There were several protests at the conclusion of the West Marine Pacific Cup. These were:

1) a protest by Recidivist against Synge for missing a check in While Synge had been originally cited as not making the subject check in , another vessel, Auspice, had heard the Synge broadcast and advised the communications vessel what he thought he heard. The communications operator did not believe the relayed position was possible, and declared there was no check in by Synge. A review by the Race Committee, after the next check in , found the position given by Auspice for Synge was in line with the proceeding check in and the subsequent check in , although probably incorrect by a few miles. The race committee noting the SIs on the use of a “relay” overruled the communications vessel and ruled a valid check in within the rules had been made. The Race Committee noted the SIs favor relays when broadcasts are difficult to hear and noted this is a safety measure and we want those relays to help locate boats in the event of trouble. The race committee submitted the issue to the protest committee on the protest of Recidivist against Synge. The protest committee upheld the check in , although noting the poor radio contact by Synge was a matter of concern.

2) a petition for redress by Synge explaining a low power attempt to check in saying they had used up power trying to monitor and respond to an automated distress call was moot and not heard.

3) Protests were filed against Basic Instinct, Sweet Sixteen and, Elyxir. Each was protested for failure to have a self-igniting light on the LifeSling.(Special Regulations §4.22.1). Each was defending on the basis that the pre-race inspector examined the LifeSling and did not note the deficiency on the inspection correction list. The inspector on Basic Instinct noted they had a MOM in addition to the other safety equipment and as it was lighted, stated that would be sufficient (that is incorrect). The inspector on Sweet Sixteen also examined the LifeSling and passed the boat. They had an email which noted the deficiencies to cure, and the LifesSling was not among the items. The Protest Committee ruled in those two instances that the Sailing Instructions §4.9 provision providing that an item passed by the pre-race inspection will not be held insufficient in the post-race inspection. As the circumstances in the protest against Elyxir were the same, that protest was dropped as to proceed would only be a sham.

The outcome of protests can never suit everyone. There is a winner and a loser. One side is always unhappy and the other side is not. When the race is reviewed later there may be modifications to the NOR and/or SIs, and there may not. We do our best to follow the rules and to put on a safe race which hopefully all enjoy.

Bob Gray
Race Committee Chair PCYC

Regarding item #3 I respectfully disagree with the decision of the Protest Committee.

The decision, with the exception perhaps of Basic Instinct, is in direct conflict with the ISAF Special Regulations Sections 1.02.1 and 1.02.2, both of which place the sole responsibility on the owner regardless of whether the boat has passed an inspection. The reliance by the Protest Committee on Article 4.9 of the Sailing Instructions is inappropriate and wrong. The relevant portion of Article 4.9 states:

"If there is a disagreement between the findings of the pre- and post-race inspectors regarding the suitability of a required equipment item, and if the yacht can prove that the item was not altered between inspections, then the findings of the pre-race inspector shall prevail. The burden shall be on the inspected yacht."

And the intent is to not have the two inspectors have different opinions about things like "adequate stowage of heavy items or anchor sizing." Stretching "suitability" to include specifically itemized and described safety gear which is not onboard is simply wrong.

At every preparation seminar and at the Skipper's meeting I specifically emphasized that compliance with ALL of the requirements was the skippers, not the inspectors, responsibility; I believe I said it was not a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." Every skipper signed a certification quoting SR 102; to arrive in Kaneohe and believe that if the pre-start inspection didn't note an item as deficient then it isn't required, is not credible.

More seriously, the decisions leave the responsibility for the boat's compliance with required safety equipment on the shoulders of the volunteer, unpaid, inspection team. I think this is very bad policy and irresponsible seamanship.

It is not about happy or unhappy, suitable or unsuitable, winner or loser, it's a bad decision and the first step to fixing the problem is to acknowledge that.

Steve Chamberlin

09/01/06