If these systems malfunction or are insufficiently accutate, then this is the responsability of the race comlittee and redress subject to the usual checks and balances is avaliable.

The checks are, no fault on the competitor, the rc acrtion has to be improper. 

Angelo, 

If the electronic starting horn had a short circuit and sounded the final start horns in Appendix U at the wrong time, I think we'd call that an improper act of the race committee and grant redress. Respectfully, I think the same principle applies to an error (rare) with automated starting systems. 

That said, where we've generally landed to equate "the hail is a courtesy" to automated starting is to state that a request by a boat alleging a failure of Velocitek/Vakaros is invalid. If a sailor thinks there was a problem, they should discuss with a committee (RC is best practice), who can request redress if there's something anywhere near balance of probabilities that there could have been a real failure. Early on, we saw plenty of people who challenged any OCS and demanded to "hear the tapes" in frivolous redress. Closing the door for competitors but leaving it open for committees has worked well across MANY events. 

I am aware of less than 5 times redress has been given across hundreds of regattas. While I have no experience with the Velocitek system, the Vakaros system is in my opinion, better than most eyes calling lines. Failure rates are increasingly rare. 

John P re: "That said, where we've generally landed to equate "the hail is a courtesy" to automated starting is to state that a request by a boat alleging a failure of Velocitek/Vakaros is invalid. If a sailor thinks there was a problem, they should discuss with a committee (RC is best practice), who can request redress if there's something anywhere near balance of probabilities that there could have been a real failure."

That answers a diff question than I raised ... but since you raised it ... let's go there.

I think it's unacceptable to remove a boat's right to request redress and to make any request invalid ... simply on the basis that it's a claim of an error of the system.

Any R4R for a claim of incorrect OCS call is already a very high bar, even without these systems.  I see no reason to strip boats of their R4R rights in the presence of these systems. 

The RC is not necessarily a neutral arbiter in this regard. They might have invested interests in not wanting errors to be found (even subconsciously) ... thus possibly undermining the confidence in these systems.

There is no rule which puts an advocacy obligation on the RC for a boat's position ... and I am not aware of any rule which instructs the RC to apply a "balance of probabilities" in whether or not to seek redress for a boat. An RC "may" seek redress ... that's as far as it goes ... 100% discretionary.

IMO ...Balance of probability determinations are the realm of the PC .. who is equipped to take evidence and apply the standard.  There is no such system for an RC ... and no process defined to ensure all the pertaining info is gathered and considered ... or any obligation to proceed if that "balance" is tipped.

Yes, an RC shall make corrections based on its own records (RRS 90.3(c)) ... but we have already determined that the RC has a record to rely upon (with a boat's claim the record is in error). 

So ... I have no problem following the standard ScoringInquiry -> R4R process ... but removing the R4R possibility does not serve the competitor IMO. 

I am against removing the right to redress. The questions of the rc should be asked, systems do fail when leat expected.

Racing should not be a lottery  of outside events, the weather is bad enough 

I'm in agreement that a failure of an electronic system of the RC counts as an "error" of the RC. No other answer is fair. The persnickety among us (we see you!) can say "it was an error to accept the incorrect electronic report."

You’re welcome to leave R4R intact. Our experience put this on par with the standard “failure to hear the hail” isn’t allowed. You have to trust the committees to act properly if you go this route. If the RC had a vested interest, the PC can still go there, but it’s not perfect. 

If the X-Ray flag halyard jams and the flag is not displayed, is it an error or omission of the RC? Or not eligible for redress because the halyard jammed even though the RC intended to display the X-Ray within 5 seconds of the starting signal? These are rhetorical questions, not requiring a long series of convoluted responses, posed to illustrate that anything under the control of the RC can be subject to a R4R if a competitor feels that their score has been made significantly worse through no fault of their own. This includes electronic systems employed by the RC. No additional words required. Unless you want to list every possible failure scenario in Race Docs. 

We ran about a 40 boat regatta last year using Race Sense.  Vakaros provided us their suggested language for the SIs, which we very slightly modified. The RC continued to do all of their normal functions (visually noting over early, recording finishes, etc.) If I recall the SIs stated that the Vakaros system prevailed unless there was some type of system failure, then the RC's notes could be used. 

I would think it matters VERY MUCH if the equipment is provided by the regatta (as in our case) or if personal equipment is used. Including personal subscriptions to the system. If its personal equipment, any issues should be between the boat and the service provider.