Buoyancy and BUSA
Christopher Anton
compartment are. They were rowing in a Janousek and I was umpiring and
on the way back to the start and it was obvious at 1000m that they
were in trouble so we went over to check on them. By 1500m they had 2
launches + the life savers and the water was up to the top of the
saxboard. Nevertheless the boat was still rowable (though pretty
unsteerable) and they were determined to finish the course so we let
them. By this point the cox had to sit up to avoid drowning and
various shoes etc floating out. Not sure but I think the boat was self
bailing and the bottom of the gates was comfortably above the water.
Lots of people toook photos of this and if they're rsr readers then it
would be good to have a copy. I'd also love to know what state the
boat was in when they got it out and whether they took much water into
their compartments.
Conor O'Neill
Conor
Caroline Smith
> compartment are.
We didn't get it that bad (WJ4+ on Saturday) but were in the race that went
off without an "attention" (grrrrr)... a good 6 inches of water in each
footwell and me sat in a puddle, but all more than rowable.
There was a single in lane 6 yesterday too who I think thought she was about
to sink 250m in to the race, but carried on and finished the course.
We like buoyancy boats. :)
Off to bed with my 2 silvers from today... and the sunburn!
Katy Cameron
Hmm, they'd probably had plenty of practice at Strathclyde Park the
weekend before when conditions were pretty miserable with wind an
waves :o)
KT
Anna Mahlamäki
is for the BUSA regatta, i.e. very very bad?
Anna
survivor of some nasty storms at Holme Pierrepont
Stuart Jones
news:6637737.03050...@posting.google.com...
If the size of the some of the waves on the Isis (tiny in comparison...)
yesterday was anything to go by, I'm sure Holme Pierrepont was laughable...
Anu Dudhia
Waves on the Isis? Not obvious in this photo (yesterday) unless you count
those created
by the Salters steamer chugging upstream in the background
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/isis.jpg
Stuart Jones
news:3EB62FA7...@atm.ox.ac.uk...
There were under Donnington Bridge, enough for the riggers to hit and the
stern canvas of my 2x to keep disappearing(!)
Anu Dudhia
> There were under Donnington Bridge, enough for the riggers to hit and the
> stern canvas of my 2x to keep disappearing(!)
Yeah, but I thought you had that problem in flat water anyway.
Stuart Jones
Not so much so in our double......
Caroline Smith
> is for the BUSA regatta, i.e. very very bad?
mostly ok yesterday, but the head/cross wind was nasty and 90% of crews in
the marshalling area grounded themselves every time I was up there... had to
have people thigh-deep in the water keeping the boats pushed off the bank.
Had to marshal at a 45 degree angle. Getting on to the start was a bit evil,
and you had to point a good 20 degrees left on "attention" if you wanted to
go off straight!
Saturday was a lot worse... my first race (I think... there were just soooo
many!) we managed to get on to the start just fine, but the other two crews
ended up wedged between their pontoon and the next one, being blown in to
the bank. And during that race there were rather hefty waves breaking over
riggers on both sides all the time. I did have a nasty "oh dear I think we
might sink in a while" moment, but we didn't. (We were in a Janousek anyway
but it was still a nasty moment.) And it rained later in the afternoon, but
at least that flattened the water out a bit...
Stephen Blockley
May we ask if an incident report has gone to the ARA? Yet another piece of
evidence to try and open the minds of those officials still actively
obstructing progress on buoyancy.
The existing ARA regulation / recommendations on buoyancy do go some way to
highlight the issue, but still do not offer clear guidance as to what level
of buoyancy is required to save a crew from dangerous immersion. Anyone
buying a new boat still has to work that out for themselves.
Several manufacturers are pushing ahead with added buoyancy, and all credit
to them. However they still have no defined minimum effective standard to
measure against.
Meanwhile we're still faced with top rowing officials (ARA and others), who
continue to deny in official documents that the OULRC fatal accident on 29
December 2000 had anything to do with buoyancy. They assert that the 2
eights boats didn't sink when swamped. Until April last year they used this
argument to deny the need for any action at all on buoyancy. Now they use
it to delay and hamper progress.
These officials (none of whom were witnesses to the incident) are by
inference accusing the crews of the boats of lying, even under oath, and are
dismissing the findings of the Coroner's court (which none of them
attended). The Coroner established that the boats sank due to insufficient
buoyancy. His written notes, and the sworn statements used in court record
this finding in black and white. The Coroner later issued a written warning
that measures (such as we have suggested) should be put in place.
The ARA appear to have a larger than expected influence on rowing regulation
worldwide. Thus, we wonder how many life threatening incidents would have
been avoided, and indeed how many lives would have been saved if they had
acted upon the evidence about buoyancy presented to them in 1996.
We know these officials cannot escape the truth forever, however many times
they write in official letters that we (to paraphrase) have made the whole
thing up. If one were to believe the persistent rumours reportedly
emanating from the ARA centre, then on 29 December 2000 those gifted young
rowers apparently randomly jumped out of their boats in order to swim to the
shore, even though some, including Leo they say, couldn't swim. Is this a
measure of their desperation to cover their own backs?
Jane and Stephen
PS Just to be crystal clear - of course they could all swim.
Adam Carter
> > Do these messages imply that the weather was as good as it typically
> > is for the BUSA regatta, i.e. very very bad?
>
The conditions on saturday were really rather dangerous. I was doing a
champ pair (my pairs partner and I are very experienced and have been
rowing together for over four years now) and we were struggling with
getting onto the stakeboats, let alone get the boat to move away from
them after the start! They were the worst conditions I have ever rowed
in I think, and the fact that EVERY stroke up to 750m to go felt like
the first of the racing start meant that it was a rather painful
experience to say the least! It does have to be said, however, that
those conditions were fairer than those on Sunday, where the crosswind
meant that the low number lanes had a massive advantage (eg less
likelyhood of sinking!)
Regarding the comments about Janouseks, whilst I do agree that boat
buoyancy should be inherant (and was part of my pair's partner's and
my decision to invest in a stelph pair), I must question why it was
mainly Janouseks (that I saw I must stress) suffered most from the
water coming into the boats? They seem to sit far lower in the water
than comparable shells (Sims, Aylings etc) meaning that water is far
more likely to be shipped into the boat. Obviously this can be
combatted by taping up the riggers (which I'm delighted that we did on
saturday!) but surely, if others agree with this view, this is a bit
of a design flaw? Indeed it was a Jannie which sank, and ours almost
went the same way in their heat of novice fours on the saturday! Any
thoughts on this?
Stuart Jones
"Adam Carter" <adam_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6824a8c9.03050...@posting.google.com...
Janouseks are a different hull shape I think to Sims/Empacher/Aylings
(correct me if I'm wrong), and I think this contributes to them sitting
lower in the water. They also have straight saxboards, whereas our Sims
tapers outwards slightly - a bit splashboardy, but <1cm - don't know if it'd
have any significant effect...
Also, people do over-boat, which can cause issues.... Me in an 85kg 1x, for
example :-)
Stu
Henning Lippke
> 1x, for example :-)
Hmm... 'overboating': putting a big rower in a small boat or vice versa?
I remember 'overboating' as having a bigger boat than needed. (me :-))
-HL
Adam Carter
> (correct me if I'm wrong), and I think this contributes to them sitting
> lower in the water. They also have straight saxboards, whereas our Sims
> tapers outwards slightly - a bit splashboardy, but <1cm - don't know if it'd
> have any significant effect...
>
> Also, people do over-boat, which can cause issues.... Me in an 85kg 1x, for
> example :-)
>
> Stu
I have to agree with Henning here, I think it's underboated when
you're too heavy for the boat isn't it?! Overboated is when the boat
is too big for you.
Have youn managed to stop swimming everytime you want to put your
single in the water yet Stu?
I have been having a look at the BUSA photos, and almost every Jannie
seems to sit lower in the water than comparable boats. I had a look at
ours yesterday, and the difference between that and our new (second
hand!) Sims four is that the Sims riggers come out so that the gates
are only slightly higher than the top of the saxboards, whereas the
Jannie's riggers are way above the saxboards. As I have said
previously, intergrated buoyancy should be included in boats (sadly it
isn't in our Sims) but surely also every effort should be made to keep
the water out in the first place?!
Caroline Smith
where abouts are they? Can't seem to find them in any of the normal places
(Jet, BigBlade, Sport-e-pix whose website is down totally...)
Thanks
Dave Henderson
four eights 'overturned' in rough water.
Dave H
Stuart Jones
> > (correct me if I'm wrong), and I think this contributes to them sitting
> > lower in the water. They also have straight saxboards, whereas our Sims
> > tapers outwards slightly - a bit splashboardy, but <1cm - don't know if
it'd
> > have any significant effect...
> >
> > Also, people do over-boat, which can cause issues.... Me in an 85kg 1x,
for
> > example :-)
> >
> > Stu
>
> I have to agree with Henning here, I think it's underboated when
> you're too heavy for the boat isn't it?! Overboated is when the boat
> is too big for you.
> Have youn managed to stop swimming everytime you want to put your
> single in the water yet Stu?
Hmm I was thinking if you are underboated then possibly you might be
overboating ;-) Language quirk maybe, but yes you know what I meant...
I've not fallen in since that fateful freezing December day cheers Adam!!!
Stu
Adam Carter
Nick Ablitt
> compartment are.
> would be good to have a copy.
I took some photos for precisely that reason. I'll try and remember to
send them from home. If you want a copy email me.
With regards the weather at Nottingham it was pretty typically
terrible. Well done to the organisers for managing to get all the
races completed. In terms of drownings from sinking I can't see this
being too dangerous at a race like this with many marshals and rescue
boats.
I was pretty disappointed in the marshalling and the way it was
organised though. With the strong crosswind heading over towards the
bank where crews were marshalling, and the headwind pushing the crews
up to the start it was quite a mess. It was hard enough for one or two
crews lined up next to each other to avoid colliding with each other
and the bank. As it was crews at the pontoons were repeatedly told to
head to the start on time even when racing was up to an hour late.
This led to complete chaos. Crews were boating believing they had
10-15 minutes until their race started. They then overtook other crews
marshalling as they thought they must be racing before them. Only to
get up to the 250-500 to find out they should be behind these waiting
crews which then led to a lot of backing down/colliding/crews turning.
Even if crews were sensible and tried to stay out the way further down
the course this gave them no idea of when their race was so when to
head up to the start.
I was accompanying some crews on a bike so headed up ahead of them to
find out if racing was on time to work out what the crews should do,
i.e. sit and wait head back down the course, head up to the start
etc.. I was told racing was on time, which gave the first of my crews
10 minutes until the race. Then I found out the crews around were
already supposed to have started. So I went to the marshal again,
asking the same question getting the same answer. So I had to ask
slightly more forcefully as he was ignoring me by now. Then I made the
question a bit simpler. I asked what time the race which was currently
on the course was scheduled to start. He gave me a time and it was
over half an hour ago, but he still could not tell me the regatta was
running late. This sounds pretty ludicrous I know but the marshals are
instructed to say the racing is on time I believe so they can still
punish people for being late. If they admitted it was late then people
may turn up too late and delay the regatta even further.
This leads to much worse problems though. The wind was blowing crews
into the bank and into each other with the (unnecessarily large) wash
from the umpires launch lifting boats onto the gravel. There were far
too many boats in the marshalling section. I would guess that
generally the level of coxing and the experience of crews is pretty
low as many people only start rowing at University and then maybe only
row for up to three years. The competency of many crews (not just
novice) in marshalling and attaching to stake boats seemed pretty low.
This must be taken into account when marshalling crews. In addition if
the crews are going to be systematically lied to when they pick their
numbers up about the racing being on time they will never believe that
it is on time.
Later in the day on Sunday some of the problems were being sorted out
it appears. At around 6 when I had a crew to follow they once again
were told to boat on time. Only to meet a marshal at 500m who wondered
why they were on the water as it was over an hour till their race. But
at least there was a marshal that far down the course stopping crews
before they joined the chaos. I think later in the day boating for
each race was announced over the tannoy. If this was the case then it
was a good decision and should have been done all weekend when racing
was late.
This isn't the first year that the same problems have arisen. There
also seemed to be a lack of communication between marshals with one of
my crews being sent on then being told to stop by the next marshal. It
took me quite a bit of persuading for her to double check to realise
her error. Upon reaching the final marshalling area the marshal was
complaining about the crew being late.
These problems can be ironed out and should be. There seemed to be
enough marshals on duty but a lack of common sense and direction.
Stephen Blockley
"Nick Ablitt" <nicka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51b432d4.03050...@posting.google.com...
> c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk (Christopher Anton) wrote in message
news:<78a89462.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> > An Edinburgh University 4+ demonstrated today just how useful sealed
> > compartment are.
> > Lots of people toook photos of this and if they're rsr readers then it
> > would be good to have a copy.
>
> I took some photos for precisely that reason. I'll try and remember to
> send them from home. If you want a copy email me.
>
> With regards the weather at Nottingham it was pretty typically
> terrible. Well done to the organisers for managing to get all the
> races completed. In terms of drownings from sinking I can't see this
> being too dangerous at a race like this with many marshals and rescue
> boats.
Sorry to have to keep banging this message home, but yes there has been at
least one drowning at Holme Pierrepoint, witnessed by onlookers - in 1992.
It was the president of the BCU, who was, we're told, a champion swimmer.
Once in the water he appeared to be OK then just disappeared - he may well
have been a victim of "atypical drowning". This can cause death very
quickly on immersion in cold water, before any chance of rescue, even if
rescue boats are on the scene very quickly.
It's worth remembering that in conditions which cause sinking of boats,
launches may also be disabled. There were two launches present at the OULRC
accident, one per eights boat - but both were out of range when the sinking
happened. One had been blown off course when a rope became entangled around
the propeller, and got caught up in an overhanging branch. The other went to
its rescue. In the recent swamping accident in Virginia, USA (26 Mar 03),
the launch was also disabled by the weather, and many of the crew were left
to swim ashore without assistance.
Also, if media reports are anything to go by, drownings regularly occur in
swimming pools even with attendants and lifesavers on hand.
It is tempting to think all will be well because rescue boats are on hand,
and lots of people are around to see what is happening - but unexpected cold
water immersion is so inherently dangerous that it is best avoided
altogether. Hence the need for buoyant boats to keep crews out of the
water.
We were struck by similarity in the media reports of the Housatonic accident
(29 Mar 03), and the Toronto Regatta accident (3 May 03) mentioned by Dave
Henderson in this thread. In both there are quotes from observers - on the
former: "I've rowed for 4 years and I've never see this happen before. This
is so uncommon" and on the latter: "To have 4 boats go over at the same time
is not common". Three times in five weeks? The rowing authorities should
be taking a worldwide view on this. It may seem an uncommon problem in our
own individual small neck of the woods, but in the absence of an effective
and complete database we have no accurate idea about the frequency of such
accidents. It is currently reasonable to assume, however, that not all such
incidents are reported, and only a few make the headlines.
Jane and Stephen.
Christopher Anton
> c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk (Christopher Anton) wrote in message news:<78a89462.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> I took some photos for precisely that reason. I'll try and remember to
> send them from home. If you want a copy email me.
many thanks, I will
As it was crews at the pontoons were repeatedly told to
> head to the start on time even when racing was up to an hour late.
> This led to complete chaos.
Quite agree, this does seem to have been a bit insensible. I was
marshalling at 100m on Saturday afternoon and at several times we did
pass on messages to stop boating. I believe that this was also happening
on Sunday.
>
The wind was blowing crews
> into the bank and into each other with the (unnecessarily large) wash
> from the umpires launch lifting boats onto the gravel
in what way was it unnecessarily large? With 5 launches there's barely
enough time to make it back to the start for the next race.
>
> Later in the day on Sunday some of the problems were being sorted out
> it appears. At around 6 when I had a crew to follow they once again
> were told to boat on time. Only to meet a marshal at 500m who wondered
> why they were on the water as it was over an hour till their race. But
> at least there was a marshal that far down the course stopping crews
> before they joined the chaos.
Yes more marshalls had been placed there on Sunday to avoid all the
problems mentioned above and it's important to release that these were
umpries who were supposed to be off duty and had volunteered to help out
because of the wind.
>
> This isn't the first year that the same problems have arisen. There
> also seemed to be a lack of communication between marshals with one of
> my crews being sent on then being told to stop by the next marshal. It
> took me quite a bit of persuading for her to double check to realise
> her error. Upon reaching the final marshalling area the marshal was
> complaining about the crew being late.
>
> These problems can be ironed out and should be. There seemed to be
> enough marshals on duty but a lack of common sense and direction.
We're all human and do make the occasional mistake. Another thing to
bear in mind is that NWSC has completely updated its kit during the
winter and most of the equipment was new to us as well. Hopefull, next
year will be better, as will the weather. Go to Nottingham on a nice,
sunny calm day and every race will begin on time and you'll get your 1
minutes countdowns as per rules.
>
Jim
"Dave Henderson" <david.h...@aea.be> wrote in message
news:eda7551c.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Row2k is carrying a story (May 4) of a regatta in Toronto in which
> four eights 'overturned' in rough water.
>
> Dave H
With regard to the BUSA incident, I too was there, with my fresher daughter
racing, and captured the Edinburgh crew on video. Anyone interested can find
it on my hastily thrown together web-site at
www.videostar.demon.co.uk/Index.htm.
Carl and folks may have a particular interest as the boat was the star in
keeping the crew safe in poor conditions.
Have a look.
Jim
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03
Jim
With regard to the BUSA incident, I too was there, watching my fresher
daughter
Laura racing, and captured the Edinburgh crew on video. Anyone interested
Carl and folks may have a particular interest as the boat was the star in
keeping the crew safe in poor conditions.
Have a look.
Jim
"Christopher Anton" <c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:78a89462.03050...@posting.google.com...
Neil Wallace
"Henning Lippke" <use...@sculling.de> wrote in message
news:b96u00$g3ufq$1...@ID-122207.news.dfncis.de...
my interpretation also.
Stuart in an 85kg single would be underboating I think.
Neil Wallace
"Jim" <j...@videostar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b99q75$jgj$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> With regard to the BUSA incident, I too was there, with my fresher
daughter
> racing, and captured the Edinburgh crew on video. Anyone interested can
find
> it on my hastily thrown together web-site at
> www.videostar.demon.co.uk/Index.htm.
>
> Carl and folks may have a particular interest as the boat was the star in
> keeping the crew safe in poor conditions.
> Have a look.
> Jim
>
Jim,
well done - nice video!
<pedant>
minimalist
</pedant>
Boat is actually sitting nice and level. Does anyone know the crew weights,
cox weight and boat specification??
Neil
Nick Ablitt
> Nick Ablitt wrote:
>
> > c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk (Christopher Anton) wrote in message news:<78a89462.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> The wind was blowing crews
> > into the bank and into each other with the (unnecessarily large) wash
> > from the umpires launch lifting boats onto the gravel
>
>
> in what way was it unnecessarily large? With 5 launches there's barely
> enough time to make it back to the start for the next race.
>
I spoke to more than one person who had taken on water due to the wash
coming from the main umpires launch which had a particularly large
engine attached and I still think produced more wash than it needed
to, to cope with worst possible conditions and the speed necessary to
get back to the start. I know that St George's College had to get to
the bank and lift the boat out to empty water taken on by the wash
from this launch.
> >
> > Later in the day on Sunday some of the problems were being sorted out
> > it appears. At around 6 when I had a crew to follow they once again
> > were told to boat on time. Only to meet a marshal at 500m who wondered
> > why they were on the water as it was over an hour till their race. But
> > at least there was a marshal that far down the course stopping crews
> > before they joined the chaos.
>
>
> Yes more marshalls had been placed there on Sunday to avoid all the
> problems mentioned above and it's important to release that these were
> umpries who were supposed to be off duty and had volunteered to help out
> because of the wind.
That was good of them and it did help but it only cured the problem
created by telling crews to boat on time when racing was around an
hour late. I don't know whether it is feasible to have a system of
crews boating based on the race currently coming down the course, or
accurate and up to date delays announced over the tannoy.
>
> We're all human and do make the occasional mistake. Another thing to
> bear in mind is that NWSC has completely updated its kit during the
> winter and most of the equipment was new to us as well. Hopefull, next
> year will be better, as will the weather. Go to Nottingham on a nice,
> sunny calm day and every race will begin on time and you'll get your 1
> minutes countdowns as per rules.
>
Congrats for getting all the races run and hope it improves.
Nick Ablitt
> Lots of people toook photos of this and if they're rsr readers then it
> would be good to have a copy. I'd also love to know what state the
> boat was in when they got it out and whether they took much water into
> their compartments.
All the photos I took of this crew are listed
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4725.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4726.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4727.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4728.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4729.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4730.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4731.jpg
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~naa99/Icempire/Photos/BUSA2003/IMG_4732.jpg
Christopher Anton
shows the water level with the top of the saxboard yet the boat still
perfectly rowable as the video shows. They were that full for the last
500m onwards.
You can see that they were pleased (or perhaps relieved) to finish the
course as I'd wanted them to beach at about 1000m.
Glad that I got captured in the video as well although CD probably
wouldn't approve as I've got a blazer on :)
>
Christopher Anton
5 6 Lei(-) Leicester 2:18.5 4:42.7 7:09.3 9:44.2
6 5 Edi(-) Edinburgh 2:23.3 4:54.5 7:41.0 12:03.6
which shows you where the problems really started.
{AGUT2}=IWIK=
> find out if racing was on time to work out what the crews should do,
> i.e. sit and wait head back down the course, head up to the start
> etc..
Are you coaching now, gibbers?
Alex.
--
Reply to:alexan.tili...@ambtinternet.com cutting out the usual...
For all your UT2003 questions, visit the official UT2003 newsgroup FAQ at:
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq.php
ant+...@yourlegsed.ac.uk
Hi,
I was 3 in the boat, boat spec was 85Kg, and we were probably pushing 90
Kg, so overweight, but within safe parameters. On the paddle.wade up to
the top, we got swamped twice by the wash of launches and the shelve of
the shallows, fortunately we had lucozade sport bottle to bail with.
In the actual race, we caught a couple of large waves with riggers (our
balance being not the best in the SF/conditions), so we got more
splash-ins that our opponents probably would have, but it was still just a
p[artially full foot well, until just after 100, when we got the umpire's
launch wash coming through us, which effectively filled the foot wells
for us, after that more water came in until we were engulfed. The gates
were still clear, we were careful about hand manglement at
the catch, and the cox had called to release the shoe's velcro in case it
did submerge further.
The compartments were wet, but were still bouyant, and the reason for the
near 5 minute last 500 was because the safety launch told us to take the
rating down from 32 ! After that it was low rate power water works.
It didn't feel like a dangerous situation, the only thing i was concerned
about was a roll, but considered that unlikely with the weight in the
boat.
The best thing was the look on the faces of those marshalling, i think
they may have been a little concerned about the conditions! Of course I
didn't observe them directly .. I was looking down the boat.
cheers
Ant
President EUBC
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Neil Wallace casually suggested:
:
:"Jim" <j...@videostar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
:
:
:
--
Shave your legs to reply
Richard Packer
> Lots of people toook photos of this and if they're rsr readers then it
> would be good to have a copy. I'd also love to know what state the
> boat was in when they got it out and whether they took much water into
> their compartments.
Not just photos...
If I can get the technology to work for me, I'll try and upload some video
extracts. Failing that, it'll have to be stills. It did look like there
might have been water in the compartments, but it's hard to tell from a
video taken on maximum zoom from the other side of the course.
I'll post an update when it's done.
Richard
[Still recovering from four days' umpiring at BUSA, Junior IRs and the Ball
Cup at Southport.]
Richard Packer
"Richard Packer" <ne...@rjINSERTMYSURNAMEHERE.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3ebbc7c0$0$11384$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Not just photos...
>
> If I can get the technology to work for me, I'll try and upload some video
> extracts. Failing that, it'll have to be stills. It did look like there
> might have been water in the compartments, but it's hard to tell from a
> video taken on maximum zoom from the other side of the course.
>
> I'll post an update when it's done.
Now done - http://www.packer.dsl.pipex.com/rowing/events/busa2003.htm
Richard
Carl Douglas
>> four eights 'overturned' in rough water.
>>
>> Dave H
>
>With regard to the BUSA incident, I too was there, with my fresher daughter
>racing, and captured the Edinburgh crew on video. Anyone interested can find
>it on my hastily thrown together web-site at
>www.videostar.demon.co.uk/Index.htm.
>
>Carl and folks may have a particular interest as the boat was the star in
>keeping the crew safe in poor conditions.
>Have a look.
Would very much like to see. Have downloaded it but can't view it as I
don't have realmovie & dislike its web offer. Do you have it in (or can
anyone convert it to) any other format?
However, the various still pictures make it quite clear that boats with
under-seat buoyancy can do the business. Even in that least buoyant of
classes - the overloaded front-loader four. I've never seen a bow-wave
around someone's bum before!
People from Oxford could, with advantage & in memory of Leo Blockley,
shove those pictures in front of the chairman of COUR, who has told
various people, myself included, that in his opinion shells can't be
made sufficiently buoyant to float their seated crews when swamped and
that, even if they could be, they still would be unrowable. It is the
aberrant views of unrepresentative decision makers that we don't need to
worry about having buoyant shells that seal the fates of good guys like
Leo.
Well done Edinburgh University! You didn't win, but you rammed home a
point.
And, BTW, it might be no bad thing if you guys from EUBC were to have
strong and determined words with officials of SARA, who have been saying
some regrettably dismissive & disparaging things about the Leo Blockley
Memorial Campaign in general, & myself in particular. Such people are
unprincipled plonkers of the first water.
All these obstructive and deliberately ignorant officials are very
sorry, but not for the victim. They are sorry only for the
embarrassment & inconvenience caused to them by Leo's death & our
refusal to let them get away with lying about & obstructing this
campaign for proper shell buoyancy. And they wish we would just go
away. Tough!
I particularly admired the forthright comments by that Taiwanese mum at
yesterday's memorial to the victims of last year's Hatfield train
disaster. Her daughter had gone to England with high hopes & returned
home as ash, for reasons which no one had the humanity to admit or
explain. She told how her former high opinion of British conduct &
decency had been destroyed by all the official procrastination &
buck-passing, which is making victims of the survivors and their
relatives all over again.
Thanks -
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)
Nick Suess
Info that just came my way is that 3 eights sank during the Perth to
Fremantle race at the weekend. This is on the Swan River which widens out as
a "sunken valley" to be like a 5km wide lake for much of the course. Nobody
here is making very much of this - all treated as a bit of a jolly laugh.
The water was warm, the crews were able to hold on to the boats and swim to
shore. Mind you, we do occasionally get sharks in the Swan!
The point is that eights are no doubt sinking frequently and often around
the world, and in most cases in conditions nowhere near as benign as those
we enjoy in Western Australia. And the administrators of our sport appear to
be totally unconcerned by this. It was always thus, so they consider it
should ever be so, and if a handful a drownings eventuate every year, well
there are always new rowers coming along to replace the cannon fodder,
aren't there?
Nick
"Anna Mahlamäki" <anna.ma...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:6637737.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Do these messages imply that the weather was as good as it typically
> is for the BUSA regatta, i.e. very very bad?
>
> Anna
> survivor of some nasty storms at Holme Pierrepont
Carl Douglas
>Hi Playmates
>
>Info that just came my way is that 3 eights sank during the Perth to
>Fremantle race at the weekend. This is on the Swan River which widens out as
>a "sunken valley" to be like a 5km wide lake for much of the course. Nobody
>here is making very much of this - all treated as a bit of a jolly laugh.
>The water was warm, the crews were able to hold on to the boats and swim to
>shore. Mind you, we do occasionally get sharks in the Swan!
>
>The point is that eights are no doubt sinking frequently and often around
>the world, and in most cases in conditions nowhere near as benign as those
>we enjoy in Western Australia. And the administrators of our sport appear to
>be totally unconcerned by this. It was always thus, so they consider it
>should ever be so, and if a handful a drownings eventuate every year, well
>there are always new rowers coming along to replace the cannon fodder,
>aren't there?
>
Could you please copy us whatever published references might come to
hand?
Cheers -
Nick Suess
"Carl Douglas" <Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LNmQjiAh...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Nothing published that I know of, and I doubt anything will be, but I'll
keep my ear to the ground.
I have made one or two enquiries, and the HEARSAY evidence that has come my
way is that four, not three eights sank. I have also heard, but again this
is just HEARSAY that the strong winds, which I believe had been forecast,
blew up shortly after the start of the event, and that one official (it is
believed this was the Executive Officer of Rowing WA) then considered
conditions to be dangerous and asked the umpires to call the race off, but
they, like Magnus Magnusson, said that they had started so they'd finish.
What is certainly beyond dispute is that an eight from my club went down,
well out in the middle of Melville Water, where they were a very long way
from the shore. It was a KIRS eight, which has an extremely short stern
canvas so bugger all buoyancy there, and apparently the boat floated bow
high, and the rowers were all clinging on at that end and trying with little
success to swim it to shore. This boat has canvas canvases (know what I
mean) which are seldom if ever 100% waterproof, and it seems likely water
was slowly seeping in, as I'm told that the boat was apparently sinking ever
lower, with some distinct fears of it going to the bottom and leaving the
crew to swim for it..At this point a passing power boat took them in tow and
brought them all to the nearest point of the shore. I am also told that
despite the comparative warmth of the water, they had become very cold by
the time they eventually made it to land, and one can only speculate what
might have happened had that power boat (NOT an umpire's or marshall's boat)
not come along.
The Perth to Freo has been cancelled on at least a couple of recent
occasions due to unsuitable water conditions. Whilst it would be nice to see
that boats having adequate buoyancy to support the seated crew should
henceforth be mandatory, I very much doubt that there is a single eight here
in Perth which meets that requirement, as Aussie boatbuilders go right on
cutting big holes in the deck. So I find myself conducting the mental
balancing act of whether or not I reckon that the risk is so severe that
this well established long-distance event should be scrapped. But this is a
purely hypothetical exercise, as the officials won't decide to do so, even
if these incidents do get seen as a big wake-up call, and I'm by no means
sure that they will. Hopefully they will see the need for more marshall's
boats to accompany the fleet of eights. The event is only open to eights and
singles. I've done it in both, and it's a long 16km haul on some very rough
water, but at least in a single, once the footwell is full, which doesn't
take long, that's all you are going to take on board.
The buoyancy battle is clearly far more advanced in the UK due largely to
the huge efforts of Carl and the Blockleys, and I believe that it will be
the ultimate impact of success there that will resound around the world and
cause boatbuilders to build safe boats everywhere. And if anyone at Rowing
WA or any official involved in the Perth to Freo gets to read this, please
e-mail or give me a call on 0412 412 118 and tell me the story from your
point of view. I'll see it gets published on rsr, and I'll also fill you in
on the Leo Blockley campaign in the UK. Then hopefully you'll help us get a
campaign started to eventually change the practices of boatbuilding here.
Neil Wallace
"Nick Suess" <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ec1c9e8$0$12...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> they, like Magnus Magnusson, said that they had started so they'd finish.
http://users.auth.gr/~salaxi/various/jpg/not-now-kid-NOT-NOW.jpg
Carl Douglas
<snip>
>
>Several manufacturers are pushing ahead with added buoyancy, and all credit
>to them. However they still have no defined minimum effective standard to
>measure against.
>
>Meanwhile we're still faced with top rowing officials (ARA and others), who
>continue to deny in official documents that the OULRC fatal accident on 29
>December 2000 had anything to do with buoyancy. They assert that the 2
>eights boats didn't sink when swamped. Until April last year they used this
>argument to deny the need for any action at all on buoyancy. Now they use
>it to delay and hamper progress.
>
>These officials (none of whom were witnesses to the incident) are by
>inference accusing the crews of the boats of lying, even under oath, and are
>dismissing the findings of the Coroner's court (which none of them
>attended). The Coroner established that the boats sank due to insufficient
>buoyancy. His written notes, and the sworn statements used in court record
>this finding in black and white. The Coroner later issued a written warning
>that measures (such as we have suggested) should be put in place.
So it was not by inference. The ARA, and apparently the rowing
authorities at Oxford are telling deliberate untruths. Now why would
they do that - and do so right from the outset? The only credible
reason is that they were more concerned to deflect possible blame for
inaction from themselves than to save lives in the future.
The attitude of officialdom at times like this has been neatly summed up
as:
"We don't make the rules. We are the rules. We like it that way. And
we intend to keep it that way".
>
>The ARA appear to have a larger than expected influence on rowing regulation
>worldwide. Thus, we wonder how many life threatening incidents would have
>been avoided, and indeed how many lives would have been saved if they had
>acted upon the evidence about buoyancy presented to them in 1996.
>
>We know these officials cannot escape the truth forever, however many times
>they write in official letters that we (to paraphrase) have made the whole
>thing up. If one were to believe the persistent rumours reportedly
>emanating from the ARA centre, then on 29 December 2000 those gifted young
>rowers apparently randomly jumped out of their boats in order to swim to the
>shore, even though some, including Leo they say, couldn't swim. Is this a
>measure of their desperation to cover their own backs?
>
>Jane and Stephen
>
>PS Just to be crystal clear - of course they could all swim.
>
We have regularly exposed the lies, obstruction and misrepresentation
with which certain named ARA officers have obstructed shell buoyancy -
even in their communications the Minister for Sport.
While still denying that buoyancy matters, the ARA has been pretending
to do something about it. It is not. Its "plating" proposals are an
incoherent mess - farcical tokenism without safety logic or science, &
viewed with disdain by honest boatbuilders.
So much for the ARA. Now what to do about real shell safety?
The Leo Blockley Memorial Campaign would encourage crew shell
manufacturers everywhere to build & test their boats for compliance with
the published Blockley Buoyancy Performance Standard.
This standard is published on the campaign website at:
http://www.leoblockley.tk
A shell built to that standard will not leave you swimming for grim
death when conditions turn nasty or you get a hole in the boat.
Nick Suess
"Neil Wallace" <rowing...@NOSPAM.virgin.net> wrote in message
news:b9t3la$kue$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
would appear that a roo eats roots shoots and goes on eating.
Carl Douglas
>Jim <j...@videostar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Dave Henderson" <david.h...@aea.be> wrote in message
>>> Row2k is carrying a story (May 4) of a regatta in Toronto in which
>>> four eights 'overturned' in rough water.
>>>
>>> Dave H
>>
>>With regard to the BUSA incident, I too was there, with my fresher daughter
>>racing, and captured the Edinburgh crew on video. Anyone interested can find
>>it on my hastily thrown together web-site at
>>www.videostar.demon.co.uk/Index.htm.
>>
>>Carl and folks may have a particular interest as the boat was the star in
>>keeping the crew safe in poor conditions.
>>Have a look.
>
>Would very much like to see. Have downloaded it but can't view it as I
>don't have realmovie & dislike its web offer. Do you have it in (or
>can anyone convert it to) any other format?
>
versions of EUBC's impressive row over the last 300m. Many thanks, Jim
Completely swamped, & so low in the water it's almost invisible, the
boat is holding there as steady as a rock. And they kept rowing all the
way to the landing stages. Great rowing too, boys!
The front-loader 4+ is the least buoyant of shells due to the loss of
enclosed volume under the foredeck for cox's legs. Yet it floated the
seated crew all the way. And it was evidently rowable, for a long
distance if necessary, despite the evident roughness of the water.
That boat, a Janousek, had enclosed under-seat volumes. Only fools can
continue to deny that improved shell buoyancy will not only enable boats
to float their seated crews but also permit them to row their boat to
safety through rough water.
That evidence (& heaps of other evidence) completely contradicts what
the Chairman of COUR has been telling people. He shares responsibility
for the safety of OU rowing.
After Leo's death he assured the Blockleys of OU's deep concern for them
& for rowing safety.
Then he told the ARA (behind the Blockleys' backs) that as far as COUR
was concerned the evident lack of buoyancy in the OULRC shells which
sank in Spain was definitely not relevant to the accident, that buoyancy
was not a safety issue, that better buoyancy wouldn't have saved Leo.
By that armchair analysis, which contradicted the statements of those
who were involved, Leo caused his own death & everything else was
irrelevant.
He, like the ARA, was talking utter crap. But it has been suggested to
me, & I cannot argue against it, that the words of the Chairman of COUR
would be calculated to shift the blame from the under-buoyant boats
supplied for the rowers' use (which could have unfortunate & costly
repercussions in the event of litigation), to a dead man who couldn't
fight back from beyond the grave?
Only much later, once the cat was already well & truly out of the bag,
did this gentleman who had promised them his support then write to the
Blockleys to admit his stab in their backs.
Since then he has had the effrontery to tell me that I don't understand
shell buoyancy as well as he does, that improved buoyancy doesn't work,
& that, even if it did, crews would still be unable to row swamped boats
to safety.
Well, COUR members, was that really your collective view? Or was it
just the view of some of you, presented as COUR policy? And if so, does
it remain your view? I think we all have a right to know. Or is tenure
of office more important than human life?
I am sick to the back teeth of self-important officials pretending
concern for individual rowers' safety while deliberately blocking
intelligent proposals which would have saved lives. Cocky in their own
science-free "opinions" on a scientific issue, they merrily insult those
who do understand the science &, without tainting themselves with either
the maths or the effort of trying it out for themselves, bluntly
contradict real expertise and available evidence.
Accidents don't just happen, they all have causes. There is a chain of
events, & the breaking of any link will alter the outcome. Thus - if
the boat had been adequately buoyant it wouldn't have sunk under its
crew; if it hadn't sunk, Leo wouldn't have been forced into the water;
if he hadn't been in the water, he wouldn't have drowned. Simple. Only
those who are deliberately ignorant of this simple & well-understood
principle would deny all preceding links in the chain of events, wait
until the guy is struggling for his life, trying to reconnect with his
swamped boat in 70mph gale & 2ft waves, & then blame him for having
become separated from it.
They have blamed the victim whose life it was their duty to protect.
And they have done this to the lasting detriment of the safety of rowers
present and future.
It is an outrage.