you know something of my downwind spinnaker sailing (and know enough about me to say that everyone on the water must be working hard to avoid me.)

How do you thing that the Spitfire in the position I described above should have acted ? (It would seem that, experienced as he is, he did something wrong seeing that he was also disqualified )

Did I ever say any thing relating to that ?

Hi guys. me again. Sorry for starting the ridiculous discussion on the rules. It was just a question, I didn`t intend for people to start criticising eachother (hell, they don`t even know eachother, so what`s the point`?)
You there, Sam ?
The guys sailing both boats know how the accident happened, no need to call one an idiot, I`m sure the guilty party knows his error, and the innocent is still trying to figure out if he could have prevented the accident. Let it serve to remind us all that these things DO happen, despite the best intentions written into the rules and those of all the competitors. It`s why we have racing insurance.

Apology for hijacking Wouter`s original post, and as Dermot said, Well done to the Spitfire sailors who did well at the event.
I`d just like to clear up some possible misconceptions that some people might get from reading my post on questioning the current rules :
We have been racing spin. vs. non-spin boats for over 2 years now, many open events, and have had Hobie Tigers, Dart 18`s, Hobie 16`s, and Mosquitos with spinn, all sharing the course,(some 50 boats) windward-leeward and the old-style Olympic courses (no offset mark). In addition to this we have had to sail right through the dinghy course on occasion to stay with the best wind, and there have been no incidents, or even close calls. (Just wide-eyed Optimist sailors !!!) There were over 200 boats at this event.

The only situation I found myself in was AFTER the racing, where I was reaching back to shore under kite, and a spinnaker-equipped-boat sailor who was not flying the kite tried to luff me up onto a tight reach, shouting "weather boat". Now he may have had right-of-way under the rules, but in my opinion, was not acting with an understanding of the consequences of his actions. All I did was to dump the kite, slow down, and bear off behind him. Maybe he was upset that he couldn`t pass me in the race despite the 12 point ISAF handicap difference. He`s a nice enough guy, and we chatted about it afterwards. Had he insisted on his rights he would have had my mainsail on top of his crew.

So Sam, and anyone else who thinks I`m an idiot for asking the questions, well I don`t really care what you think, all I was doing was putting an open question for discussion to see what others think.
I`ll start another thread for anyone who cares to contribute in a positive manner. Let`s see if you`re up to the challenge, or if you`ll just join in to tell us how stupid we are.
It IS possible to tell someone they`re wrong without telling them they`re an idiot. And they might actually listen.

Cheers
Steve

I don't think you're an idiot for asking these questions, far from it.

To be an idot requires other "talents"

C ya !

Wouter

Steve,
when did I call anyone an "idiot"?
When did I call anyone "dumb"?
When did I even tell anyone they were "wrong"?

You did not start this discussion.
I was responding to Dermots' question in his second post,
"Both were disqualified from the race - not sure why."
I was trying to restrict my comments to one and only one issue "collisions during a race".
The rules state that if two boats collide and cause damage then they are both disqualified,
unless the right-of-way boat can prove that he could not avoid the burdened boat.
"I can't see around my big spinnaker" IS NOT a legitimate excuse.
A Nacra 6.0 has a huge jib which, especially when the crew is at the back of the boat in heavy air,
severely restricts their vision.

Dermot,
You are right, I don't know you. And you don't know me.
All I know is that you claim to have seven years of spinnaker racing experience and you asked three novice questions
about boat handling issues which affect the safety of your fellow sailors.?
What do you think that says about you?

EXACTLY, he apparently made no effort to avoid the Nacra, there was damage, he was DISQUALIFIED.
How many different people does it take to explain this to you?

To summarize the points I was trying to make:
You are responsible for the safe operation of your boat.
You are responsible for seeing whatever you need to see in order to safely operate your boat.
If you are blasting along and can't see, you are operating your boat unsafely.
If you are the burdened boat and you involved in a collision which results in damage, you are disqualified.
If you are the right-of-way boat and you are involved in a collision which you could have avoided and damage results,
you are disqualified.
The right-of-way boat, in a damaging collision, must PROVE that the collision was unavoidable or they are disqualified.

As I stated, there are many, some very subtle, nuances to a right-of-way situation and I don't want to play "what if".

Well, what a lot of debate. As the crew of the Nacra 6.0 at the time of the crash, I can at least answer some of your questions. The simple fact is that on both boats, neither helm nor crew saw the other boat. This was a leg of about a mile in length, and the crash happened about half way along it. Stuart was coming upwind, with one other boat ahead of him - on the other side of the course I think. We were convinced we had the whole of this side of the course to ourselves from the time we turned downwind. Stuart saw no other boats coming down the course the whole time he was heading upwind.

We had just jibed onto port to avoid a shipwreck, but were under full power for about 25-40 metres when we crashed. We had looked round and cannot explain why we didn't see the Spitfire. I can only surmise that the swell hid the hulls at the time and the clear sail material didn't do anyone any favours. Of course the mast should have been visible.

We hit the Spitfire just ahead of the port main beam - the photo speaks for itself. We believe the crew was on the wire. She says that she became entangled in our rigging and was dragged off the boat, resulting in hitting her head on our beam. I cannot recall any of this, except for her being in the water. It certainly wasn't pleasant, or something I'd like to repeat. She had a precautionary hospital check-up and was given the all-clear a couple of hours later.

As we jibed shortly before the crash, people may assume Stuart had seen us prior to our jibe and decided that we were not on a collission course, and that we therefore took him by surprise. However, this is not the case - he said in the protest meeting that he hadn't seen us all the way up the course.

So we were DSQ'd as windward boat. He was DSQ'd for not taking avoiding action (apparently if he had shouted a warning even two seconds beforehand, he would not have been DSQ'd).

Stuart appealed the decision and another protest meeting was held the next day, on the basis he had a new witness who said we'd travelled ony 25 yards against our estimate of 45-50. The committee upheld their previous decision to DSQ both boats on the same grounds. Distance was irrelevant.

It is my contention that he and his crew were so focused on boat speed (i.e. looking at their sails) and beating the lead boat, that they didn't look for other boats. In turn, we looked but didn't see them. This is not helped by the low cut of the forward part of the 6.0's main, which comes to the deck, and the jib which is also very low, but that is not an excuse, just a noteworthy contributory factor from which we have learned.

Another possible factor is that Stuart and his crew had not sailed much together before. She usually sails with her husband, so is experienced as a crew. It is possible that the dynamics between this helm and crew were different. I suggest this only so that if you are in this situation, you make sure as helm that your crew is doing what you expect.

I usually sail a Spitfire and love the fact it has clear sails - visibility through them is excellent. Would have been great on the Nacra! As a Spitfire sailor, I had the p*ss taken prior to the crash for warning my helm every time we came near one - I was accused of regarding them as a specially protected species. I would have loved a Spitfire to gain a podium finish and am sorry for my part in preventing that from happening.

Lessons from all of this - we consider ourselves to be careful but have found you cannot be too careful whether at the back, middle or front of the fleet.

Call me stupid if you like - but we all need to get our heads out of our boats from time to time, or at least make sure the crew is doing so. Sailors with low-cut sails and spinnis need to take extra care.

Cheers
Simon

Thanks for the clearification Simon.

This will put any speculation to rest (of which I'm also partly guilty).

I remember that 6.0 sailplan well. I myself was in a similar situation once. That boat didn't have windows in the sails. Well it had in the jib but that was miniscule and almost on the foot. I could only see the other hull through that window. I learned my lessons then and sail with only windowed sails. On my older boat I could look under the boom if I hung back on my abdominal muscles but I can see that the N6.0 flap on the foot would prevent such a manouvre. Sad thing is that the crew is always responsible, even if only for choosing to sail with a boat/sails combo that include increases risks. Very quickly all N6.0 lost the flap overhere, but that was also partly the result of the texelrating that hit this addition while it didn't add much drive. In the end it is the crews responsibilty to operate a safe craft. I learned this while paragliding and landyachting. Here nobody will accept excusses. A tough enviroment as when your car broke during sailing and you caused an accident then you as the pilot are still responsible no matter how unlucky you were. As they reason, you should have discovered the defect leading to the breakage in the pre race "flight check". No matter how you put it the pilot is always responsible. I didn't write this as a more punishment to you, Simon, far from it, I just want to share the thoughts of other sailing groups with the F16 public. To continue with the example. Last Dutch nationals Landyachting I discovered a degraded piece of rubber in the shock absorption of a class 3 car. Just because I was admiring the car and saw something that looked funny. The system included redundancy so no in this respect it was fail safe. However after I notified the pilot he took a look at it and immediately said:"That is it, I'm out" And he walked up tot the race officer and DNS himself for the remainder of the tournement. I personally think that this kind of attitude must be common among sailors as well. As a matter of fact the defect was not much of a risk to the pilot itself (redundancy!) however the momentary confusion could well have caused an unexpected turn and take out a fellow competitor or spectator. His mind was rightly focussed on the safety of his surruoundings as well as himself. Arguably a doodgy side stay is not much risk for the crew sailing the boat. The mast will just fall away to lee. However the risk for an unexpecting competitor to your lee is unacceptable. For this reason the F16 rules explictely include the rule :

1.1.4 It is the responsibility of the competitors to ensure their craft is safe and seaworthy.

It is actually in the top of the rules found at : http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/F16HP_class_rules_section_A_box_rule.html

In my opinion this includes "safe" with respect to other competitors. Having seen this Aruba incident and analysed it. Now with the additional clearification of Simon, I would stress that designing a craft so that it has minimal dead zones will be enforced under this rule. Of course we have limitation while flying a spinnaker that is a given, but compounding by having a really low boom and no windows in the mainsail could be considered non-F16 compliant. In my opinion the Nacra 6.0 with spi I sailed myself in the past would be non-compliant with the rule above.

I'm still comtemplating what to do about monofilm sails. Arguable as Simon says , these can be hard to spot. Maybe enforcing a fluor coloured class/F16 logo would be a good approach on these sails. Again, in my own landyachting class; class 5 we all use fluor pink signal colours markings to make sure we stand out against grey skies and in possible fog and sand clouts. It does really work. Of course in landyachting on beaches you visor clogs up as well so these extremely bride signal colours do come in handy.

If anybody has further opinions about this or ideas please let me know. Afterall keep the F16 class rules in optimal shape means continued vigilance and learning from documented incidents

Wouter

As the crew on board the Spitfire that was taken out of the racing at Aruba... Stuart and I did not fight once on the boat during the racing and the 3 days training beforehand. He is probably the calmest person I have *ever* sail with in my 17 years of sailing. He sure could teach some people about being polite to other boats and your crew on the water. I am disappinted that Simon felt he needed to resort in making stories, plus I have not sailed with my husband for the last season, I sailed with Matt Causon, also a Spitfire sailor. We had 3 days before the event in Aruba to train so that we both understood exactly what each other needs and does on the boat so that there wouldn't be any confusion when we were racing. And for those who might doubt my ability as a crew, (and I don't normally sprout this about), I was the crew on the 1998 ISAF Women's H16 World Champs in Dubai.

I am very disappointed with the way it all turned out and like to put faith in fellow sailors. I was never called into the protest meeting to state my piece, I also have had issues remembering much of that day before the incident. But I do remember seeing a boat running downwind earlier on and the *LAST* thing I ever expected would be for them to gybe when they were in line with us so I continued with my racing stance of getting out on the wire, watching for Starboard boats who may be coming coming across the coarse and advising Stuart of where our closest opposition was.

The Nacra should have looked before gybing to ensure there were no other boats in the vacinity.

This whole incident has left a very bitter taste in my mouth and I still get the shakes when I think about it.

Gillian,

let me be absolutely clear that I am NOT doubting your ability or Stuart's. You don't get to the front of that fleet without being very good.

I also welcome your input - it is obvious that many other sailors want to learn from our experience. These incidents are rarely documented, so the forum is a good opportunity to do so. I certainly don't want to make stories.

I had understood from the protest meeting that we hadn't been seen at all, which I couldn't explain. Your confirmation that you did see us earlier in the leg is new information to me and puts more emphasis on our decision to gybe, and I fully accept that. I still don't understand how we missed seeing you.

It is in that context that I have been struggling to explain to myself how this happened, and I wanted people to be aware that while we might think we are sailing safely:
1) we all need to look hard and often
2) we need to be sure that our partner is looking if we are not actively doing so at the time (e.g. focused on boat speed).
3) if we have a boat with blind spots, take extra precautions, or remove them.
I count myself absolutely 100% in the category of needing to improve on these counts.

I accept the rule that the windward boat has to stay clear. That might not always be easy and vision may be limited going downwind, but the responsibility is clear.

I tried to offer possible explanations for people to consider within their own sailing. I had not intended to imply you were to blame, so again I apologise if anyone reads it that way.

All the best
Simon

Sammy, a spinnaker blinding you is not a good excuse, but it does limit your visibility and increase the likelihood of a collision. I personally would either avoid or get out of the way of situations with any reasonable chance for a collision, When your boat's on the bottom it doesn't really matter who's right and who's wrong.
CARY