HORR - 10 sinkings in top 50
Caroline Smith
a tree for dear life, and missed most of the "fun", but here's what I
gathered from the marshalls...
- At least 2 sinkings on the way to the start so everything got delayed
while they got rescued and sorted out.
- Division 1 (crews 1 to 50) went off, but apparently 10 of them sunk.
Leander II under Hammersmith Bridge, and Thames I also but apparently they
somehow managed to finish the course. Don't know who the rest were, or even
if the number was accurate - it's just what the marshals were telling us.
- Luckily the race was abandoned after that. Chiswick bridge was shut until
everyone had been fished out of the water, but eventually we were all
allowed back one at a time, heavily marshalled the whole way.
Anyone else manage to see/hear any more?
But another very compelling reason for buoyancy...
Carl
Yet again!! Is everyone OK?
How many of the clubs whose boats sank in this event had responded to
the recent safety audit by stating that their equipment was safe,
buoyant & fit for use?
So, just as the Ministry-ordained RoSPA review into rowing safety gets
itself under way, even more self-destructive fuel is piled upon the
bonfire of ARA vanities.
Now please remember that the ARA still insists that boats which go so
far below the surface that the crews end up swimming have _not_ sunk.
None of these boats would have sunk, nor swamped to the point of
unrowability & inability to safely support their seated crews, had the
ARA acted in 2001, as its own Water Safety Code unambiguously stated
that it must, in the light of the clearest of evidence that swamping can
& does sometimes kill.
Instead, the ARA ran a vicious campaign of calculated disinformation,
libel & slander, & as recently as last year tried (in order to save its
own face) to get the buoyancy regulations in Scotland rescinded. What
happened today was yet another direct consequence of the malicious,
obstructive & dishonest folly of Di Ellis, Tommy Thomson & Gary Harris
who, between them, have for 6 years obstructed all demands to legislate
for full compulsory shell buoyancy.
Now let the chickens come home to roost.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Caroline Smith
Here's hoping!!
And also hoping that someone makes an earlier call for the Vets Head
tomorrow.
The wind's meant to be stronger tomorrow and (I really don't mean to be rude
at all here) tomorrow's competitors, as a general demographic, are likely to
be more susceptible to the effects of hypothermia than today's.
Jonathan Anderson
> Anyone else manage to see/hear any more?
The Army ramming Durham out of the way rates as one of the more er,
interesting incidents.
Durham were getting warned towards Barnes pretty seriously and kept
moving to the outside of the bend, but that was where the Army were
overtaking them.
In the end the Army must have taken out the 7 man's blade because the
Durham boat spun sideways and the stern got was rammed by the Army's
bow. Durham cleared off sharpish into the side and the Army carried on.
Had the cox of Molesey 1 not shoved his hand in the water to steer the
boat before Hammersmith Bridge there might have been one more casualty,
according to onlookers.
Seems a lot of the coxes took the inside line, whereas Cambridge
ploughed on further in the middle and were motoring through people
fairly well, I guess with more stream.
Those conditions weren't too clever though. God knows how we'd have got
on had we actually raced.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Anne Rogers
finish results give 29 finishers with the highest numbered finisher being
45. Hopefully not all the discrepancy is swamping, but either being
responsible and not starting, or stopping on the course and seeking safety.
Crews in the top 45 that did not finish are
2 Fiamme Gialle
5 Leander 2
10 Oxford Brookes 1
14 Leander 3
22 Henley 1
25 Henley 2
31 Reading Uni 1
33 Molesey 4
34 University of Bristol 1
36 Tideway Scullers 2
37 Agecroft 1
38 Bremer RV von 1882
39 Csepel
40 Upper Thames 1
41 Marlow 1
43 Zurich SC
Several of these crews had other club crews finish. Some are local, Elite
crews, yet still sank, lets hope that this makes people realise that it's
not just inexperienced non local crews, who fail to take local advice that
sink, as I feel may have been the excuse for the vets head cock up a few
years ago.
Let's also hope this is major enough to get some decent press coverage.
Anne
Anne
ng...@aol.com
wrote:
One of the VIII's (Leander?) looked to have broken its back as well;
not surprised given the size of some of the waves and the gaps between
them.
>From rowing back among the first few what was surprising was that
crews which managed to weather Barnes obviously succumbed in droves
around Chiswick Eyot - conditions were bad there, but not as bad as at
Barnes, I'd say. Maybe it was the last straw effect when you have a
boat already full of water.
I saw that two of the boats were actually upside down. Does anyone
know if that happened as part of the sinking/abandoning ship, or was
it done afterwards to facilitate retrieval?
Caroline Smith
Having been next to 49 and 50 when they took tops off and turned, I guess
they started too.
Crews 45 to 50, none of whom finished:
46 Glasgow University I
47 London IV
48 Worcester I
49 Nottingham & Union
50 York City I
Will be v interested to see the photos when they go online in the next
couple of days!
(Quite want to put together a list of boat manufacturers that floated and
those that, um, didn't. I suspect we already know the answers but it might
be quite interesting anyway.)
Richard Packer
<csS2Pt...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>Having been next to 49 and 50 when they took tops off and turned, I guess
>they started too.
>Crews 45 to 50, none of whom finished:
>
>46 Glasgow University I
>47 London IV
>48 Worcester I
>49 Nottingham & Union
>50 York City I
45 was the last crew to start. 46 onwards didn't race.
>Will be v interested to see the photos when they go online in the next
>couple of days!
>(Quite want to put together a list of boat manufacturers that floated and
>those that, um, didn't. I suspect we already know the answers but it might
>be quite interesting anyway.)
That would be a most useful and informative set of data and (being an
optimistic kind of bloke) I hope the event organisers will do just
that. I don't think I'll stake my mortgage on it though. :-(
The trip back through Barnes was "interesting" in a tin fish; I would
not have fancied it in an under-buoyant racing boat.
S M
> couple of days!
Some photos up already at: http://sports.webshots.com/album/558447478IvfzDw
Notable ones at
http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2545037200074748209ZqoHxT (CUBC)
http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2393894460074748209ZwEsmB
http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2758038330074748209OjTVwz (37 very
swamped - the rowers torsos appear clear of the water but the boat
definitely doesn't look rowable)
http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2898246100074748209ZZfPeA (less so this
crew where they really appear to be very much in the drink)
Caroline Smith
> not have fancied it in an under-buoyant racing boat.
It felt a bit like being in a washing machine.
Was very thankful for the presence of a big orange boat watching me crew
like hawks as we spun below Barnes to go back to Tradesmens... comforting!
jennyan...@btinternet.com
> Was very thankful for the presence of a big orange boat watching me crew
> like hawks as we spun below Barnes to go back to Tradesmens... comforting!
I thought the marshalling, on the whole, was very good and none of the
marshalls lost their rag with crews in the difficult conditions. My
only complaint is that the marshalls just past putney town started to
turn crews and send them home while marshalls at Chiswick were
stopping crews going through the bridge as there was no safety cover
between Chiswick and Barnes. They were right to stop us going through
Chiswick but we were safer in our marshalling positions than we were
in a log jam in front of the bridge.
Andrew Hodgkinson
> I saw that two of the boats were actually upside down. Does anyone
> know if that happened as part of the sinking/abandoning ship, or was
> it done afterwards to facilitate retrieval?
Don't know, but we (crew 228) also saw two overturned boats, one being a
Leander shell which had, indeed, broken its back - passed while heading
home, off Chiswick Eyot. Earlier, a marshalling crew (number in the 300s)
coming downstream towards Barnes stopped rowing due to swamping well
before race start, then got shouted at by a particularly "energetic"
marshal for their river position - before said marshal realised their
poor condition and started providing more constructive instructions. Seen
also while marshalling: one crew on the bank in space blankets; another
crew getting out to lift up and empty their shell, before getting back on
the water.
Instructions from our closest marshal that the race had been abandoned
and we were to spin were clearly delivered and sensible. Unfortunately,
by Barnes we ran into another marshal who shouted at everyone rowing back
home that they shouldn't have spun at all, saying the were still people
in the water downstream, contradicting the previous instructions - but he
then allowing crews to continue anyway! While waiting for space in the
carnage at Barnes (crews everywhere facing in all directions) we had to
explain to people still marshalling upstream that the race had been
abandoned; it seems they had not been told. There even seemed to be
people still boating from Barnes as we came past. Again, the message
didn't seem to have reached them.
The decision to abandon was correct, though really I'm not sure why they
even started the race given the number of crews that were swamping or
encountering serious difficulty while trying to row up to the start. To
compound this, the instructions relayed after that were conflicting and
created a confused and shambolic situation that made things much more
dangerous for a while than they might have been. From the sounds of
things, once you got down to the mid-low-100s, marshalling was much
better. Our first boat had been held for quite some time in their
marshalling position before being allowed to row home on a river where
everyone was heading the same way and knew that the race was cancelled.
They got home late, but they got home safely.
--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/
Andrew Hodgkinson
> In the end the Army must have taken out the 7 man's blade because the
> Durham boat spun sideways and the stern got was rammed by the Army's
> bow. Durham cleared off sharpish into the side and the Army carried on.
Yes, quite extraordinary; I've never seen an eight turn so swiftly,
especially at race pace. Given the stress that must have put on the
shell, it amazed me that it could still be in one piece and upright. We
were across the river, on the Middlesex side - did anyone on the Surrey
bank witness this and get a better idea of what happened?
nospa...@fsmail.net
Looking at the boats (and let me be clear that I am making no
observations on the crew), this seems to be a Janousek..
http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130073&PHPSESSID=d7d2558a6191169784358a9face7d7af
Just look how far this same assumed fully bouyant boat can sink -
http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130076&PHPSESSID=d7d2558a6191169784358a9face7d7af
Now perhaps some of the hatches were loose, or the compartments
breached for another reason, but if this is what can happen to a boat
that would have great difficulty adding further bouyancy, those in
open construction would have no chance.
Even then, they were able to stay sitting in the boat - and did.
Peter
lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk
> >
>
> I thought the marshalling, on the whole, was very good and none of the
> marshalls lost their rag with crews in the difficult conditions.
I'm sorry, but after the reports from our first eight which sank (in a
squad Empacher), I have to say this wasn't the case! Having found that
they were starting to sink and heading quickly for the bank, the first
marshall they alerted (with the fairly basic shout of "we're
sinking!!"), took absolutely no notice of them except for to say "get
out of the racing line". Finally, another boat turned up to assist
them, and managed to drive directly into the boat, holeing it and
breaking a rigger. They were in the water, by their estimates, for
around 20-30 minutes. On a colder day this could have been fatal.
Secondly, instructions after the cancellation were, to be frank,
farcical. Going off 192, and marshalling just below Chiswick bridge,
we were told to paddle up through Chiswick bridge and turn. The
marshalling seemed haphazard at best, and what followed was basically
chaos - crews everywhere pointing in different directions all crashing
into each other - we lost out bow number after a Latymer crew (on home
water) ploughed straight through the wrong arch of Chiswick bridge
into us and several other crews. I accept that part of this was due to
various crews disobeying instructions, but after about 2 minutes it
seemed the marshalls couldn't be bothered, and just sat and watched
the farce unfold.
Lower crews such as our novice boat were told to row right up through
Chiswick bridge, turn and row down again. Now forgive me if my logic
is off here, but if a race is cancelled due to dangerous conditions,
and the worst of the conditions are below Barnes, why make them row up
through the danger, then back down through it, when they could just
have spun in order and returned to the Putney hard? Ridicilous.
I accept that the marshalls are volunteers, but regardless of
volunteer status or not, incompetance can lead to serious danger, and
I think (without meaning to sound over-dramatic) that we're pretty
lucky tonight that no one died today.
Needless to say the organisers will be getting a less than pleased
email from us in the morning!
Christopher Anton
"Anne Rogers" <anne...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:577sbvF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> 2 Fiamme Gialle
> 5 Leander 2
> 10 Oxford Brookes 1
> 14 Leander 3
> 22 Henley 1
> 25 Henley 2
> 31 Reading Uni 1
> 33 Molesey 4
> 34 University of Bristol 1
> 36 Tideway Scullers 2
> 37 Agecroft 1
> 38 Bremer RV von 1882
> 39 Csepel
> 40 Upper Thames 1
> 41 Marlow 1
> 43 Zurich SC
>
It's your elite crews who are likely to be in boats which are unbuoyant
becuase all the club has cared about whether the boat will go fast rather
whan will it float. Anyone who went out and raced in today's conditions in a
boat without sealed compartments needs their head examining.
Christopher Anton
<nospa...@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:1175377123.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Jet have some photos up.
>
> Looking at the boats (and let me be clear that I am making no
> observations on the crew), this seems to be a Janousek..
> http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130073&PHPSESSID=d7d2558a6191169784358a9face7d7af
>
> Just look how far this same assumed fully bouyant boat can sink -
> http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130076&PHPSESSID=d7d2558a6191169784358a9face7d7af
>
compartments or even a hole drilled in each of them for that essential piece
of equipment - the cox box - or might have a too heavy crew, but even so it
looks to me that it might nearly meet the FISA guidelines
Anne Rogers
> volunteer status or not, incompetance can lead to serious danger, and
> I think (without meaning to sound over-dramatic) that we're pretty
> lucky tonight that no one died today.
I accept that because of various boating locations and other factors that
most people would not be in full possession of information about the
condition of the river and because it was a race, felt no need to seek this
out, but was there any crews who decided not to boat? What about individuals
within crew, did anyone think they shouldn't be boating, but not say so, or
say so and be overruled?
Anne
Christopher Anton
<lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1175378384.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
. They were in the water, by their estimates, for
> around 20-30 minutes. On a colder day this could have been fatal.
>
> Secondly, instructions after the cancellation were, to be frank,
> farcical. Going off 192, and marshalling just below Chiswick bridge,
> we were told to paddle up through Chiswick bridge and turn.
Please, please can everyone who was involved today make sure that their
clubs fill in incident forms particularly on how you found the marsahlling
(bearing in mind they were in almost an impossible position), but also
importantly how you got on, what sort of boat you had and whether it had any
underseat buoyancy and SEND it to the ARA.
Christopher Anton
>
> I accept that because of various boating locations and other factors that
> most people would not be in full possession of information about the
> condition of the river and because it was a race, felt no need to seek
> this out, but was there any crews who decided not to boat? What about
> individuals within crew, did anyone think they shouldn't be boating, but
> not say so, or say so and be overruled?
>
in a wooden Empacher with no underseat buoyancy. I had already told the crew
before we heard of the decision that I didn't think it was safe, we would
sink and I was not going to cox them and I advised them not to do it. I'm
quite experienced though and I couldn't see a youth with limited experience
getting away with it.
Anatole Beams
crews hugging the St.Pauls bend, keeping out of the wind but still
taking on water. Some of the crews battled through despite taking on
masses of water not getting much past Hammersmith. Boat 5 from Leander
sunk on the St.Pauls jetty while Cambridge and Tideway Scullers
stormed past (did anyone have self-bailers fitted by any chance?). All
the launches were swiftly scrambled from St.Pauls to collect stranded
crews, who once they had stopped rowing were caught by wind and tide.
Tideway Scullers (36) sank just before St.Pauls and drifted down. Some
of the crew were pulled off by launches, while the others sat astride
their overturned Fillipi.
Many of the crews were so swamped they pulled out at Hammersmith or
landed at St.Pauls. Leander (14) stormed up semi-submerged and carried
on past (but not much further I suspect), followed by the Army in
their stout looking Resolute and boat no 20 - a Stampfli looking
rather low in the water. Boat 22 from Henley pulled up at Hammersmith
taking on water fast and 23 Molesey slipped past looking rather
shagged. Other boats now approaching St.Pauls got the idea and decided
that a dash for the concrete was in order and all hell broke loose.
28, 30, 25, 32, 412 TRC all grouped up in a raft by the slip, with a
few crews slipping through the fray. 29 from Hondarabbia (Spain)
showed real spirit and rowed past at full tilt, all except for No.7
who's prime job was just bailing out. 35 slipped past and then another
semi-submersible from AK (44) making straight for home.45 from Star
struggled past under water.
Then the race was over, but the chaos began. However, with the
pressure off, tempers stayed remarkably calm and boats just waited
their turned as they queued at St.Pauls. Marshalls filtering off the
crews to their home-ports as they rowed past. I would like to point
out that from our vantage point not one crew sank after the race had
been called off and the situation became manageable by the marshalls.
The boats that seemed to fare the worst on the swamping stakes were
most definitely marked by having bright yellow shells. Fillippis &
Stampflis seemd to fare not much better. The Sims and American boats
seemed to be least affected.
We have lots of pictures - hence the details in this narrative. I may
have missed a few passing boats as we were also seconded to help
pulling boats in. It was a good call to cancel the race and it had
been fine in the morning, so it could not be easily predicted. What
happens tomorrow? - who knows, but I'll be out there !
Anatole
Christopher Anton
"Anatole Beams" <anatol...@abdm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175382943.1...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
. What
> happens tomorrow? - who knows, but I'll be out there !
>
and I suspect that will make all the difference.
anto...@aol.com
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Anne Rogers" <annek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree. The elite boats have the newest constructions which for
Empacher is Buoyant and many others. The older boats are rowed by less
experienced crews and more likely to be less buoyant.
I think who ever allowed this to start was criminally insane. It
should have been clearly obvious what was gonna happen
bookie
so how come it seemed to be mainly empachers that sank?
>
> I think who ever allowed this to start was criminally insane. It
> should have been clearly obvious what was gonna happen-
mmm...anyone who had looked at the weather forecast for saturday would
have seen the 23+mph northwesterly winds predicted for the afternoon
quite easily, which anyone could tell you would mean wind blowing
straight down the chiswick eyot to barnes bridge section and against
the stream and whipping the water up badly, but the thing is these are
predictions so cannot be guaranteed. The organisers could have
cancelled the day before or on the morning of the race based on these
predictions, then sod's law kicks in and these winds do not appear in
the end and the tideway is flat calm and the organisers get slated for
cancelling for no reason before waiting to see what the weather was
really going to be like.
Or they could have done as they seemed to have done (is that bad
English? probably is) and waited to see how conditions turn out and
make a decision later on when it is clear condition on the water are
unrowable and in fact downright dangerous. Then they get slated for
leaving it too late and waiting until everyone is already onthe water
and has to try to get 'home' through the waves, so either way they get
it in the neck.
personally, I thought it would be cancelled before I even got the
tideway this afternoon, purely from looking at the weather forecast
(wind speed and direction) and i am surprised they waited until people
had boated to make the call to cancel but maybe they thought the wind
might abate and conditions might change? thing is they may feel under
pressure to NOT cancel, what with a number of crews coming from
overseas (mine included, Forza Varese SC!!!) and the inevitable
whinging they will ahve to cope with from people who have come a long
distance to race and probably do not appreciate how bad it can be out
there at times onthe tideway (top of the tide, wind against stream,
etc etc). Also i suspect they do not want to disappoint the
competitors considering that so many races have been cancelled so far
this year, and after the cancellation in 2004, or maybe I am wrong on
that.
I am not saying they were right to wait until people had boated but in
a way i can see why they did although i don't agree with it and think
they should have made the call earlier inthe day, preferably before I
left home to drive to hammersmith, so I could have gone to the
Cambridgeshire Cat Club's annual show in Stevenage this afternoon
instead of getting soaked on the tideway.
Bookie
btw we were in an Eton Racing Boat, which dealt with it all ok, the
rudder was crap though.
bookie
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
just to clarify; i think that cancelling the race, or abandoning it
rather, was entirely the right thing to do, i just think the decision
should have been made much earlier in the day before crews had boated,
just in case anyone thinks i thought otherwise from what i posted
above.
bookie
bookie
IMHO a lot of crews were far too keen to turn and get back to where
they had boated from and this was what caused a lot of the chaos after
the decision to abandon the race had been made and communicated. From
where my crew and myself were sat inthe bank marshalling (by the white
hart pub, middlesex side, number 312) we saw a lot fo carnage as
people turned there and then, ignored marshals and tried to get home
in large packs gettign in each other's way.
A couple of crews coxed by some misguided individuals (burton
leander, you know who you are!) ignored instructions to turn into the
middle of the river, as per the normal navigation rules on an ebb
tide, and row downstream inthe centre of the river, Instead they
decided to hug the banks and crash into the stationary crews who were
still waiting in their marshalling positions (as per instruction
fromthe the marshals) until told to turn and go. How these crews
though that was a good idea is beyond me, did they not understand why
the marshals were telling them get out of the bank and into the middle
of the river? did these coxes not see that there were still crews in
the bank? dur!!!
personally, i kind of enjoyed watching the carnage for a while and
decided to just sit for a few mminutes in our relatively sheltered
spot by the white hart pub until the river was clearer. Then when a
lot of the crews had gone, paddled off towards kew, turned and paddled
back to hammersmith in a (kind of) clear river with few dramas. if
more people had been a bit more patient about getting back there may
have been less carnage after the cancellation.
anyway those are my thoughts.
My thoughts on this topic that is, not my thoughts in their entirety,
I have other thoughts on other topics of course but not all are
relevant to this thread or even this newsgroup, which is why I do not
post them here, but I do have other thoughts occasionally, just in
case you were wondering.
bookie
David Biddulph
news:Nu6dnYluyNReKpPb...@pipex.net...
Remember that today's race is with the flood tide, while yesterday's was on
the ebb, so today we shouldn't have the problem of wind against the tide,
but obviously the conditions will be assessed.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Anatole Beams
drifted down the middlesex side unattended. Upside down with it's pink
blades still attached, it was only saved by a quick acting St.Pauls
coach who grabbed the boat by the prow and beached it as it was about
to drift across the front on the moored barges outside the Old Ship.
We had been out earlier in the morning and rowed down to Putney and
back from Chiswick. The conditions had been fine, if a little blustery
in places. I think the decision made was probably correct - acting on
the conditions as they appeared. A certain amount of chaos is
inevitable and it looked fairly well dealt with with plenty of
marshalls in boats and patient crews.
The wind is getting up for our Vets now!
BTW - Carl et al. Why are self-bailers not fitted as standard to
rowing eights? You won't find many sailing dinghys without them.
Caroline Smith
have a pretty good (I'm sure that's not the right word) sequence shoing
Fiamme Gialle (crew 2) sinking. Starts from about here...
http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07/bydivision/displayimage.php?src=divisions&im=0308
happy_john
remember thinking on the row down that the conditions were only just
rowable-worst part is as you go through barnes bridge where the
parallel sides just concentrate the waves so you get a big fill of
water.Of course it gets worse as you turn the corner heading straight
into the wind.We then spun round and made friends with the nearest
available tree while one crew pulled into the bank in front of us
already swamped from the row down.Has to be said the standard of
coxing was as appalling as ever with several crews drifiting about
near the middle of the river.
Just before the start the wind seemed to drop off a
bit. I nheard one of the marshalls say into his radio 'the river is
rowable, there are no white horses', which was actually true at that
time, unfortunately the wind picked up rather dramatically shortly
after. When crews started sinking the marshalls didnt seem to know
what to do ( at least they could put themselves in front of the
swamped crews to warn oncoming boats). After the race got called off
it was just organised chaos.
Christopher Anton
"Caroline Smith" <csS2Pt...@dsl.pipex.com>
> Fiamme Gialle (crew 2) sinking. Starts from about here...
> http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07/bydivision/displayimage.php?src=divisions&im=0308
Jonny
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Caroline Smith" <csS2PtAhMe...@dsl.pipex.com>> Fiamme Gialle (crew 2) sinking. Starts from about here...
> >http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07/bydivision/di...
>
> that all looks pretty terrifying
Wow!
Presumably not a buoyant boat. Can anyone ID this particular Filippi?
Rob Collings
> Jet have some photos up.
>
> Looking at the boats (and let me be clear that I am making no
>
> Just look how far this same assumed fully bouyant boat can sink -http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130076&PHPSESSID=d7d2...
>
> Now perhaps some of the hatches were loose, or the compartments
> breached for another reason, but if this is what can happen to a boat
> that would have great difficulty adding further bouyancy, those in
> open construction would have no chance.
>
> Even then, they were able to stay sitting in the boat - and did.
It's hard to say, but Chris could be right that the boat might meet
the FISA guideline. However, the two important things are:
- the gates are clear of the water and hence the crew is able to move
the boat.
- the torsos of the crew are out of the water.
Although unpleasant, the crew are infinitely better off than crews
like this:
http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07/bydivision/displayimage.php?src=divisions&im=0363&offset=1
There are a number of crews that appear to have sank down to their
chests in the water (and yes I call that sinking!). Perhaps we should
be thankful we've had a mild winter? I don't like to think what could
have been if the weather had been colder.
I don't think I've been able to find any photos of boats capsizing -
every one of the significant number of people in the water seem to
have got there through their boat swamping and sinking underneath
them.
It would be really interesting to know the breakdown of manufacturers
and bouyant-ness of the boats that sank and those that didn't.
Bounancy is clearly not some sort of holy grail that will solve all
the problems, but days like yesterday should serve as a very clear
example of why it is necessary. It might also serve as an interesting
case study into risk assessment in rowing.
This 'incident' certainly isn't going to help the ARA's case in the
RoSPA review.
Rob.
Christopher Anton
"Rob Collings" <robin.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175423256.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I've asked for all the clubs in my region who were involved - non actually
raced - to forward any incident reports in particular the type and make of
baot and whether it has underseat buoyancy
Carl
A correction:
Standard Janouseks are not "assumed fully buoyant". Indeed, Janousek
have not hitherto claimed any such thing.
Janouseks have been much quoted in the buoyancy discussions becasue they
do (if all hatches fit & seal, & if there are no holes in bulkheads)
provide a higher standard of flotation than open, through-flow shells.
They have pointed the way to go for retrofits but do not necessarily
represent the perfect solution. Much more could very easily be done.
Please now review the Oxford buoyancy tests, available on:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/tests.asp
You will see - as you do in fact note - that the eight does keep a
motley crew with their torsos out of the water, which is first survival
requirement.
But certain members of the crew in the 2 images you've flagged are not
exactly petite. A shell's flotation capacity is seriously affected by
crew weight, & overloading is never going to improve matters. Please
understand that the UK still has no meaningful standards for shell
flotation, no test procedures & no in-use spot tests. Presently we are
comparing boats built as makers see fit in default of rational
performance standards, tests, guidance or sanctions. That's insane.
Who'd imagine that several thousand rowers would deliberately go afloat
in cold, rough water, with no life protection, in boats that take on
water, with many of them then bound to sink? Stand back from our close
involvement in rowing & see this lunacy as outsiders must see it. Then
please try to understand that shells can be made virtually impervious to
swamping. What does that say for our collective intelligence?
Now the real problem:
Through the ARA's finaglings for >6 years (& I've again named those most
culpable in my earlier posting, but ARA Council has itself been
scandalously complacent, smug, lazy, dismissive, supine & negligent in
repeatedly failing to nail & curb the Exec's lies & misconduct), we
still have no proper regulations on what does & what does not constitute
a fully buoyant shell, & no science behind what ARA advisories exist.
This is because the ARA control freaks, with zero expertise in
hydrostatics, remain desperate to control of the agenda. Despite past
Boat Race swampings, mass swampings on the Tideway & elsewhere in
training & in races, the swamping death of Leo Blockley 6 years ago, the
recorded swamping deaths of other rowers in the UK & worldwide, plus
specific written warnings on the dangers & their remedies, delivered to
it over the last 11 years, the ARA has repeatedly shunned all offers of
expert assistance.
I don't think the organisers of yesterday's event deserve Anton2468's
condemnation. The charge of criminality, if it belongs anywhere, is
most properly targeted at the arrogant idiots at the ARA whom I have
named, & at their toadies. But for their concerted obstruction, those
of us who do know our engineering science would have been working
together with the ARA 6 years ago to eliminate this wholly unnecessary
deficiency in the construction of so many eights & fours. Standards,
test & guidlines would have been established. Retrofit procedures would
have been formulated & approved. Within 3 years all UK shells would
have been converted to full buoyancy. And long ago it would have become
illegal, unnecessary & pointless to row underbuoyant shells.
That's what has been lost. You know by name the ringleaders who caused
its loss & the wastage of the last 6 years. One of them suppressed
expert advice delivered 11 years ago, action upon which would certainly
have saved Leo blockley's life 6 years ago. And to those names I should
add that of Tommy Thomson's foolish successor as Water Safety Adviser,
Stuart Ward.
Shall we let this nonsense continue until another rower dies, & let more
boats get wrecked meanwhle, & look ever more stupid & irresponsible to
non-rowers, to the emergency services & even to ourselves? What a
sopectacularly inane way to present ourselves, right at the start of the
DCMS-ordered RoSPA safety review!
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Carl
There is no valid reason why tehy are not fitted - just ignorance &
prejudice.
I have repeatedly advocated fitting these suction self-bailers (small
openable vents in the bottom of the boats). They are used widely by
sailors. Properly sized, they induce minimal drag 7 then only when
open. Properly located, they may even improve flat-water performance
(but dont tell FISA!). Coastal rowers who use them speak highly of the
speed with which these devices empty their boats, despite the relatively
lower speeds of coastal shells.
But still Boat Race crews carry farty little pumps (when they remember
to, that is)!
It is simply not understood in rowing - this least science-minded of all
mechanical aquatic sports - that carrying water imposes a huge penalty
on performance even when it doesn't sink you.
Carl
As it fills up, it goes lower. In which condition, the waves are higher
above the saxboards, As this happens, the rate of influx rises
exponentially, so the sinking accelerates. Then the water pools towards
the stern & all is lost as the stern goes right under. Since water is
still flowing in, the bow rises above the water then, as the boat
finally fills, the lot goes under. But because the bow compartment is
larger than the stern compartment, the boat remains stern down. The
boat has completely sunk (except in the view as stated in the ARA's
written response to the Blockley case Coroner by that malicious idiot,
Gary Harris!) & to the fact that it does not continue to go deeper is
due to the increasing displacement of water by the intolerable (in
survival terms) degree of bodily immersion of the crew.
Now transplant that crew & its boat through time & space into the Ebro
in Spain on 29 December 2000. Not 25mph winds against tide, but up to
70mph storm. Just that one eight, all alone & entirely devoid of
support or rescue boat (due to launch operational cock-up, etc.). Not
on the Tideway, but in the middle of a 300m-wide estuary. And being
blown towards bridge buttresses.
That was the true situation in which Leo Blockley was drowned. The
self-same situation which Gary Harris, as spokesperson & Deputy Chairman
for the ARA, has tried to spin into a little coxing cock-up which any
half-competent cox could easily have avoided or prevented. And that is
the spin for which, at the behest of his buddy, Brian the dodgy lawyer,
the ARA Council so despicably gave him their vote of thanks only a year ago.
Is it not miraculous that more young Oxford rowers were not lost that
day? Yet I must remind you that senior Oxford University academics
calmly decided that the appropriate way to deal with this tragedy was to
blame the victim as a means of covering up the (to them) unpalatable
truths of coach inebriation, their failure to have addressed earlier
reports of same, lousy management & lack of adequate safety planning or
provision. And they found in the negligent, conniving ARA a most
willing accomplice.
Do people now, at last, begin to understand the true enormity of the
wrong done to Leo Blockley, to his family, & to our sport by the conduct
of a few senior, time-expired officials?
Andrew Hodgkinson
> IMHO a lot of crews were far too keen to turn and get back to where
> they had boated from and this was what caused a lot of the chaos after
> the decision to abandon the race had been made and communicated.
But that's the point - it wasn't a question of being keen, at least not
in all cases. For example, we were told by our marshal to spin
immediately and return. Another marshal further downstream contradicted
it, but let the crews go on anyway. There didn't seem to be radio
communication between the marshals and/or adequate centralised radio
communication giving the marshals instructions or guidelines on what they
should say to crews.
> people turned there and then, ignored marshals and tried to get home
> in large packs gettign in each other's way.
We rowed into this, but were coming from a region on the river where
everyone spun together precisely because of marshals instructions - most
certainly not because of ignoring them. Maybe other crews started to see
some people already rowing past and decided at that point to ignore
instructions to stay and began to spin?
> A couple of crews coxed by some misguided individuals (burton
> leander, you know who you are!) ignored instructions to turn into the
> middle of the river, as per the normal navigation rules
We were explicitly instructed *not* to turn in the middle of the river,
but to keep as close to the bank as possible. The marshal gave extra
instruction on taking care to not row into other river users and so-on.
We saw some crews heading towards the middle but they rapidly got into
trouble because of the rougher water there. Crews close to the bank were
better off. Perhaps on your stretch of river it was different.
> How these crews
> though that was a good idea is beyond me, did they not understand why
> the marshals were telling them get out of the bank and into the middle
> of the river? did these coxes not see that there were still crews in
> the bank? dur!!!
Maybe they were told to be there by marshals from the point where they
had been waiting in line to race. Once underway, they came into contact
with marshals who'd been giving other crews contradicting instructions.
Those marshals were probably soon overloaded with crews travelling in
different directions and were unable to manage the crowd control
necessary, I'd guess.
I'm sure some coxes rowed into other boats because of incompetence;
others in difficulty seeing the other boats (hard to tell which way some
were facing in all the confusion and very rough water); those crews who
easied were rapidly caught up by wind and tide; some of the less
experienced boats were probably panicing. Conditions were awful and any
trust the novice crews might have had in the marshalling instruction
would have been shattered once they came up against a marshal telling
them the opposite of someone they'd spoken to just moments earlier.
> more people had been a bit more patient about getting back there may
> have been less carnage after the cancellation.
I agree entirely - but in part, at least, the impatience seems to have
been on behalf of the marshals, not just the crews.
J Flory
> I have repeatedly advocated fitting these suction self-bailers (small
> openable vents in the bottom of the boats). They are used widely by
> sailors. Properly sized, they induce minimal drag 7 then only when
> open. Properly located, they may even improve flat-water performance
> (but dont tell FISA!). Coastal rowers who use them speak highly of the
> speed with which these devices empty their boats, despite the relatively
> lower speeds of coastal shells.
>
well, though emptying a full footwell took a minute or so:
http://mauriprosailing.com/Andersen/Andersen-Bailers.htm
There are various sizes and pumping rates probably depend on speed as
well.
One limitation is that it doesn't work at all unless you are moving
forward. If the boat stops, water actually flows back in past the
bailer's little shutters unless you retract the bailer to the closed
position.
Might work well in a buoyant 8 because the buoyant chambers would
reduce the volume of water that could be shipped and because the
buoyancy should enable you to keep moving forward. But while
marshalling or if conditions forced you to heave to in a sheltered
area, the boat would be stopped and the suction bailer(s) would not
work.
Having one in each footwell would mean the crew would have to stop
rowing to flip them down or up (and the ones nearer the bow in the
laminar flow area might cause a bit of drag??). A single larger one
at the cox's feet would avoid this but, in a buoyant boat, would
require tubes to feed the shipped water back there.
Carl
We are discussing the application of existing sail-boat technology, yet
it works for rowing! Your Alden would have been right at the lower
limit of speed (for much of the time) for good suction bailing, & would
be better served by a decent intertial bailing system (e.g. the
gently-sloped aft bulkhead/water-chute that all good singles should have
& which can empty a footwell in 2 strokes). Eights & fours have ample
speed to self-bail rapidly.
Now suppose we actually engaged our collective brains in the design of
rowing-specific suction-bailing equipment, complete with non-return valving?
I'm always depressed by the readiness of rowers to seek reasons to not
do something sensible.
BTW, the bigblade photos show perfectly how it is the wave peaks
slopping over the sides which fill the boats - a mechanism which I
detailed over 5 years ago in:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/documents/swamping1.jpg
The Bigblade sequences show how much lower are the saxboards of the
wing-rigged boats.
anto...@aol.com
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i am not sure of that last comment in all cases.
Also...pictures of newcastle uni show them with much less
spray...and ..they finished so did not sink.newer wing eights hve
higher saxes.
Although i do agreewith you regarding ur wave theory, rigger stays do
increase the potential to ship water at speed...after a certain height
ofwave however it doesnt matter what rigger u have.
bookie
> but to keep as close to the bank as possible. The marshal gave extra
> instruction on taking care to not row into other river users and so-on.
> We saw some crews heading towards the middle but they rapidly got into
> trouble because of the rougher water there. Crews close to the bank were
> better off. Perhaps on your stretch of river it was different.
>
but people were generally ignoring him and just spinning and going
home.
certainly when they were allowed to go they were told to move into the
centre of the river (this was above barnes between chiswick andbarnes
so not inthe worst water) and row with thwe stream inorder to get home
quicker and be out of the crews still waiting to turn, which seemed
sensible to me at that point onthe course.
there were still some people who chose to 'barge' their way up the
bank ignoring these marshals and the crews still sat inthe bank
waiting to turn and go home. These people seemed oblivious to the fact
that they were crashign ito stationary crews in the bank and causing
more carnage.
>
> Maybe they were told to be there by marshals from the point where they
> had been waiting in line to race. Once underway, they came into contact
> with marshals who'd been giving other crews contradicting instructions.
> Those marshals were probably soon overloaded with crews travelling in
> different directions and were unable to manage the crowd control
> necessary, I'd guess.
probably, see above.
also i agree that when crews got going and then kept stopping in the
middle of the river to get caught by the wind they then got into more
difficulty and were turned around by the wind and carried into other
crews and obstacles. That is precisely why i waited with my crew, in
the bank, until the majority of the shit had gone home, then we
paddled up to the calmer waters by Kew road bridge and spun there,
then we had a relatively continuous row back home to hammersmith. I
knew that if we were in a queue of crews (most of whom were coxed by
muppets) we would be constantly stopping and starting and that would
then lead to more carnage and tangles with other crews due to the wind
and other issues. I just did not want to get involved in stopping ansd
starting inthose conditions, better to keep the boat moving and keep
some momentum onthe boat in those winds IMHO and from my experience of
being out in similar.
i am sure someone will disagree!
bookie
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
> In my summary I forgot to mention the broken Leander Empacher that
> drifted down the middlesex side unattended. Upside down with it's pink
> blades still attached, it was only saved by a quick acting St.Pauls
> coach who grabbed the boat by the prow and beached it as it was about
> to drift across the front on the moored barges outside the Old Ship.
>
> We had been out earlier in the morning and rowed down to Putney and
> back from Chiswick. The conditions had been fine, if a little blustery
> in places. I think the decision made was probably correct - acting on
> the conditions as they appeared. A certain amount of chaos is
> inevitable and it looked fairly well dealt with with plenty of
> marshalls in boats and patient crews.
>
Great posts Anatole - good description of everything. My viewpoint was
one of walking from the start to Hammersmith in the 30 mins before the
scheduled start, then standing on Hammersmith bridge, and then
watching from outside AKRC. Note that anyone watching from the ARA
will have had similar viewpoints to my latter two.
What I saw: well, I was out on Friday afternoon when the wind was in
the same direction and for quite a while after high tide it was very
bouncy along Chiswick Eyot, and I had warned friends who were planning
on racing to expect this. I also saw some shocking coxing by overseas
crews (e.g. hugging the Fulham wall outside Fulham FC) and have
complained to the TRRC.
On Saturday there were standing waves outside Civil Service Boathouse
at about 3:20pm and I walked past seriously doubting whether the race
would start. At about this time I saw both Leander I and CUBC rowing
up and coping absolutely fine with everything. However I saw several
other crews bailing. Further downriver, there were some small white
horses and then some bigger ones at the downstream end of the Eyot.
Downstream from that point was choppy but not really that bad, and the
view downstream from Hammersmith bridge was one of a beautifully flat
river. It would be interesting to try and find out where those people
who were carrying water before the start took it on - a crew boating
from Putney and marshalling on Surrey should never have been in rough
water on their way up... whereas someone boating from AK and
marshalling on Middlesex will have had two crossings in naff water.
I saw lots of bad coxing - people going up to marshal a long long way
away from the bank, instead of tucking in, and thus putting themselves
in rougher water. Ability to cope with the water seemed unrelated to
the boat type, but to the quality of rowing - people who were sat and
stable made good progress, those who weren't, didn't. Conditions like
that aren't a great equaller as the myth goes, but just reward good
rowing.
As I went past the Eyot (3:30pm ish), a launch with a big umpires flag
was mooching around in the middle of the river, with people looking at
the water. I think the organisers had a very tough call because it was
so gusty - windspeed didn't seem constant at all. But I wouldn't
describe it at a reckless decision - clearly a lot of thought and
observation was put into it, but unfortunately with the benefit of
hindsigh they were wrong. Hopefully lessons will be learnt - at the
very least a rethink of the custom to run the race so soon after high
tide. I think if they had postponed the start by another hour they
would have had rowable conditions, but perhaps at the cost of
hypothermia.
As it was they delayed by c 30 mins. Waiting on the downriver side of
Hammersmith bridge I had no idea of what was going on until UL (in a
black boat - Resolute?) came through very low in the water, but still
with all gates out of the water. Several crews were missing but I
assumed they'd eeither been late arrivals at the start or just not
very good. However, Leander III followed shortly, to huge cheers, with
stern pair's riggers under the water and a plume being sent up around
the coxes head. They zig-zagged down to the far end of Harrods (I
guess the rudder becomes virtually ineffective at this stage and the
speakers no doubt fail - something else which of course compounds the
problems once you have started taking on water) and then finally
stopped and were helped to bail by a launch. A few other crews came
through - several on the inside arch of Hammersmith Bridge (does this
not lead to a DQ?) and several waving to the crowd and getting huge
cheers. And then the news spread that it was off.
Later, from outside AK/the pubs I saw the crews returning home in the
inshore zone (so putting common sense over the circulation plan). This
broke down when the first returning crew (probably UL) appeared, and a
few coxes going home failed to realise that perhaps they didn't have
right of way anymore. There was some congestion at St Pauls as it
looked like some crews wanted to turn to have bows upstream to land.
I also overheard a story of a cox being in the water, pulling the tag
of their lifejacket to inflate, and finding that it didn't, and having
to be held out of the water by people in their crew as their wet
weather gear started to act like an anchor. Perhaps any coxes and WSAs
reading this might want to check their gas cylinders if they haven't
done so recently.
To reply to some other points: a survey of boat types would be
slightly meaningless without knowledge of age. E.g. we can take two
empachers from the same club (Leander) and find that the new one gets
home ok and the old one (assuming they cascade boats thus putting
Leander V in the oldest boat) sinks. And marshals contradicting each
other? Who would have thought! Given that they do this on a calm day
it was hardly surprising that they did yesterday. They were volunteers
applying different versions of common sense. I also guess some crews
might have been taking issues into their own hands.
Trivial asides: as the finish order that was published is deemed
provisional, I guess last year's finish will determine next year's
starting order. And CUBC must be chuffed - they got everything they
wanted out of this - a chance to do a piece in shocking conditions on
a near empty river, with some overtaking practice as a bonus and an
unofficial win.
anto...@aol.com
For a cox used to a nice river upstream or a lake, the Tideway is one
of the most intimidating places I can imagine
Anatole Beams
to show that there are no certain methods of predicting the
conditions. It looked just like yesterday, but with the tide coming in
for the race, the conditions were much pleasanter. Of course, it
didn't stop us feeling like a bunch of lambs waiting for slaughter at
the start, in what turned out to be one of the roughest parts of the
river for the day.
Anatole
Carl
Errr.... Since you doubt me, compare the heights of the seats WRT the
saxboards, & the absence of wrap-around behind cox.
Another factor has changed in the last year or so - called buoyancy.
Most of those wing-rigged boats have enclosed under-seat chambers,
whereas many other boats did not. So, as in last year's Boat Race, the
newest yellow boats are reasonably unsinkable. And their bulkheads
block the lengthwise flow which allows the pooling effect which finally
did for Fiamme Galle. Otherwise CUBC might well have sunk outside the
ARA HQ last year.
BTW, I illustrated this process of swamping & pooling, as described in
my earlier posting, in:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/documents/swamping2.jpg
For a bit more detail on the swamping process, & the likely rates of
influx, you could read through Section 2 of my letter of 8 January 2001
to Tommy Thomson at the ARA (the which letter he completely ignored):
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/documents/doc1.rtf
In fact, read the whole of that letter & ponder on what honest or
honourable grounds the ARA could have decided first to do nothing & then
to actively oppose shell buoyancy.
>
> Although i do agreewith you regarding ur wave theory, rigger stays do
> increase the potential to ship water at speed...after a certain height
> ofwave however it doesnt matter what rigger u have.
>
It's not a theory, just a statement of fact. You get spray off blades,
spindrift & riggers (of all types), but it doesn't sink the boat because
the volumes of water involved are rather small, despite the big visual
impression. What does sink the boat is the smooth, silent & largely
unseen overflowing of individual wavecrests over the sides of the boat -
as my 2001 analysis & subsequent work make chillingly clear.
I recall how, after all the Athens World Junior Champs swampings in
2005, some on RSR chose (not you) to dispute that waves could get big
enough over a relatively short wind fetch to swamp an eight. They were
unimpressed by the explanation that wave heights are never uniform, but
develop a spectrum of heights & speeds as larger waves overtake & absorb
smaller ones & the energy they contain. We can now see the great
variability & large magnitudes generated in quite a small fetch, so I do
hope we have now, helped by all the excellent photography of this event,
laid all that nonsense to rest.
I wonder what message Fiamme Galle will take home to their boat builder
& to the Italian Federation? After all, they came a long way to race &
win, not to swim & lose. Had every boat been fully buoyant, not one
would have sunk & all should have safely completed the course. Instead,
a large number sank & many were damaged, in some cases severely.
Will UK clubs, rather than hastening to blame the race organisers or the
elements, take this flood of information & experience to heart? They
should start by demanding swift & effective regulation on equipment
safety from the ARA, preferably that all shells be brought into
compliance with the shell buoyancy performancs standard defined here:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/documents/buoyancy_standard.doc
Then they should take a long hard look at their own equipment, study the
background to their legally-binding duty of care, & consider how they
can make their existing equipment fully compliant with that performance
standard. A good start might be to sped a while reading through:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/retro-fitting-buoyancy.asp
This is both a warning & an opportunity for this sport. We should act
promptly, for our scope for self regulation is now severely threatened &
we may not enjoy rowing under externally imposed rules.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Caroline Smith
>> >http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07/bydivision/di...
>>
>> that all looks pretty terrifying
>
> Wow!
>
> Presumably not a buoyant boat. Can anyone ID this particular Filippi?
>
Given the "Z" 3 letter code, doesn't that mean it's a foreign boat? If so,
presumably it's their own...
http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07/bydivision/displayimage.php?src=divisions&im=0300
Says "Fiamme gialle" on the boat so they must have brought it with them
anto...@aol.com
I agree woith you Carl. But there are two arguements here. Buoyancy
and Wingboats
If a wingboat is fully buoyant, then there is not a huge difference.
And you should be happy.
The crew are risking finishing,......but not risking drowning and
thats their choice
Up to a point, wing boats will go faster in chop because stays will
not drag through wave peaks
a bit bigger chop and the wingboat will start to ship watern faster
than the normal boat, but, the normal boat will be well back I would
suggest. (Less so with your riggers).
And then the total swamping........which neither type can resist, will
be better survived by the buoyany boat.
So if I had my choice for docklands etc I would go wing as opposed to
a standard stay rig and hope the waves are not in that quite small
area where the sax board boat manages to keep more waster oput and
that allows it to catch the Wing booat up.
Newcastle were in the worst of it, were a sen2 crew and finished with
a good result. So we can't be too dismissive of wing boats.
I will caveat, that my actual choice would be a Fully Buoyant Empacher
with your riggers strapped to it. For a number of reasons, not just
resistance to sinking
David Biddulph
news:B6idnWiIP9H...@bt.com...
As we hoped and expected, today was OK. Rather hard work for folk paddling
back to Putney after the race against the wind, but conditions OK for the
race.
liz
swamped to an unroawable condition.
Still, no doubt that it's better to have some buoyancy supporting you, so
you can sit in the boat and await rescue rather than ending up in the drink.
If there's going to be a silver lining to this cloud, then hopefully it will
focus people's minds on the issue (having suddenly become a real problem
which effects them) as well as realising that when organisers pull events
because of bad weather conditions, they do it for a reason.
liz
"Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eumbjj$5hb$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> None of these boats would have sunk, nor swamped to the point of
> unrowability & inability to safely support their seated crews,
nospa...@fsmail.net
> ... What does sink the boat is the smooth, silent & largely
> unseen overflowing of individual wavecrests over the sides of the boat -
or http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2007/meh07//bydivision/displayimage.php?src=divisions&im=0428
(a bit of big visual impression and high crest)
Perhaps not unseen, but certainly capable of far more devastation than
a load of spray.
simonk
(in article <1175439510.5...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
Glad you had a good day. I'm not having a go - but I really have to take
issue with your point that there are no certain methods of predicting the
conditions. It might /seem/ unpredictable, but I suspect the word you're
really looking for is "variable".
The tideway is probably one of the most predictable stretches of water in the
country, despite what gnarly old watermen and boat race commentators might
think. Tides can be predicted months in advance, and since the HORR course
sits directly under the Heathrow flight path, highly accurate wind-speed
forecasts are available up to 24 hours or more in advance.
I made a point yesterday of checking the METAR weather report for the time of
the race, and it was exactly as predicted in yesterday's TAF for Heathrow.
The windspeeds and predicted gusts were within 1-2mph of the wind that caused
the cancellation of the Hammersmith Head 2 weeks ago.
This stuff really isn't rocket science. The people who allowed this to go
ahead - with talk of "it's MEN'S conditions!" should be ashamed of
themselves.
--
simonk
Christopher Anton
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175437909....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 10:25 am, demestosble...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> For a cox used to a nice river upstream or a lake, the Tideway is one
> of the most intimidating places I can imagine
>
>the strength of the stream perhaps, but believe me it can get quite bouncy
>on a little lake like Edgbaston Reservoir and we had to cut short our
>outing this morning.
Christopher Anton
> anto...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I wonder what message Fiamme Galle will take home to their boat builder &
> to the Italian Federation? After all, they came a long way to race & win,
> not to swim & lose. Had every boat been fully buoyant, not one would have
> sunk & all should have safely completed the course. Instead, a large
> number sank & many were damaged, in some cases severely.
>
This is what the Italian federation have on their website. Not sure if it's
any more meaningful after Babel fish that the original Italian.
A seguito degli incidenti occorsi quest'oggi (31/03) nella Head of the River
Race, si sono registrati a Londra diversi casi di atleti ricoverati in
ospedale per assideramento. Fortunatamente tra questi non c'è nessun
italiano: tutti i nostri equipaggi sono rientrati regolarmente a terra,
compresi gli atleti delle Fiamme Gialle che sono stati accompagnati a riva
da un battello della polizia fluviale londinese.
To continuation of the incidents been necessary this today (31/03) in the
Head of the River Race, are records to London various cases to you of
athletes ricoverati in hospital for chill. Fortunately between these not
there is no Italian: all ours crews are regularly re-enter to earth,
comprised the athletes to you of the Yellow flames that have been accompany
to you aloft from a boat of the London fluvial police.
which is considerably more than on the ARA's
Anne Rogers
> middle of the river to get caught by the wind they then got into more
> difficulty and were turned around by the wind and carried into other
> crews and obstacles. That is precisely why i waited with my crew, in
> the bank, until the majority of the shit had gone home, then we
> paddled up to the calmer waters by Kew road bridge and spun there,
> then we had a relatively continuous row back home to hammersmith. I
> knew that if we were in a queue of crews (most of whom were coxed by
> muppets) we would be constantly stopping and starting and that would
> then lead to more carnage and tangles with other crews due to the wind
> and other issues. I just did not want to get involved in stopping ansd
> starting inthose conditions, better to keep the boat moving and keep
> some momentum onthe boat in those winds IMHO and from my experience of
> being out in similar.
It sounds like you made a good call, but that relies being able to keep
roughly in position, sometimes that is incredibly difficult and it can be
easier being a little away from the bank, stopping and starting, or rowing
slowly - I think it works better to get the speed of the boat so there is
minimal stopping, rolling sixes, or shortened slides or something.
Anne
Carl
Difficult to write when covered in egg?
Anne Rogers
> got to go and cox the vets head really, but just wanted to say that
> BigBlade
> have a pretty good (I'm sure that's not the right word) sequence shoing
I think that shows how it could be difficult to "hold on to the boat", "stay
with the boat" etc. cox was well under and presumably no longer sitting on
the seat when bow pair at least were still just about out the water, for cox
to hold on to the boat would have been tricky. Pictures of other crews have
shown cox holding on to stroke, but stroke will be under next, soon leaving
people in the water grasping for the boat, it's much easier to hold on to it
when everyones out.
Anne
chris harrison
>> Now let the chickens come home to roost.
>
> Here's hoping!!
>
> And also hoping that someone makes an earlier call for the Vets Head
> tomorrow.
> The wind's meant to be stronger tomorrow and (I really don't mean to be rude
> at all here) tomorrow's competitors, as a general demographic, are likely to
> be more susceptible to the effects of hypothermia than today's.
>
>
Actually the forecast was for lighter winds - and lighter they were, and
from a more helpful South-Easterly direction - thus while the results
for today's race show a growing tail wind for the later starting crews,
all 180 starters finished safely and, mostly, in good time.
daniel...@hotmail.com
Just read the report on the Boat Race website and they have to take
the prize for understatement of the year....."The light Blue eight
coped with tricky wind" !!!!!
Rob Collings
wrote:
> "Carl" <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:euoi9c$ao2$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > anton2...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I wonder what message Fiamme Galle will take home to their boat builder &
> > to the Italian Federation? After all, they came a long way to race & win,
> > not to swim & lose. Had every boat been fully buoyant, not one would have
> > sunk & all should have safely completed the course. Instead, a large
> > number sank & many were damaged, in some cases severely.
>
> This is what the Italian federation have on their website. Not sure if it's
> any more meaningful after Babel fish that the original Italian.
>
> A seguito degli incidenti occorsi quest'oggi (31/03) nella Head of the River
> Race, si sono registrati a Londra diversi casi di atleti ricoverati in
> ospedale per assideramento. Fortunatamente tra questi non c'è nessun
> italiano: tutti i nostri equipaggi sono rientrati regolarmente a terra,
> compresi gli atleti delle Fiamme Gialle che sono stati accompagnati a riva
> da un battello della polizia fluviale londinese.
My italian is *very* rusty but roughly:
Following the incidents occurring today in the Head of the River Race,
various cases of athletes admitted to hospital for 'chill' have been
reported in London. Fortunately there were no italians among them: all
our crews, comprised of the athletes of Fiamme Gialle, returned to
land normally accompanied by a river police launch.
Hopefully that's better than babelfish :)
And what of these people supposedly taken to hospital? Google news
finds nothing from yesterday, although a double got rescued from the
River Deben yesterday too.
Rob.
james...@googlemail.com
> Just read the report on the Boat Race website and they have to take
> the prize for understatement of the year....."The light Blue eight
> coped with tricky wind" !!!!!
Coping like http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2545037200074748209ZqoHxT
presumably...
***
Would boards fitted the whole length of the boat at 45 degrees or less
from the top of the sax board, leaning out, not reduce the risk of
waves coming over the saxboard? I'm no engineer, it's just a random
thought I had.
Carl
<big snip of relevant stuff>
>
> This stuff really isn't rocket science. The people who allowed this to go
> ahead - with talk of "it's MEN'S conditions!" should be ashamed of
> themselves.
>
>
They said what?!!
Charles Carroll
> swamping. What does that say for our collective intelligence?
Carl,
I don't actually belong in this discussion, but I do want to offer a kind of
sidebar.
I was on the phone to Hudson yesterday morning and discussed just this issue
with Craig, the young man who took my call. Craig told me that Hudson is now
fully compliant with FISA standards and that all its shells, from singles to
eights, are fully buoyant and self-bailing.
Craig said that someone "official" actually visits the boatworks and checks
out individual shells. In the case of an eight, it is completely filled with
water, then a crew of very heavy fellows must get in it and row a certain
distance. He said Hudson is going to put a video of this up somewhere on the
net.
Thought you might want to know.
Cordially,
Charles
Lawrence Edwards
>
> A correction:
> Standard Janouseks are not "assumed fully buoyant". Indeed, Janousek have
> not hitherto claimed any such thing.
Indeed. I was coxing a Janousek but we never got to race, just sat by the
Brewery for an hour and then returned to a Chiswick boathouse. The boat was
completely bone dry as we didn't venture down towards Barnes!
I met someone in the airport on the way back today who were in a Janousek
and sank whilst rowing to the marshalling position around Barnes. They were
in an 85kg plated boat and he said their average crew weight was 87kg. The
boat sank down to where the whole crew were up to their stomachs in water
with the saxboard several centimetres below the waterline. It was not not
rowable and had to be towed back by a safety boat.
With hindsight the race could have been called off earlier but what they
decided to do was hold the start for 20 minutes or so and then set off the
first division to see if the course was rowable. With the start time being
so late they couldn't have waited any longer or the low down crews would
have been rowing back in the dark. As it turned out the wind did not die at
all until late in the evening, whereas it did get worse quite soon before
the race and of course the tide turning whipped up the waves. We had an
outing in the morning at about 11.30 - 12ish and the course was perfectly
rowable.
The water was cold, but not as cold as it could have been. I'm sure the
decision to try the first divsion was made in the knowledge of the river
conditions and the cox always has the right and duty to stop if they don't
feel conditions are safe.
I'm not sure what the answer is. With 420 eights there is no way that the
organisers can provide sufficient safety cover to rescue even 10% of the
crews should everyone get swamped. At least on the Thames it usually isn't
that far to get to the bank - but I'm not sure that is enough to take a risk
when it's clear that even supposedly bouyant boats are actually incapable fo
supporting their crew when swamped.
Lawrence
Christopher Shea
> simonk wrote:
> <big snip of relevant stuff>
>>
>> This stuff really isn't rocket science. The people who allowed this to
>> go ahead - with talk of "it's MEN'S conditions!" should be ashamed of
>> themselves.
>>
>>
>
> They said what?!!
>
> Carl
I am not part of the organising Committee, but was at race headquarters as a
helper and was listening to the radio channel over which the discussions
over whether to go or not took place. I heard no such comment or anything
like it.
> simonk wrote:
>Tides can be predicted months in advance
The key word here is predicted. The tides do frequently vary from the
predictions as the turn of the tide did on Saturday.
Chris
Lawrence Edwards
"Christopher Anton" <c.a...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%0BPh.11452$%g3....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>
> It's difficult to tell but perhaps that boat might have had damaged
> compartments or even a hole drilled in each of them for that essential
> piece of equipment - the cox box - or might have a too heavy crew, but
> even so it looks to me that it might nearly meet the FISA guidelines
I am told by the guy sitting at 6 in that boat (Aberdeen) that they had an
average weight of 87kg in an 85kg plated Janousek. All the hatch covers were
in place and there were no holes. It sank further after the picture was
taken to where the saxboards were 5cm below the waterline. To be fair, it
was clearly worse at the stern due to weight of the rowers and cox less
bouyancy. I don't think it was rowable and they were resuced by a launch.
It would be very interesting to find out exactly how heavy the crew and cox
were and compare this to the design weight of the boat.
Lawrence
Henry Law
> If there's going to be a silver lining to this cloud, then hopefully it will
> focus people's minds on the issue (having suddenly become a real problem
> which effects them)
It was pretty alarming out there. But as we sat on the inside of the
bend, hanging onto a tree to keep station, these top crews were blasting
past, filling up with water and sinking. And I had a perfect
opportunity to point out to my crewmates that some of the boats turfed
their occupants into the water, and others didn't - in fact there was
one boat that was being paddled towards the bank by a disconsolate bow
pair, hull down in the water with the crew sitting upright: clearly
buoyant. Even the biggest sceptic got the message.
One eight floated past us, upside down, with its crew sort-of hanging
onto it and asking if anyone could manoeuvre their bows out into the
stream so they could grab on. Nobody could, in time, and it probably
wouldn't have been a safe or sensible thing to do given the iffy
watermanship of some of the coxes. I saw shortly afterwards that some
of the crew had got up on top of the upturned shell, astride it.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
coach
What this event and others like it need to learn and develop is an
Abandon Race procedure.
One must first realise that the competitors have enough trouble
reading, understanding and complying with the pre-race marshalling
instructions, assuming perfect conditions. You cannot expect crews to
learn a second set instructions, that you hope will not be required.
I understand, from some of the cox's that I spoke to that there where
no clear instructions and those that where given where often at odds
with marshalls further up and down the river.
It is not enough to simply inform crews that the race has been
abandoned and instruct them to return to their boathouses. The one set
of instructions that all the marshalls have and all the athletes
should have memorised are those issued with the crew numbers. This
therefore should be the starting point when the race is abandoned.
It is surely much the safest option to send the crews down from
Chiswick Bridge, in race number order, with an extended interval so
that, should it be necessary to stop crews, there is a large enough
stopping distance.
Comment has been made regarding the problems of crews returning up-
river whilst crews were being instructed to keep tight to the Surrey
shore. The solution to this would have been to hold any crew that was
based upstream of Hammersmith at Putney. The clubs at Putney would
have made tressles, hot showers and other facilities available.
I was somewhat suprised to see crews from Hammersmith and above trying
to race the full course, after they had been informed that the event
had been abandoned.
mpruscoe
> I was somewhat suprised to see crews from Hammersmith and above trying
> to race the full course, after they had been informed that the event
> had been abandoned.
>
underwater at Hammersmith.
Henry Law
> The water was cold, but not as cold as it could have been.
Following up my tutorial for the rest of my crew on buoyancy I was
trying to give them some idea of the effects of exposure, but I was
lacking any estimate of the water temperature. Anyone got any idea?
Air temperatures have been above 10 C during the day for quite a number
of days, but others not, and only for a few hours in the day anyway:
it's difficult to imagine the water temperature as high as that even.
But I'm a landlubber; maybe someone can make a better estimate.
Lawrence Edwards
news:117546109...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> Lawrence Edwards wrote:
>
>> The water was cold, but not as cold as it could have been.
>
> Following up my tutorial for the rest of my crew on buoyancy I was trying
> to give them some idea of the effects of exposure, but I was lacking any
> estimate of the water temperature. Anyone got any idea?
>
the cross wind was such a nuisance that I got out of the boat and held it by
the bank with my legs up to knees in water. It wasn't nice but I could put
up with it. I wouldn't have liked to have swum any distance but the sun was
out and the air temperature didn't feel too bad. The water seemed to be a
degree or two warmer than in the morning when we had our first outing so it
can't have been below 5-6 degrees and may well have been a bit warmer. Of
course that was near the bank where perhaps the sun on the shore would add
an extra degree in the shallows.
Lawrence
Carl
> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:euo4br$kut$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>> A correction:
>> Standard Janouseks are not "assumed fully buoyant". Indeed, Janousek
>> have not hitherto claimed any such thing.
>
>
> Indeed. I was coxing a Janousek but we never got to race, just sat by
> the Brewery for an hour and then returned to a Chiswick boathouse. The
> boat was completely bone dry as we didn't venture down towards Barnes!
>
> I met someone in the airport on the way back today who were in a
> Janousek and sank whilst rowing to the marshalling position around
> Barnes. They were in an 85kg plated boat and he said their average crew
> weight was 87kg. The boat sank down to where the whole crew were up to
> their stomachs in water with the saxboard several centimetres below the
> waterline. It was not not rowable and had to be towed back by a safety
> boat.
>
I think you're indicating that this boat sank to about 12-13cm (say 5")
below the level stipulated by the Blockley Buoyancy Perfomance Standard?
I am pretty sure this boat would have been standard Janousek. But the
crew were still not forced to swim?
Roughly speaking, 1cm increased depth of immersion of that part of the
rower's trunk will provide ~0.5kg per person of buoyant uplift by
displacing ~0.5 of a litre of water. A 12.5cm over-depth would suggest
that this boat was deficient in buoyant capacity by about 6kg per man,
maybe 10kg if we allow for various other factors. So with a 77kg crew
it would apparently have met the Blockley standard. In that case it
would have met FISA's very similar standard with room to spare. And it
would have remained viable & rowable yesterday.
That's why we must have proper standards for construction & testing.
And that's why have to understand the unwisdom of overloading the boat -
although without such tests who will know when they are
overloading...... Oh, I forgot - the ARA thinks you ought to be able to
work that out for yourselves! Well, we can be sure that the ARA doesn't
have a clue where to start, which is why it cops out of its
responsibilities here.
You could, BTW, gain that extra buoyancy by the using sloping instead of
vertical bulkheads. And make the boat more effective, to boot.
Lawrence Edwards
> Lawrence Edwards wrote:
>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:euo4br$kut$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> I think you're indicating that this boat sank to about 12-13cm (say 5")
> below the level stipulated by the Blockley Buoyancy Perfomance Standard? I
> am pretty sure this boat would have been standard Janousek. But the crew
> were still not forced to swim?
>
They were rescued by a launch, i.e. got into the launch and towed the boat
to the side. I was told it was not rowable, i.e. could not be manouvered. It
is a standard Janousek 8, if it belongs to Aberdeen I would assume it will
be well maintained.
Lawrence
Carl
Chris -
I've said previously that I don't think we should be blaming the
organisers, so I didn't want to believe that alleged remark. Someone
might have made a throwaway comment, as one may under stress, but I
wouldn't have thought, even for a moment, that'd be HoRR policy or opinion.
As race organisers you are in quite a fix: weather conditions have
unquestionably become more severe over recent years; your event is run
near the equinox, when winds may be expected to be brisk; & the ARA's
misconduct has left rowers dubious & many clubs ignorant of the direct
relevance of adequate internal buoyancy to safe rowing & racing.
The real culprits, in 6 Lower Mall, are still trying to concoct a spin
to protect their spotty backs following this further demonstration,
right on their doorstep, of the idiocy of their conduct since the end of
2000. Roasting over a slow fire seems rather too good for them.
Carl
>>Just read the report on the Boat Race website and they have to take
>>the prize for understatement of the year....."The light Blue eight
>>coped with tricky wind" !!!!!
>
>
>
> Coping like http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2545037200074748209ZqoHxT
> presumably...
>
> ***
>
Looks like bow's hands jammed under the rigger cross-member?
>
> Would boards fitted the whole length of the boat at 45 degrees or less
> from the top of the sax board, leaning out, not reduce the risk of
> waves coming over the saxboard? I'm no engineer, it's just a random
> thought I had.
>
>
Anything which will deflect a part of a rising wave may help to keep
water out. We fixed spray rails along the sides of one Boat Race eight
some years ago, but I don't think their purpose was ever understood. :(
Christopher Anton
"coach" <richard...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175460824.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> It is surely much the safest option to send the crews down from
> Chiswick Bridge, in race number order, with an extended interval so
> that, should it be necessary to stop crews, there is a large enough
> stopping distance.
>
The length of time of river closure might have something to do with this.
I've no idea what length of time is asked for, but if that period has come
to an end you must be prepared to meet normal river traffic.
liz
empacher slot still attached....
liz
<lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1175378384.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Mar, 22:08, jennyandmatt...@btinternet.com wrote:
>> >
>>
>> I thought the marshalling, on the whole, was very good and none of the
>> marshalls lost their rag with crews in the difficult conditions.
>
> I'm sorry, but after the reports from our first eight which sank (in a
> squad Empacher), I have to say this wasn't the case! Having found that
> they were starting to sink and heading quickly for the bank, the first
> marshall they alerted (with the fairly basic shout of "we're
> sinking!!"), took absolutely no notice of them except for to say "get
> out of the racing line". Finally, another boat turned up to assist
> them, and managed to drive directly into the boat, holeing it and
> breaking a rigger. They were in the water, by their estimates, for
> around 20-30 minutes. On a colder day this could have been fatal.
>
> Secondly, instructions after the cancellation were, to be frank,
> farcical. Going off 192, and marshalling just below Chiswick bridge,
> we were told to paddle up through Chiswick bridge and turn. The
> marshalling seemed haphazard at best, and what followed was basically
> chaos - crews everywhere pointing in different directions all crashing
> into each other - we lost out bow number after a Latymer crew (on home
> water) ploughed straight through the wrong arch of Chiswick bridge
> into us and several other crews. I accept that part of this was due to
> various crews disobeying instructions, but after about 2 minutes it
> seemed the marshalls couldn't be bothered, and just sat and watched
> the farce unfold.
>
> Lower crews such as our novice boat were told to row right up through
> Chiswick bridge, turn and row down again. Now forgive me if my logic
> is off here, but if a race is cancelled due to dangerous conditions,
> and the worst of the conditions are below Barnes, why make them row up
> through the danger, then back down through it, when they could just
> have spun in order and returned to the Putney hard? Ridicilous.
>
> I accept that the marshalls are volunteers, but regardless of
> volunteer status or not, incompetance can lead to serious danger, and
> I think (without meaning to sound over-dramatic) that we're pretty
> lucky tonight that no one died today.
>
> Needless to say the organisers will be getting a less than pleased
> email from us in the morning!
>
Carl
>
> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eup7m5$8ee$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> Lawrence Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:euo4br$kut$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>> I think you're indicating that this boat sank to about 12-13cm (say
>> 5") below the level stipulated by the Blockley Buoyancy Perfomance
>> Standard? I am pretty sure this boat would have been standard
>> Janousek. But the crew were still not forced to swim?
>>
> They were rescued by a launch, i.e. got into the launch and towed the
> boat to the side. I was told it was not rowable, i.e. could not be
> manouvered. It is a standard Janousek 8, if it belongs to Aberdeen I
> would assume it will be well maintained.
>
> Lawrence
I'm sure it was not rowable at that depth. That's a key element of the
stipulations within the Blockley Buoyancy Performance Standard - if the
boat meets that standard it will remain rowable, & the crew's torsos
will not be immersed. Hence my point about not exceeding the buoyant
capacity of the boat, as that crew may have done by as much as 10kg per man.
The boat may have been designed to carry 85kg/man, but its flotation
capacity was apparently only ~77kg/man. Hence the crew's problem - they
were a bit too heavy for the unstated flotation capacity. And that's
why you need surplus buoyancy - boats get overloaded or damaged but the
crew ought still to be safe within reasonable limits. Doubtless that
boat was never tested for its buoyancy.
Christopher Anton
> Lawrence Edwards wrote:
>>
but according to the Times no-one sank
" The Tideway Eights Head, from Mortlake to Putney, was delayed by 15
minutes after the tide had turned against the wind, but when the top 45
crews were finally started the event was soon called to a halt with crews
becoming water-logged or forced to seek the shore."
simonk
(in article <bKUPh.15848$_Q.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>):
> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eup0d8$gjo$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> simonk wrote:
>> <big snip of relevant stuff>
>>>
>>> This stuff really isn't rocket science. The people who allowed this to
>>> go ahead - with talk of "it's MEN'S conditions!" should be ashamed of
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They said what?!!
>>
>> Carl
>
> I am not part of the organising Committee, but was at race headquarters as a
> helper and was listening to the radio channel over which the discussions
> over whether to go or not took place. I heard no such comment or anything
> like it.
I heard others stating that they had heard it - Carl's other post probably
hits the nail on the head, in that it could easily have been a throwaway
remark, though it seemed like gallows humour at best at the time, and a
fairly sick joke in hindsight.
In the interests of trying to learn lessons from this, though - what do you
think was the reasoning behind the decision to run the race? Were the
organisers relying on information from (e.g.) the Met office or PLA which
later turned out to be inaccurate?
>> simonk wrote:
>> Tides can be predicted months in advance
>
> The key word here is predicted. The tides do frequently vary from the
> predictions as the turn of the tide did on Saturday.
For what it's worth I didn't see any significant difference between the
predicted turn of the tide and what actually happened. The incoming stream
petered out, as far as you can ever tell with the wind whipping over the
water, by 2.30 as predicted.
By the time my crew boated (~3.15pm) the water was running out reasonably
quickly, and standing waves were forming under Barnes Bridge. Between Barnes
and Chiswick bridges, about 5 minutes later, people were already bailing
their boats out with water bottles and wellies (including the ill-fated
Italians). Even if there was as much as half an hour's variance from
prediction, the inevitable would simply have been postponed.
--
simonk
Rachel Quarrell
> Following up my tutorial for the rest of my crew on buoyancy I was trying to
> give them some idea of the effects of exposure, but I was lacking any
> estimate of the water temperature. Anyone got any idea?
>
> Air temperatures have been above 10 C during the day for quite a number of
> days, but others not, and only for a few hours in the day anyway: it's
> difficult to imagine the water temperature as high as that even. But I'm a
> landlubber; maybe someone can make a better estimate.
> --
> Henry Law Manchester, England
As it happens I was talking to a member of the rowing community tonight
who has reason to keep a very regular eye on the water temperature (of the
Thames, at an upriver point). He said it's been hovering around 8 degrees
C recently, and has just started to move up from there towards 9-10 deg,
which is presumably after the spell of warm weather. The river
temperature doesn't fluctuate particularly fast so that is probably pretty
valid for the Tideway on Saturday. I'd guess 8 or 9 for your
calculations.
RQ.
PS on a completely different note a member of my Taurus crew this morning
alleged that the Fulham FC crowd were singing "you're not swimming any
more" when they were chanting mid-afternoon. I heard the chants, but
couldn't make out if he was right or just inventing. I thought footie
supporters never turned round to look at the river.
Stephen and Jane
> snip
> I think who ever allowed this to start was criminally insane. It
> should have been clearly obvious what was gonna happen
(We assume that) the organisers of this race are experienced, were well
aware of the prevailing and forecast conditions and the number of lives and
boats at risk. We would also assume that they spent a fair amount of effort
risk assessing and trying to get the race on/off decision right. In spite
of all this, it turned out that they initially made a wrong decision, with
spectacular and life-threatening consequences.
Consider an average club eight preparing for their average weekly outing:
one imagines their risk assessment for the outing will be a little more
cursory than that of the HORR organisers.
In their Water Safety Code the ARA justifies their approval of the continued
existence of non-buoyant boats, and the lack of a mandatory minimum buoyancy
standard for all boats by pinning the responsibility on the rower thus:
"2.6.1.2.i. If after risk assessment for a planned activity it is judged
that a boat, new or old, does not have sufficient inherent buoyancy,
additional buoyancy should be added."
It seems obvious to us that the ARA has unrealistic expectations of the
ability of rowers, coaches and race organisers (all mere human beings) to
accurately risk assess the effects of the weather and predict the future.
Their reliance on active risk assessment as a catch-all is wholly misguided,
when there is a practical, cheap and easy, passive fail-safe solution: make
it compulsory for all boats, old or new, in racing or training, to be fitted
with buoyancy to at least meet the FISA Minimum Flotation Standard. Then if
the risk assessment proves to be wrong, fully buoyant boats will give the
rowers the best chance of staying in the boat and out of the water - and
able to row themselves back to safety.
Jane and Stephen.
bookie
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:37:27 +0100, Christopher Shea wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Carl" <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
i agree, the organisers woudld have known (as anyone who took a quick
look at the met office or bbc weather websites) that there was a 25mph
northwesterly wind predicted for saturday afternoon, right when the
race was going to be on. The direction of this wind would have meant
it would have been blowing right down the stretch from chiswick eyot
to barnes bridge against the outgoing tide and whipping the water up a
storm and making the conditions in that stretch unrowable if the winds
appeared. Christ, even I could work that one out and I'm a girl!
the organisers DID have prior knowledge of what was going to happen,
they certainly knew of the potential weather conditions and the effect
that would have on the water in certain stretches, but they chose to
start the race anyway.
bookie
bookie
like this crew?
http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130210
correct me if i am wrong but, unless AK have moved their boathouse
down to the putney embankment inthe last 2 weeks, what the f*ck were
that crew doing trying to race to the finish whilst in this state? why
did they not just turn off the course and bail out then head for home
(hammersmith for them) when it was clear that the cox and stroke were
becoming submerged? I doubt that they got into this state past
hammersmith bridge as conditions from there to the finish were ok so i
can only presume that they must have taken on most of this water and
sunk to this level during the stretch from barnes bridge onwards, so
why on earth did they continue? Sorry but I just find this behaviour
stupid and foolhardy and highly irresponsible.
this photo was taken from the jet site of crews at the finish btw.
hope the link works
bookie
Edd
>
> like this crew?
> http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130210
>
> correct me if i am wrong but, unless AK have moved their boathouse
> down to the putney embankment inthe last 2 weeks, what the f*ck were
> that crew doing trying to race to the finish whilst in this state? why
> did they not just turn off the course and bail out then head for home
> (hammersmith for them) when it was clear that the cox and stroke were
> becoming submerged? I doubt that they got into this state past
> hammersmith bridge as conditions from there to the finish were ok so i
> can only presume that they must have taken on most of this water and
> sunk to this level during the stretch from barnes bridge onwards, so
> why on earth did they continue? Sorry but I just find this behaviour
> stupid and foolhardy and highly irresponsible.
> this photo was taken from the jet site of crews at the finish btw.
>
I'm not convinced they'd be in that condition for a considerable
period. If water's coming in it doesn't have to be choppy for it to
get worse fast it seems (I'm sure Carl or someone can correct me if
I'm wrong).
That, and I'm not terribly keen on being critical of crews for
screwing up this way under pressure. No matter what you tell a load of
crews some will screw up, and blaming them for their own foul up isn't
really good enough for preventing the same situation again (which is
the only thing that really matters at the end of the day) if there is
some way to avoid the situation in the first place.
--
Edd
liz
i wasn't listening to the marshalling net so can't speak for that.
(separate radio channels)
liz
"simonk" <simon....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C235F169...@news.individual.net...
Carl
> bookie <emily_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>like this crew?
>>http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130210
>>
>>correct me if i am wrong but, unless AK have moved their boathouse
>>down to the putney embankment inthe last 2 weeks, what the f*ck were
>>that crew doing trying to race to the finish whilst in this state? why
>>did they not just turn off the course and bail out then head for home
>>(hammersmith for them) when it was clear that the cox and stroke were
>>becoming submerged? I doubt that they got into this state past
>>hammersmith bridge as conditions from there to the finish were ok so i
>>can only presume that they must have taken on most of this water and
>>sunk to this level during the stretch from barnes bridge onwards, so
>>why on earth did they continue? Sorry but I just find this behaviour
>>stupid and foolhardy and highly irresponsible.
>>this photo was taken from the jet site of crews at the finish btw.
>>
>
>
> I'm not convinced they'd be in that condition for a considerable
> period. If water's coming in it doesn't have to be choppy for it to
> get worse fast it seems (I'm sure Carl or someone can correct me if
> I'm wrong).
>
Regardless of wave height an adequately buoyant shell (at the correct
crew weight properly distributed about the centre), will reach an
equilibrium level & trim at which influx & efflux are equal. Subject to
the physical endurance of those involved (cox especially), that boat
could probably have continued for any required distance without further
deterioration.
Perhaps a member of that crew will read this & enlighten us?
> That, and I'm not terribly keen on being critical of crews for
> screwing up this way under pressure. No matter what you tell a load of
> crews some will screw up, and blaming them for their own foul up isn't
> really good enough for preventing the same situation again (which is
> the only thing that really matters at the end of the day) if there is
> some way to avoid the situation in the first place.
>
Exactly. Crews placed in danger will stay under marshals' command for
only a limited time before, not surprisingly, deciding that the order of
the day had become, "Sauve qui peut!". Blind obedience is fine up to a
point, but once you feel the marshals are less aware of your problems
than you are yourself, then few will sit tight.
This is a situation that needs to be understood. The simplest way to
resolve it would be to allow only fully buoyant shells to race this &
other swamping-prone events. The best way would be to ensure that _all_
shells, new & old, are now made fully buoyant - as should have been the
state of affairs 3 years ago.
Anne Rogers
> aware of the prevailing and forecast conditions and the number of lives
> and boats at risk. We would also assume that they spent a fair amount of
> effort risk assessing and trying to get the race on/off decision right.
> In spite of all this, it turned out that they initially made a wrong
> decision, with spectacular and life-threatening consequences.
I think that is a fairly fair assumption.
>
> Consider an average club eight preparing for their average weekly outing:
> one imagines their risk assessment for the outing will be a little more
> cursory than that of the HORR organisers.
However, I'm not sure this follows, it's probably true for unfamiliar
conditions where you can't see the worst of it, but I'm sure there were many
crews that went on the water on Saturday, when had it been a training
outing, whether familiar or not with the river would have not gone out - or
modified there outing plan. When there is an event, you've trained hard for,
spent money on, got you and your boat to London, you really don't want to
waste that, there has been no evidence that even one crew stayed off the
water, or even had a conversation about it - had it been a regular outing,
that conversation would likely have occured, though far from all would stay
of the water.
What interests me, would be, that if all boats were full bouyant, would it
still have been wise to call the race off, were the conditions dangerous for
marshalling, it seems to vary depending on which part of the river, what
about increased danger of collisions, holing crews and then bouyancy
becoming irrelevant. What about the safety of those in launches?
Anne
Anne Rogers
> http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=130210
>
> correct me if i am wrong but, unless AK have moved their boathouse
> down to the putney embankment inthe last 2 weeks, what the f*ck were
> that crew doing trying to race to the finish whilst in this state?
maybe they didn't know the race had been cancelled, I doubt the marshalls
were yelling this to the racing crews, and if they did, would they be heard.
Stern pair appear to be rowing, maybe they never even thought of the option
of stopping and were just comitted to racing? Maybe cox said to stroke
should we go home and was looked at as if s/he had suddenly grown horns.
It's difficult to know, assuming that they had no knowlegde the race had
been cancelled, that they had been at an equilibrium for some time when they
had the option to head for home, they may have just wanted to finish the
race to at least get a reasonable starting position next year.
Anne
james...@googlemail.com
marshal's point of view, in less and less danger the further they
proceeded down the course? It makes logical sense that the further
towards the finish one gets, away from all the carnage and traffic,
the less occupied the marshals will be as there's less boats for them
to attend to. Hence they would probably have been fished out of the
water sooner if they fully swamped at Fulham than if they were in a
pack of boats swamping around Barnes or Chiswick.
Carl
>>(We assume that) the organisers of this race are experienced, were well
>>aware of the prevailing and forecast conditions and the number of lives
>>and boats at risk. We would also assume that they spent a fair amount of
>>effort risk assessing and trying to get the race on/off decision right.
>>In spite of all this, it turned out that they initially made a wrong
>>decision, with spectacular and life-threatening consequences.
>
>
> I think that is a fairly fair assumption.
>
>>Consider an average club eight preparing for their average weekly outing:
>>one imagines their risk assessment for the outing will be a little more
>>cursory than that of the HORR organisers.
>
>
> However, I'm not sure this follows, it's probably true for unfamiliar
> conditions where you can't see the worst of it, but I'm sure there were many
> crews that went on the water on Saturday, when had it been a training
> outing, whether familiar or not with the river would have not gone out - or
> modified there outing plan. When there is an event, you've trained hard for,
> spent money on, got you and your boat to London, you really don't want to
> waste that, there has been no evidence that even one crew stayed off the
> water, or even had a conversation about it - had it been a regular outing,
> that conversation would likely have occured, though far from all would stay
> of the water.
I think that's is a different issue, Anne. You're now talking about
peer pressure, & other subverting pressures to go rowing when reason
says, "Don't".
An event like the HoRR does impose pressures - on competitors (we're
here, so let's do it) & on organisers (cancel too often & we'll have no
race). These pressures could involve many presumptions: "These guys
seem able to handle it", might be one; "They wouldn't run it if it
wasn't going to be OK", might be another.
But shells do swamp in training, especially on the Tideway, & I've
watched a couple of these happen. They also happen in rather safe
seeming places, including one up at Molesey which came too close to
fatality for anyone involved to want to discuss it. The difference is
that in training there may be no one to help rescue.
>
> What interests me, would be, that if all boats were full bouyant, would it
> still have been wise to call the race off, were the conditions dangerous for
> marshalling, it seems to vary depending on which part of the river, what
> about increased danger of collisions, holing crews and then bouyancy
> becoming irrelevant. What about the safety of those in launches?
>
No, a hole does not make buoyancy irrelevant. It makes it more
relevant. A hole will swiftly sink an under-buoyant shell, but in a
compartmented buoyant shell that hole will be either into a compartment
(depriving you at worst of ~50kg of buoyancy, & then only of it fills
rather than traps air - & you should have reserve buoyant capacity) or
in 1 footwell, in which case if you're swamped it will make not the
slightest difference.
On that latter point, a few years ago a school four completed the last
16 miles of the Boston Marathon (a 32-mile UK rowing event - for non-UK
readers) with a holed footwell, punctured on a bit of tree when coming
close to the bank for a covert pee.
As for launches, that's another matter for concern. What tin fishes
were doing out there is beyond me since they mostly have zero buoyancy &
a nasty tendency to do funny, water-gathering things in a swell at low
speed.
Anatole Beams
rounded the Hammersmiht bend the cox went under and they slewed right
across the river as if to make for home - in fact, I assumed that was
what they were doing. They must have changed their minds when they saw
the clearer water down the final stretch to Putney.
Anatole
Alan Sherman
wrote:
>
>storm and making the conditions in that stretch unrowable if the winds
>appeared. Christ, even I could work that one out and I'm a girl!
>
aah.. but are you a blonde?
Woody
Alan Sherman
wrote:
>
>It is not enough to simply inform crews that the race has been
>abandoned and instruct them to return to their boathouses. The one set
>of instructions that all the marshalls have and all the athletes
>should have memorised are those issued with the crew numbers. This
>therefore should be the starting point when the race is abandoned.
>
>It is surely much the safest option to send the crews down from
>Chiswick Bridge, in race number order, with an extended interval so
>that, should it be necessary to stop crews, there is a large enough
>stopping distance.
>
Sending crews down in race order doesn't address the crews who don't
want to go downstream.
ULBC above Chiswick (Middlesex)
Putney Town above Chiswick (Surrey)
MAA/Quintin above Chiswick (Middlesex)
TSS below Chiswick (Surrey)
TTRC below Chiswick (Surrey)
Cygnet below Barnes (Surrey)
The marshals would have to know who is going where for a full
regulated return.
We (TTRC) only had 40ish crews boating this year. One year we had well
over 60 - over 15% of the race from one slipway!!
Woody
A Camrower
Superb photo!
http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2331233920074748209oOPghu][IMG]http://inlinethumb31.webshots.com/4062/2331233920074748209S600x600Q85.jpg[/IMG]
"Anne Rogers" <anne...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:577sbvF...@mid.individual.net...
> absolutely shocking, though in someways could turn out to be positive, the
> finish results give 29 finishers with the highest numbered finisher being
> 45. Hopefully not all the discrepancy is swamping, but either being
> responsible and not starting, or stopping on the course and seeking
> safety.
>
> Crews in the top 45 that did not finish are
>
> 2 Fiamme Gialle
> 5 Leander 2
> 10 Oxford Brookes 1
> 14 Leander 3
> 22 Henley 1
> 25 Henley 2
> 31 Reading Uni 1
> 33 Molesey 4
> 34 University of Bristol 1
> 36 Tideway Scullers 2
> 37 Agecroft 1
> 38 Bremer RV von 1882
> 39 Csepel
> 40 Upper Thames 1
> 41 Marlow 1
> 43 Zurich SC
>
> Several of these crews had other club crews finish. Some are local, Elite
> crews, yet still sank, lets hope that this makes people realise that it's
> not just inexperienced non local crews, who fail to take local advice that
> sink, as I feel may have been the excuse for the vets head cock up a few
> years ago.
>
> Let's also hope this is major enough to get some decent press coverage.
>
> Anne
>
> Anne
>
thomas....@googlemail.com
> > Chiswick Bridge, in race number order, with an extended interval so
> > that, should it be necessary to stop crews, there is a large enough
> > stopping distance.
>
> The length of time of river closure might have something to do with this.
> I've no idea what length of time is asked for, but if that period has come
> to an end you must be prepared to meet normal river traffic.
I've had time to digest what happened over the weekend and I' ve read
the comments on here. I've a number of points I'd like to make.
The weather conditions (wind apart) were good and the wind didn't seem
anywhere near 20+ mph as described elsewhere. The forecast I saw said
13mph anyway. I was near the worst of it and it didn't seem to be too
bad from the bank. Cancelling the event didn't seem likely until just
before the race started when they changed quickly (I'd suggest this
has as much to do with the tide as the wind).
I was marshalled at the bandstand and got concerned as soon as I saw
Leander 1 come round the corner. They looked like they were skying
massively and the spray off the riggers was being blown very high. It
was clear by the time Brookes 1 (No 10) came past the race would have
to be called off. They were the first crew to sink after Barnes
Bridge .... a heavyweight crew at the best of times, they were still
racing after the cox had told them to easy and the water over the
saxboard of stroke.
I witnessed another crew go down and then three in a row. The
marshalls were being torn in several directions. Two submerged but
bouyant crews being helped by three marshall launches. They could have
rowed to the bank unaided. The third clearly underbouyant boat had its
crew properly sat in their boat with no launch near them for about
15mins.
I have concern about the coast guard launches .... I understand they
were trying to rescue crews in the shortest point in time, but their
full speed ahead strategy did nothing to help crews trying to cope
with swamping in an enviroment with lots of debris on the river.
We worked out the race had been cancelled after crew 45 but were
unclear what the situation was. Being fairly near the end of
marshalling we followed other crews who were turning (apparently under
marshall instruction) and heading back. At the bandstand spinning
anywhere was a risk in itself. In hindsight, sitting out the chaos may
have been a good idea but it would have taken 1hr or so.
Coxing standards and crew ability was random. Many crews tried to row
all 8 in conditions which were awful near the houseboats up to
chiswick. We saw more capsized crews as we rowed 4 or 6 out of eight
allowing the crew the stability to move out of danger.
One American (was he a marshall??) in a tin can shouted at us to move
into the most dangerous bit of river with the biggest swell .. we
unpolitely told him we were sticking to the bank. We would have sunk
if we would have followed his advice. He was trying to move people
away from a capsize, but the instruction was dangerous.
I can understand why people are complaining about crews hugging the
bank, but if you were at certain points you had to or face sinking.
The racing crews were looking for the calm water too. Crews not
wanting to sink should not be criticised for clogging up the banks.
It was mayhem, information wasn't getting to crews and
I feel the HORR needs a strategy for returning boats in case of
cancellation. It may have been the first time, but I can't help
agreeing that crews should have returned in divisions starting from
the back so crews could hug the bank. We were fairly safe in the bank.
It also avoids the chaos of 420 crews trying to land at 10 or so
landing stages at the same time. This needs to be understood by coxes
BEFORE they take to the water and minor changes communicated by
marshalls. There's nothing in the bumpf about what to do in this
situation.
I saw the leander 8 with its back broken, I also heard a crew with a
bailing device or pump had sunk. I also heard worrying reports that a
crew in the 400s was making its way to the start 30mins after the
start of the race. This crew were coming under Hammersmith just as
Leander 1 and CUBC et al were steeming round the bend, hugging the
bank and almost caused a very nasty collision.
When I returned to Hammersmith, it was like a millpond but I did see
crew members of boats visibley cold and was concerned that
inexperienced crews might not spot hypothermia symptoms.
My crew did discuss what would have happened if we'd had a different
cox. We doubt they could have coped with the conditions/conflicting
marshalling and may have got us into more trouble.
thomas....@googlemail.com
> On 1 Apr 2007 13:53:44 -0700, "coach" <richardphil...@hotmail.co.uk>
I think a strategy would be a good idea. Yes, there will not be a
perfect strategy but one is better than none.
Anatole Beams
http://web.mac.com/anatolebeams/iWeb/HoRR_07/HoRR_07.html
Anatole
thomas....@googlemail.com
through crews. Whether it boated ball less or got it removed in the
fight for the landing stages I don't know.