Forum: Share your SI/NOR language.
NOR adherence to SAS requirements
Ryan Malloy
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Judge In Training
0
A NOR states, "The current US Sailing Safety Equipment Requirements (USSER) for Coastal events. These requirements are available at https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/safety-information/serworld-sailing-special-regulations/." If a mass production boat registers for the regatta and it does not meet these standards, primarily #2.2.2 Stability - "The boat must have a stability index greater than or equal to 103 or meet the requirements of ISO 12217-2B." What obligation or liability does the RC or organizing authority have to enforce this standard?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
"The current US Sailing Safety Equipment Requirements (USSER) for Coastal events. These requirements are available at https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/safety-information/serworld-sailing-special-regulations/."
I can't make head nor tail of this NOR. It doesn't tell me what boats or competitors 'shall' or 'shall not' do.
As far as I can see it imposes no obligation on boats whatsoever.
Or is the quoted text a subparagraph in NOR 1.2 Other Rules that Apply?
If that is the case then the second quote you have provided applies to boats that are entered.
CASE 39
A race committee is not required to protest a boat. The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitors.
I would suggest that there is [at least a moral] exception to this: where compliance with a rule, such as a NOR requirement to submit a certificate to the OA/RC is peculiarly and solely within the knowledge of the RC/OA, in which case the RC should enforce it's requirement by protesting.
In the OP scenario, the RC/OA has no knowledge of the breach other than that available to any other competitor. If any boat thinks another boat broke the rule they can protest. Leave the racing to the racers.
As written the USSER does not seem to apply, I would delete current and add applies to the end of the sentence.
Rule 78.1 also makes it clear that it is the owner and any other person in charge's responsibility to ensure that the boat complies with the class rules that may include references to the safety rules.
To me, if the OA is aware that the boat does not meet the safety requirements then they should not accept the entry. In some ways, it could be compared to the OA having a requirement that the event is for monohulls only and a boat that is known to the OA as being a multihull tries to enter. It shouldn't be up to the competitors to protest that. However, I would not expect the OA to perform the calculations required to evaluate the stability index or similar characteristics. They are not naval architects and cannot be expected to have that expertise. Ultimately, it is the owner's responsibility to insure that the boat meets the requirements listed in the rules. I don't see how this falls under rules relating to class rules or measurement certificates as the USSER aren't either of these. If the OA is concerned then they can require that the owner prove that the boat meets the requirements before accepting the entry.
I had a similar experience with a T-Ten that I was racing on. We wanted to do an offshore race but knew that the companionway did not meet the safety requirements. The OA also knew it. We worked with the OA to come up with an acceptable solution that would allow us to enter.
Questions:
1) If a OA makes an accomodation to the Melges, how would it do that? Does the OA have to notify the other competitior of the accomodation?
2) If the OA does nothing, and the Melges participates in the regatta, what actions can the other competitiors take?
If a boat thinks another boat has broken a rule and should be penalised she should inform the other boat of her intention to protest, deliver a written protest and attend the protest hearing.
The second line of the SER List you referenced is as follows:
Note: Organizing Authorities may add or delete items based on the conditions of their specific races.
The OA had better think pretty hard about doing this.
If the boat gets knocked down and somebody drowns, the OA is going to be asked to justify why they diminished a published safety standard.
What can the OA do? They can amend the NoR and change the USSER stability requirement. They should be aware that this may allow other boats to enter.
I'm not sure how the OA can "do nothing". If the OA accepts the entry then the other competitors can protest the boat for not meeting the requirements. The PC would almost certainly DSQ the boat as it is obvious the boat does not meet the requirements.
Another thing to consider is what happens if everything goes pear-shaped. If something really bad happens to the boat or crew then the OA has put themselves in a precarious position legally. They will have to either justify why they changed the rules or why they ignored them. Not a good position to be in.
2.4.1 Lifelines A boat's deck including the headstay shall be surrounded by a suitably strong enclosure, typically consisting of lifelines and pulpits, meeting the requirements in 2.4.2 to 2.4.8.
2.4.2 Lifeline Stanchions A boat's stanchion and pulpit bases shall be within the working deck. 2.4.3 Bow Pulpit Bow pulpits may be open, but the opening between the vertical portion of stanchion pulpit and any part of the boat shall not exceed 14.2" (360mm). 2.4.4 Lifelines Lifelines shall be uncoated stainless steel wire. A multipart-lashing segment not to exceed 4" per end termination for the purpose of attaching lifelines to pulpits is allowed. Lifelines shall be taut.
2.4.4.1 Lifeline Deflection Lifeline deflection shall not exceed the following: a) When a deflecting force of 9 lbs (40N) is applied to a lifeline midway between supports of an upper or single lifeline, the lifeline shall not deflect more than 2” (50mm). This measurement shall be taken at the widest span between supports that are aft of the mast. b) When a deflecting force of 9 lbs (40N) is applied midway between supports of an intermediate lifeline of all spans that are aft of the mast, deflection shall not exceed 5” (120mm) from a straight line between the stanchions.
2.4.5 Lifeline Stanchion Spacing The maximum spacing between lifeline supports (e.g. stanchions and pulpits) shall be 87" (2.2m).
2.4.6 Lifelines Boats under 30' (9.14m) shall have at least one lifeline with 18" (457mm) minimum height above deck, and a maximum vertical gap of 18" (457mm). Taller heights will require a second lifeline. The minimum diameter shall be 1/8" (3mm).
2.4.7 Lifelines Boats 30' and over (9.14m) shall have at least two lifelines with 24" (762mm) minimum height above deck, and a maximum vertical gap of 15" (381mm). The minimum diameter will be 5/32" (4mm) for boats to 43' (13.1m) and 3/16" (5mm) for boats over 43' (13.1m).
Organisationally it would seem sensible to remind the prospective competitor of the rules, and state that no exemptions will be given, or else amend the NOR with appropriate exceptions to the requirements, which of course brings in all the perils described above.
The two examples: lifelines and stability represent two extremes:
With respect to safety construction and configuration requirements, these need to be applied in much the same way as Class Rules, except that the requirements need to be stated in the NOR, and don't automatically kick in like Class Rules or Measurement System Rules. The OA has a range of choices which, if they are sensible will be based on a sound risk assessment. These are in ascending order of rigour:
Just a comment about stability indices.
The Stability Index is now shown on a boat's IRC certificate. I presume the same applies to ORC and some other measurement systems.
When stability requirements first became a concern back in the 1970s, stability was not within the scope of [at least] CHS measurements and had to be measured and computed separately. That was why STIX was invented. In Australia we also used pull-down tests for trailable and small boats where computed stability indices may not have been valid. OA's had to specify stability requirements in NOR separately from the requirements for measurement, and having done so, could be expected to check the stability certificates or evidence.
Next step was to have stability indices included in measurement certificates.
In 2005 stability indices were introduced into the Australian Sailing Special Safety Regulations, which clubs apply to all races in Australia. Other MNA Safety Reglations evidently followed suit.
So we now have the situation where requirements for a computed stability index are called up whenever an OA invokes the Safety Regulations, whether the OA has risk assessed and decided it needs the stability index or not.
I think this is a really bad idea.
NOR should never repeat or remind competitors about specific rules.
All the rules apply equally.
But what should the OA do? If they are confident the boat doesn't meet the NOR then of course reject the entry, just as they would reject the entry of a 470 in a Laser/ILCA event, and they should state why, which potentially enables the prospective boat to remedy the situation. If they are not confident then what should happen? At least at the lower levels of your ascending order of rigour.
I have no familiarity with offshore requirements and scenarios, but my mention of Laser/ILCA brings a possible analogy. In the UK at least it's a commonplace in club level racing that anything that looks like an ILCA is eligible for the “Laser“ start, and replica sails or plaqueless hulls are acceptable. But when it comes to open events then the class rules are enforced. The problem is that, say, a youngster with a non sailing parent turning up for their first event away from home may be quite ignorant of the subtleties of what makes for a rules compliant ILCA, so it's not unusual to highlight this in or at least with the NOR as a service to prospective competitors. Even then it's wise to have some class legal spares available to avoid sending people away!
I agree that an OA should reject the entry of a boat that is obviously ineligible.
I don't think the RRS require the OA to to this: failure to do so is not an improper action or omission giving grounds for a boat to be given redress, and any boat that doesn't like the look of another boat can always protest her.
May I repeat that an OA/RC has a graduated scale of measures that it can use if it wishes to to gain assurance of compliance with safety or class rules. It can
Your IC that is 2mm out of spec is obviously not obviously ineligible. (sorry, couldn't resist it).
'Obviously' may well be in the eye of the beholder.
To a sailor or race administrator experienced with JOG or MORC racing, a Melges 24 may be obviously ineligible, but he'd then go and look at the relevant rules to identify exactly why.
To an experienced Melges 24 sailor a Melges 24 that had been reballasted to comply with stability requirements would be obviously outside the normal Melges 24 class specifications (because it would be sailing like a pig).
If the OA thought it was likely that a boat would be ineligible, but was in doubt, it might politely ask the entrant to confirm or provide evidence that it complied with the specific requirement that was in doubt.
If confirmation was not forthcoming, the OA might, slightly less politely, reject the entry.
If the OA doesn't notice that a boat may be non-compliant, and the boat turns up at the event, the OA has until the start of the first race to reject the entry (RRS 76.1).
Note that stability and any particular set of safety regulations is a safety requirement that the OA has more or less deliberately adopted. If the boat does not comply with the safety requirement, it should not be allowed to race. The OA can't stop the boat sailing around on the water, but they can make it clear that the boat is not part of their event. Non-compliance with a safety requirement that is known to the OA/RC should not be left to competitors to protest. Stability may be a matter that it is unlikely that a boat can remedy once a regatta is under way.
So the OA should be as smart and pro-active as it can reasonably be at all stages. It may well be that, with everyone acting in good faith and as well as they reasonably can, an entry still slips though.
After that the start of the first race, the only things that can be done are:
Turning to the issue of a beginner entering a higher level event with a boat that does not comply with class rules.
I certainly agree that it's nice to make arrangements so that beginners don't get turned away from a regatta, but I would suggest that that's the responsiblity of the CA, home clubs, and coaches, not so much of the race committee.
Firstly, the OA should have chosen the level of 'enforcement' they want to apply and indicated it in the NOR. Admittedly, this is sort of 'in code': if there's a Measurement Timetable in the NOR, that pretty much signals that the OA is going to enforce the measurement rules quite strictly. I don't think little reminders in the NOR are really effective: race officials sometimes say that competitors don't read NOR/SI anyway.
If the non-compliance isn't picked up in the organised registration process, then, for non-safety issues, then I think it's quite OK to leave the racing to the racers: Hopefully a sensible fleet is not going to protest some kid with a blown out Rooster sail scoring last, last, second last, last, second last ... .