PRO Liability... what is the extent?

Matt
Do any other dinghy classes have such guidelines?
I don't know of any. I know the A class and Tornado's don't have such guidelines.

While it's great that you get the requisite number of mark boats for NA's... the safety standards can be no less for a weekend regatta.

Don't your guidelines create a defacto safety standard that would be used to demonstrate that the local regatta safety is sub standard?

Hi Matt,

Not sure if you're thinking that I didn't say that somewhere in these piles of posts. I definitely meant all of that.

Yes, the PRO sets up races or not. No, no one is forced to race. It is the decision of the sailors alone as to go out (and to know when to come in).

At every event that I run with an iffy forecast or light support boats, at the skippers meeting I make no secrets. I basically say this at the skippers meeting:

This is the forecast... These are the support boats... We will reward very generous redress to boats that assist one another. If you don't think you can handle it, please don't go out. If you do go out and find out that you were wrong, please come back in.

I think there are people on this forum that feel that if a PRO runs races, some folks would feel pressured into racing that probably shouldn't. This becomes a gray area of influence that the PRO can have on the event. Not saying it's a liability issue, but I'm not a lawyer.

I would also like to thank everyone for not suing me after the lightning incident last year. Two PDAs on the water, a laptop on the beach, nothing. Then BANG! as boats were finishing. Gotta love lakes. Priceless...

Mike

On your first question, I can't think of any OD classes offhand that are as attuned to race management and event coordination as are the Hobie Classes. A lot of classes have

Event Manuals

(the Tornado equivalent is Appendix C to their class rules). Whether they get down to the details of how many boats and what equipment they should be carrying like the HCA manual does - I don't know of any. (But then again, my knowledge is limited to the OD classes I've run - Melges 24, Ultimate 20, Thistles, Force 5, Tornados and a few others.)

On you second question, it's a pretty low standard. If you have a weather mark boat, a pin / gate boat and a relatively mobile committee boat, then you're set for up to 34 boats - which would accomodate the vast majority of weekend regattas these days.

Like I said - to a great extent it's up to the PRO to use his judgement on whether they feel they can handle the conditions with the resources they have at hand. If all your mark boats are tied up assisting boats in trouble, you're not running races anymore because you can't set/move marks.

Matt, we overlapped...

Good points here.

Mike

If someone even uttered the word 'sue' in regards to the PRO sending or not sending racers onto the water at any regatta that my chase boats, marks, comittee boat, anchors, rodes, GPS's, VHF's or any other Surf City gear was at. That **** would be on ebay the second I got home, and I would never sponsor or support another sailboat race again, ever.

Because just down the line from the PRO there's the mark boat guy that could be dragged into court, and the guy that owns the boat etc, etc, etc.

J

Ah yes... one more issue of PRO responsibility. When you have mark boats assisting sailors with their personal crisis.... the rest of fleet goes without.

It is certainly a judgment call but it seems better to say the PRO and RC should not move one inch off the standard that they are to run races AND the standard of

Safety is everyone's concern

.

Having sat through a long delay at CRAM's catfight years ago while they assisted a boat to the beach. The question on the beach was.. What are the responsibilities of the RC here.

Should they have towed the boat to the shore...(took an hour)
take the crew on board and called SeaTow for the boat for him,
anchored the boat and towed it in after the racing.

Mike's comments about the message he delivers on the beach is key. He is managing expectations and thereby minimizing the upset. (If he says... you will be anchored until assistance to the beach is available.. you can't complain)
So... if those power boats are MARK BOATS you get one message...(Oh... they are there to run the race) If you call them CRASH boats ... you have a different expectation. Call them Safety boats... quite another... Heck... you could expect that they have a trained safety person on the boat able to dive and assist a trapped sailor (NOT Likely)

I still think the Hobie class associations are out on a limb of their own making with the published guidelines and definitions (my view a STANDARD) .... and they are all by themselves out there (I think PU was much more assertive in the article that I read.)

Mark, I don't know what planet you're on with this last posting. I have been at an event where someone actually died, and another where someone was literally saved from drowning under a tramp (CPR was needed on the turtled hull).

If any idiot actually complained that stopping the racing to help one of our friends STAY ALIVE is unfair because they're not getting enough racing for their money, I would have a hard time forcing myself not to waste my time with the Rule 69 hearing just to drag him through the mud.

Is it the PRO's responsibility to protect everyone from everything? Of course not. But you can't fault me for being human at your expense, in the hopes of having our friends literally live to see another race.

Now, if it's just a case of hardware breakdown, I agree, if the people are safe, get the boat out of harm's way and try to free up a resource (or find an alternative) to drag them in when it's convenient.

If I don't have safety boats, I say that. I say

We have 3 mark boats, no safety boats.

US SAILING does expect us to employ risk assessment and safety plans. Safety boats most certainly need to have swimmers on them. First aid kits, evacuation routes (to meet an ambulance ashore), etc. are also expected.

You don't have to personally agree with this stuff for it to be expected by those we serve, or for it to be the right thing to do.

Mike

Matt,

I see that you are correct as usual. I am curious, however, as to why?

I agree about the

speed bump

reference, but it does provide perceived protection, at the very least. It is intereseting that different sports have different methods to protect officials and participants.

Yo Mike... I did not say or imply this. I said there are two principles... Safety first and the RC is there to run races.
Of course if safety was an issue with a flipped boat the race goes out the window. We agree.

The example I used was of an equipment failure and the RC sliding down that slippery slope and towing the guy to the beach. We agree!

I assert that the distinctions between mark boats, safety boats and crash boats are not widely understood by the racers. The real problem is that expectations of the fleet are not aligned with what most RC's are able to do. Some people think that their entry fee comes with a rescue/tow service! aka they provide crash boats ... right!

Remember the thread is about the limits of RC responsibility or the extent of their liability.

You mentioned the idea that sailors on this board feel pressure to go racing when the PRO sends the fleet out...
That as PRO, you are giving the good house keeping seal of approval. I agree with your assessment and agree it's a problem. It is a misunderstanding of the PRO liability/ responsibility and each skippers responsibility.

When you say.

I say

We have 3 mark boats, no safety boats.

I bet 90% of the fleet thinks the terms are interchangeable.

I know the guys on mark boats at my local races are NOT going to meet your safety standard.

Safety boats most certainly need to have swimmers on them. First aid kits, evacuation routes (to meet an ambulance ashore), etc. are also expected.

Again, the result is that people don't understand the PRO's liability/responsibility and fully understand their responsibility as skipper.

I argue that the original standard that the RC runs races with Mark boats to manage the race best serves the racers by being very clear. If the mark boat goes to assist a flipped boat... he is part of the standard

Everyone is concerned about safety"

The PRO is not running a crash boat service... the PRO is not running a safety boat service (unless you announce it).

Using my point of view, you don't get yourself into a bind where you are down one boat and now must decide... Is it safe to continue. If we only have two boats... are we safe to go with 30 boats?

I think it is relevant to note that NO OTHER CLASSES are setting out guidelines (standards in my view.

The point of this discussion is to be clear on what is expected.... all around. I take a conservative view of what the RC's responsibilities are... Yours is a bit more liberal.

Take Care
Mark

Thanks for the clarification Mark.

I think we agree on all of this, except that I am under the impression that the RC bears more responsibility for safety than you do. Maybe I've been to too many seminars, or maybe I've been around too many bad situations.

At the end of the day, when I'm out there, I feel responsible and will act accordingly. I am very good at what I do. If I have to blow off a race, and it turns out to be a

false alarm

I know that I can recover and still get good racing in. This is not bragging, it takes a lot of work, patience and communication skills to pull this off. Most sailors will never this when done correctly.

Mike

Originally Published 2003 in the Hobie Hotline. 2003

Support Boats are the Keys to Success by Paul Ulibarri, NAHCA Race Director

There has been a great deal of conversation of late regarding the number of mark / safety boats (e.g. support boats) required at a points regatta. There are two concerns regarding this topic, and they are Safety and Availability. AVAILABILITY There are never enough support boats. The reality of the situation is that locating support boats is difficult and time-consuming, and as a result is usually given a low priority in the planning of an event. Often, the event host will go into the event knowing there are barely enough boats to set a start line and to drop marks. The feeling seems to be that once we get the marks in the water, by whatever means, we have a race course and we can continue. Planning is rare for the reality of power boat breakdowns that occur at many events. Often Safety is a secondary consideration. We all appreciate the difficulty of securing support boats. We also realize that more effort is spent in securing T-shirts, trophies, and the social aspects of the event than on support boats. There is some direction from ISAF, the Coast Guard, and most National Authorities on the number of support boats required to run an event. The number is fluid and relates to smaller events rather than major championships. The figure agreed upon by all organizations is one boat for every ten competitors, and in all cases a minimum of three support boats per race area. The standard set by the IHCA, NAHCA is five per event recommended, three required. Why do we need all of these boats? It would seem that a committee could set the course, move to a starting line position and run the event. mark, as well as a rescue boat for every ten competitors and a Signal boat for starts and finishes. The manual also goes on to mention stake boats, patrol boats, VIP boats, media boats, and a bathtub. (Just checking to see if you are paying attention.) There is a real need for a mark boat for every mark. As event organizers, we create a NOR, inviting members to attend our event. We imply by the same that the event will be a quality sailing experience. Our members then make a decision to attend that involves a commitment to the expenditure of time and money. Time often means taking off a Friday or Monday. Money usually means two to five hundred dollars for a family weekend. For this expenditure, a host should be expected to provide a quality racing venue, which means that the courses will be set square, and maintained as conditions change. To do so requires the ability to react quickly, this means mark boats. There can also be the valid expectation of a safety plan...

SAFETY Safety can be addressed in several ways. A knowledgeable race officer who knows when conditions are acceptable is essential. Safety training programs within the fleets are also recommended. Support boats that can implement a safety plan is a basic requirement. In addition, we need boat operators who know how to deal with capsized boats. When the Class mentions a minimum of three boats for safety purposes, it is suggesting that the course be divided into thirds with one boat for each third. Since we seldom have the luxury of mark boats and safety boats, the same three boats must perform both functions. Our normal boat distribution is one boat at the pin end of the line, one at the gate or leeward end, and one at the weather mark. If the boats are anchored, they must have a buoy on the anchor rode which can be tossed, enabling them to release quickly and proceed to their safety patrol area. The weather mark boat should have the upper third of the course, the gate boat the middle section and the pin boat the lower third. With a one-mile beat and considering that catamarans go to lay lines, this means that each safety boat must patrol a 1/3rd square mile area. It is easy to see why a minimum of three boats has been set as the standard. Add to this the need to maintain the course and we end up with three very busy crews.

SECURING BOATS As mentioned at the beginning, finding support boats is not easy. It is necessary. We find that the most successful boat hustlers are those that try for five or six boats, hound the boat owners weekly, work out insurance problems, and make the boat owners a part of the entire social experience. Properly done, the owners have a great time and are all ready set for the following year. Often the owner is a competitor and cannot attend as a support driver. They need to be assured that the person driving their boat is competent and will respect the equipment. If they act as a boat driver, they must be made to feel that they are an intricate part of the event. On the course itself, it is extremely important for the Race Officer to treat these individuals, as well as all volunteers, with a great deal of respect and courtesy.

The subject of liability is as important as the need to provide safety to our friends. We would be devastated if someone were killed at one of our events. Over the years we have become somewhat lax in maintaining the Class safety criteria regarding support boats at local regattas. We have been lucky. We would like to stress the importance of placing a higher priority on support boats for the 2003 season. Have a Hobie day, PU

Bold face are added by me.

Jack - US Sailing forbids the types of waivers you posted. Rule 82 (a US Sailing prescription) does not allow Hold Harmless or Indemnification agreements as a condition of entry.

Matt,

I see that you are correct as usual. I am curious, however, as to why?

-------------
I was on the Legal Committee of US SAILING when this was instituted (and I am not a lawyer). The term

waiver

is somewhat generic. But again in another thread I found it easier to break it down into pieces -

INDEMNITY, INDEMNIFY:
US SAILING found this type of terminology to be, 1. Contrary to public opinion, 2. Dangerous for anyone to sign. Why? You sign one of these and enter an event. A boat flips and skipper and crew are trapped underneath and die. You pack up and go home saddened by this event. Down the line you are served by a process server. What? By agreeing to indemnify an event, you are agreeing to participate in any loss in the event. When the two spouses of the two lost sailors sue the event, you have agreed to defend the event and become part of the lawsuit. You will be there with the insurance company, who may even try to use this indemnity agreement against you and recoup their costs for this event. Can you see why this is bad for public policy? [I would say that an indemnity can be more focused which can be a good thing, but with the indemnity contracts the Legal Committee reviewed, most were so broad that they made the sailors responsible for anything that happened at an event and as a result of this, found it better just to outlaw them all].

HOLD HARMLESS
Depending on how this is worded, it can follow the lines of the same problems as the Indemnity or Indemnify agreement above. As a result, US SAILING likes to see these banned to, to prevent sailors from taking on financial risk that was never their responsibility to begin with.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK
This is a

doctorine

which the lawyers felt did not need to be included in the ban, because it either doesn't get much use, or it hasn't been an effective tool (I forget which). They didn't see the need to include it in the ban as a result.

WAIVER
US SAILING actually doesn't mind the use of Waivers. What these do is simply say if you get injured on your own, you won't come after the club for your problem. Isn't that what you want? Now if the Race Committee boat runs you down, that wasn't an injury you sustained on your own and you would be eligible to collect from the club. Isn't that what you want?

I have simplified things greatly, and I am sure some legal beagles would get very technical with this stuff and pick it to pieces, but these were my general understandings of why these were needed.

INSURANCE
The second part of what they advise is related to what I do. As the clubs have the chance that they could get sued by yours, or your crews injuries, the Regatta Liability insurance is a key piece to their efforts to ban the Indemnity, Hold Harmless and Assuption of Risk agreements as it is very affordable and provides a very good deal at low premiums and protects the clubs from the potential of lawsuits from these injuries.
http://www.david-agency.com/signal/index.htm

So the idea is, make the sport financially safe for competitors, and make it safe financially for the clubs as well.

Thanks Glenn, well written.

For anyone who's really bored... the RM page on US SAILING's website has a link to this (their attempt at layman's terms):

http://www.ussailing.org/rules/documents/indemnitywaiverclauses.pdf

Mike

Glenn,

Thanks for the informative response. That answers a lot of questions.

Mike,

Thanks for posting that link. I wouldn't describe it as 'reading for the bored'. For those who organize events I think it has good guidance on the form of words to use for waivers on entry forms - as well as why an organizer should avoid hold harmless and indemnification clauses. I'll certainly be using it to review event entry forms in our region.

Chris.

Chris

If you pull those together could you post a consensus statement.

It seems silly to reinvent this language from event to event. The wisdom behind the language gets lost pretty quickly.

Thanks
Mark

Hey Chris,

Obviously, there are some of us here that like reading that stuff. Well, not me really, but it was helpful.

Using that link helped when we rewrote the waiver on the HCA membership form this year (thanks Matt).

Mike