Tracker type comparison for use in the SHTP

[pogen]

Are you going to send a daily email with noonsite (or other 24 or 12 hr) positions to the fleet, derived from YB?

[pbryant]

I think the right choice is to stick with the YB versus the DL.

Complexity and reliability are natural enemies. Double the flexibility/complexity of something - and you quadruple the likelihood of failure.

The Yellowbrick is less complex.

[Lightspeed]

As one of the 2014 racers I have already expressed my vote for yellow brick. I do however think SSS should promote and insist as much as possible, shorthand and solo sailing safety. My suggestion is to error on the side of safety and require each racer to report into the RC within a reasonable (i.e. 6 , 12, or 24 hour) time frame.

In today’s world of technology, Lightspeed’s autopilot can out steer me and will most likely be on 24/7. Although I may be busy at an exact RC reporting hour, I would like RC and my family to know I am on Lightspeed and able to sail her within a reasonable time frame….Rick

[Travieso]

Maybe we should refocus the discussion and try to converge on the 'goals' of the communication plan for the purpose of race management. The one that is a requirement and could result in penalties to competitors, and could trigger additional protocols. Everything else is at the discretion of the sailor as long as it doesn't provide a competitive advantage. If we can document this perhaps we can avoid all this rehashing every cycle.

Perhaps something simple like:
1. Each racer must report their 700 and 1900 positions within 30 mins of the report (730, 1930) through any of the means supported by the RC:
a. SSB/VHF report to comms boat (or relay through another competitor)
b. email directly to RC
c. voicemail through sat phone to RC
The RC will provide summary position report of previous checking prior to the next report via
a. SSB through comms boat
b. email blast to the fleet

It is then up to each skipper to decide what level of redundancy they would want to invest (in $$$ and ###) to fulfill that requirement.

2. For the purpose of entertainment and to support some CG requirements the RC will provide a YB tracker to each boat in the fleet. This information is not available to the racers, any racer discovered to have had access to this information through direct or indirect access will be automatically disqualified.

None of the above are safety considerations. Communication relies on our unreliable power systems. Making any determination of safety based on lack of communications is problematic. We have PLB and ePIRBS for that (and in most cases likely satphones which have independent power sources).

If skippers want to update their families hourly and set up expectations of any communications with them that is their (flawed) choice. Perhaps their safety contact for the race should be required at the skippers meeting so it is clear where the responsibilities of the RC end.

[Travieso]

Maybe we should refocus the discussion and try to converge on the 'goals' of the communication plan for the purpose of race management. The one that is a requirement and could result in penalties to competitors, and could trigger additional protocols. Everything else is at the discretion of the sailor as long as it doesn't provide a competitive advantage. If we can document this perhaps we can avoid all this rehashing every cycle.

Perhaps something simple like:
1. Each racer must report their 700 and 1900 positions within 30 mins of the report (730, 1930) through any of the means supported by the RC:
a. SSB/VHF report to comms boat (or relay through another competitor)
b. email directly to RC
c. voicemail through sat phone to RC
The RC will provide summary position report of previous checking prior to the next report via
a. SSB through comms boat
b. email blast to the fleet

It is then up to each skipper to decide what level of redundancy they would want to invest (in $$$ and ###) to fulfill that requirement.

2. For the purpose of entertainment and to support some CG requirements the RC will provide a YB tracker to each boat in the fleet. This information is not available to the racers, any racer discovered to have had access to this information through direct or indirect access will be automatically disqualified.

None of the above are safety considerations. Communication relies on our unreliable power systems. Making any determination of safety based on lack of communications is problematic. We have PLB and ePIRBS for that (and in most cases likely satphones which have independent power sources).

If skippers want to update their families hourly and set up expectations of any communications with them that is their (flawed) choice. Perhaps their safety contact for the race should be required at the skippers meeting so it is clear where the responsibilities of the RC end.

Once we agree on the goals, we can discuss protocols, which might end up further influencing the requirements. Assuming we implement the two simple requirements above.

1. If a boat stays within the required check-in schedule, perfect, the RC can sleep.
2. ePIRB or PLB set, send help, RC doesn't sleep but at least knows what to do. Here is an interesting question, do you scramble immediately or wait until the next checkin cycle? I have been on boats in more than one occasion where an ePIRB is innadvertedly activated.
3. A boat misses check-ins for more than a day without reporting any problems, but YB track is active and reasonable (i.e. boat isn't going on circles or pointed to Japan or Antartica). Possible power failure on board, possible incapacitation of skipper (or loss of skipper overboard) with autopilot engaged and inability to set ePIRB. I suggest nothing is done until the TB track becomes questionable, at which point a close competitor could be diverted to investigate.
4. A boat misses check-ins for more than a day and YB stops at the same time and no ePIRB or PLB signal. As other have mentioned the possibility of loosing both pieces of communication is real. A big broach could wash out the YB and cause some water intrusion that knocks out power. A lot of people don't sleep for a long time.

See how quickly this turned to a safety discussion... SOS is the primary emergency method if communication is available. EPIRB, PLB are the main emergency methods independent of communications. YB can provide a secondary emergency notification in the case of failure of communication or skipper incapacitation, though its a flawed method.

I think this is a pretty solid fabric of safety for a single handed voyage. Yes, it doesn't guarantee your safe arrival to Kauai, but you are sailing solo to Hawaii...

Case 4 above is the more problematic. I think for this the RC should decide on a protocol and have it clearly documented in the Race Instructions and communicated with skipper (and possibly their emergency contact).

If I were to go, I will make sure a PLB is permanently attached to my person. Period.

[peter00]

I'll just relay a humorous little story to illustrate what can go wrong. I was running a tug on BC's central coast. The owner had, previous to employing me, purchased a used EPIRB. Depending on who you believe he had either failed to re-register it or the re-registration process failed. One day in the course of our work my deckhand inadvertently bumped the EPIRB and set it off. Soon after I was contacted by the CG and instructed to begin a search for the vessel in distress. We then spent an interesting couple of hours searching for ourselves. There is a lesson in there somewhere.

[brianb]

Once we agree on the goals, we can discuss protocols, which might end up further influencing the requirements. Assuming we implement the two simple requirements above.

1. If a boat stays within the required check-in schedule, perfect, the RC can sleep.
2. ePIRB or PLB set, send help, RC doesn't sleep but at least knows what to do. Here is an interesting question, do you scramble immediately or wait until the next checkin cycle? I have been on boats in more than one occasion where an ePIRB is innadvertedly activated.
3. A boat misses check-ins for more than a day without reporting any problems, but YB track is active and reasonable (i.e. boat isn't going on circles or pointed to Japan or Antartica). Possible power failure on board, possible incapacitation of skipper (or loss of skipper overboard) with autopilot engaged and inability to set ePIRB. I suggest nothing is done until the TB track becomes questionable, at which point a close competitor could be diverted to investigate.
4. A boat misses check-ins for more than a day and YB stops at the same time and no ePIRB or PLB signal. As other have mentioned the possibility of loosing both pieces of communication is real. A big broach could wash out the YB and cause some water intrusion that knocks out power. A lot of people don't sleep for a long time.

See how quickly this turned to a safety discussion... SOS is the primary emergency method if communication is available. EPIRB, PLB are the main emergency methods independent of communications. YB can provide a secondary emergency notification in the case of failure of communication or skipper incapacitation, though its a flawed method.

I think this is a pretty solid fabric of safety for a single handed voyage. Yes, it doesn't guarantee your safe arrival to Kauai, but you are sailing solo to Hawaii...

Case 4 above is the more problematic. I think for this the RC should decide on a protocol and have it clearly documented in the Race Instructions and communicated with skipper (and possibly their emergency contact).

If I were to go, I will make sure a PLB is permanently attached to my person. Period.

Good points all, and all are under consideration by the RC. I too carry a PLB on my person, was really happy with it's existence and the attached tether, when I found myself in the water on a knock down in 2012. I wonder at times why this isn't preferred in an event of this type ?

Brian

[brianb]

Thanks all for the continued input. The RC will be digesting the responses and reach a conclusion after Christmas. Shortly there after the Comm Plan will be posted to the SHTP site.

I have made some adjustments to my previous list to add a means of human, live check in that does not add to the equipment requirements. Changes are in item 4. The intent is to confirm a human is still aboard the vessel while maintaining the values of an automatic, hands off tracking scheme for followers and USCG consumption.

1. Tracker serves as check in and is mandatory to carry and not impede operation. Yellow Brick is the current tracker of choice. Other means can also be used but are not mandatory. RC will confirm tracker operation prior to race start on each vessel.
2. An SSB and VHF check in period will be part of the event, two per day as in the past. During that period positions will be read to the fleet from the Comm vessel. Anyone could also contribute their position at this time. This would also serve as a period for general discussion.
3. Any vessel not showing up on the tracker will be flagged for hailing during this check in period. SSB and VHF will be used. The RC will attempt contact by email/sat phone if they are available on the vessel.
4. Racers should make a good faith effort to confirm their YB is working by monitoring the twice daily check in, checking email, sat phone, or text via sat phone, if available. A once daily (or twice daily-TBD) will be mandatory using the YB's available CALL button. The user will have to check in by depressing this button within a daily time window, say from 0900 to 1800 PSDT. This will result in a message being sent to the RC and forwarded to the comm boat. Absent this check in a daily time penalty (TBD) will be assessed. Racers should make a good faith effort to confirm their YB is working by monitoring the twice daily check in, checking email, sat phone, or text via sat phone, if available.
5. VHF, AIS (receive only), EPRIB, and Tracker are the required communication vehicles.

[Travieso]

Good points all, and all are under consideration by the RC. I too carry a PLB on my person, was really happy with it's existence and the attached tether, when I found myself in the water on a knock down in 2012. I wonder at times why this isn't preferred in an event of this type ?

Brian

And I don't think we should make them wear it. Perhaps some like to sail in their natural suit once they hit the tropics. But also they (nor their families) should expect the RC or CG to magically find them if they fall overboard or know that they are incapacitated in need of emergency assistance. Not all of us build bunkers in their backyards.

[pbryant]

Good points all, and all are under consideration by the RC. I too carry a PLB on my person, was really happy with it's existence and the attached tether, when I found myself in the water on a knock down in 2012. I wonder at times why this isn't preferred in an event of this type ?

Brian

I also carry a PLB on my person, but they aren't a replacement for an EPIRB because they aren't required to be buoyant (in fact many that do float only float upside down turning the antenna into a mini keel) and the battery life requirement is half that of an EPIRB. Of course, in the cold waters here, it's a race between which dies first: me or the PLB battery - so 24 hours is more than enough.

I have velcro glued to the bottom of the PLB and the top of my helmet to get around the upside down flotation issue.

I really don't agree that PLBs should be required in place of EPIRBs, or required at all. PLBs are only useful if they are carried on your person and used to locate a person gone overboard. AIS SARTs are better for that purpose because they can be located by anyone with an AIS receiver (which boats in the race will presumably have). I also have an AIS SART in my "guest" PFD for passengers when I have them aboard, and put I it on my own PFD when I'm single handed - but I wouldn't advocate requiring them for the race. Wearing the PLB/AIS SART doesn't distract me, but I can easily imagine how it would someone else. Requiring technology to be worn that other people may not feel comfortable with just distracts skippers from sailing and potentially detracts from safety because it consumes funds that skippers could otherwise use to make their vessel more seaworthy. I assume most of us don't have infinite funds available.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just like the requirement for lifelines: if you can demonstrate that you have a solid jackline system and you never ever leave the cabin without being clipped into it, that the jackline system is designed to use the forward motion of the boat to bring you back aboard, and the lifeline stanchions defeat that process while steel lines can potentially saw through your tether; then they make sailing the vessel more complicated and less safe than not having them. It's kinda like requiring motorcyclists to wear seat belts. It solves one problem while creating a bigger one.