Extreme 40 crash decision

WHEN A broke rule 13, R took reasonable action by changing course. At this point A was on starboard but subject to rule 13. R was entitled to continue sailing her course without taking avoiding action, but could not do so because A had broken a rule.

When, subsequently, A compounded her error by failing to accelerate out of the tack, R took further action, which may have been ineffectual. It may well have been that the jib sheet crew's instinct was to tack, but the helmsman's instinct was to bear away. There was little or no time for a discussion! The rule only requires R to take action to avoid a collision - it does not oblige her to take any particular action, or to succeed.

This case is about A making a risky decision to tack and failing to give R room to keep clear.

Gordon

Originally posted by gordon WHEN A broke rule 13, R took reasonable action by changing course. At this point A was on starboard but subject to rule 13. R was entitled to continue sailing her course without taking avoiding action, but could not do so because A had broken a rule. When, subsequently, A compounded her error by failing to accelerate out of the tack, R took further action, which may have been ineffectual. It may well have been that the jib sheet crew's instinct was to tack, but the helmsman's instinct was to bear away. There was little or no time for a discussion! The rule only requires R to take action to avoid a collision - it does not oblige her to take any particular action, or to succeed. This case is about A making a risky decision to tack and failing to give R room to keep clear. Gordon

If a Jury had decided that R did not act to avoid contact with A when it became clear that A was not keeping clear that would not change the fact that A broke rule 13. However, we have established that she did take avoiding action. It could be argued that she took avoiding action twice, once by bearing away to pass behind a boat (A) that should accelerate on the new tack and then a further bear away to pass behind A when it was clear that A had stalled. The second bear away was reasonable but unsuccesful.

Question, on these boats, with the wind as it was, how long does it take to dump the main?

Originally posted by gordon If a Jury had decided that R did not act to avoid contact with A when it became clear that A was not keeping clear that would not change the fact that A broke rule 13. However, we have established that she did take avoiding action. It could be argued that she took avoiding action twice, once by bearing away to pass behind a boat (A) that should accelerate on the new tack and then a further bear away to pass behind A when it was clear that A had stalled. The second bear away was reasonable but unsuccesful. Question, on these boats, with the wind as it was, how long does it take to dump the main?

Originally posted by Scooby_simon ...then this makes the burdon on A massive as they HAVE to assume that the boat may attemp to bear off; dump the jib and thus carry on on a very similar heading

Yes, the burden on A is massive. They may not tack unless they can be sure that they can complete the tack before the boat behind has to *start* taking avoiding action.
Ahead but to leeward and needing to tack is not a good place to be on the approach to a windward mark. The video makes it clear that this is particularly the case with these ultra fast multihulls.


Edited by JimC - 22 Sep 11 at 7:35pm