Jump to content

Lester Gilbert

MYA Council
  • Posts

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lester Gilbert

  1. As you well know, Brad, historically the MYA acts and has acted as the NCA for these classes. As you also well know, the MYA is currently trying to move class responsibilities to COGs. In due course I expect those COGs that wish to will accept the responsibility to act as the NCA for their class, and I expect that the MYA will delegate or transfer NCA responsibilities to those COGs. I also expect that not all COGs will want this responsibility, in which case the MYA will have to continue to act as the class NCA. As you well know, this is currently an on-going process that has only started recently, and much needs to be settled before a COG can act as an NCA, not only with the MYA but with the relevant international associations.
  2. Hi Brad A common misconception which I would like to correct. The MYA has introduced COGs recently, overturning nearly 100 years of history. It is a policy that has my enthusiastic support, and as far as I can see the support of the entire MYA Council, executive officers and district councillors alike. As the co-opted Racing Officer, I've engaged with the classes in supporting them to define their racing calendar for 2022 rather than telling them what dates they can have. I've engaged with the classes in asking them to take on the maintenance of their championship and ranking regs, their sailing instructions, and their notice of race templates. There is no reluctance here to ask classes to take control for themselves.
  3. Hi Michael Terminology might be in the way here. One of our "races" is usually made up from a number of heats if there are more than 20 boats or so; if fewer than 20 boats then every race consists of one heat. I'm thinking that your example comprised 6 races, each race comprising one heat. What we call an "event" is usually made up of a number of races. The racing rules of sailing generally talks about a "series" as being a number of races, and so this is what is taken to be an "event" in radio sailing. I'm thinking that your example is an event with 6 races, constituting a series in the terms of the RRS. RRS A7 applies to a particular radio sailing race, but not to the event. RRS A8 applies to the event, and is sometimes called the "countback" rule. There are no rules specifically which deal with what we might call a series, comprising a number of events. The best that can currently be done is to score a series of radio sailing events as a series of series (!), that is, to apply A8 to the events as though they were races.
  4. Hi Damian I guess if there were 3 skippers having trouble and 2 used Futaba, this might be right. But if there were 40 Futaba users in the event and 10 other brands, a different picture emerges.... Do you happen to know how many of the skippers were successfully using Futaba? My maths tutor always told us about the headline, "Dolphin saved my life". Yeah, he'd say, but how often do you hear of a swimmer returning saying, Damn dolphin killed me?
  5. Hi John Could you post a link to a page which explains how to do this, please? Many thanks!
  6. An early page of mine might be interesting. http://www.onemetre.net/Design/Bulbcant/BulbCant.htm
  7. The RG65 Class – from an IRSA perspective In Q&A form V1.1 To be posted on the IRSA Web site shortly Q Can the RG65 class have a world championship? Not as it exists at present. Some time back WS delegated responsibility for the international administration of radio sailing to IRSA and it is through this affiliation that IRSA is able to grant the right to run WORLD championships in the rc international classes. WS protects the right to call a sailing event a world championship – claiming an event is one when it is not sanctioned by WS or IRSA is a breach of the WS rules and can result in competitors being excluded from legitimate sailing events. IRSA is the international class association for the Marblehead, Ten Rater and A Classes. The International One Metre has its own independent international class association, IOMICA, that is responsible for the administration of the IOM class and which is affiliated to IRSA. All these international classes hold world championships from time to time and the events are run under the guidance of IRSA’s & IOMICA’s regulations using the well known Appendix E of the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS). In order that the RG65 class may hold any event titled ‘world championship’ it has to have international class status given by IRSA. Q Why is IRSA interested in the RG65 class? IRSA’s constitutional object is to develop the sport of RC sailing throughout the world, and to support any class that is popular internationally. The class appeals to a large number of builders because they can exploit exotic construction methods without the problems associated with larger scale building projects. Construction can be as convenient as on a kitchen table. Sail making can be accomplished in a relatively small space. The class is a ‘development’ or ‘open’ class so builders have freedom to improve performance that is deliberately blocked in ‘one design’ or ‘closed’ classes. The boat with all its rigs will comfortably fit into a well designed pack not much bigger than a box used to transport an IOM hull. The prospect of travelling by public transport, as well as by plane without having to pay for excess baggage, is a realistic one. The restriction on the number of rigs serves to restrict cost and complexity, and the boats can be sailed in a space as small as an Olympic swimming pool. A well set up RG65 performs remarkably well, so it is easy to see why the class is popular. Given the opportunity to hold world championships the class would inevitably attract greater number of participants and the level of competition in the class would increase enormously. It is essential that robust class rules are in place before that happens so that continued participation in the class does not become prohibitively expensive. Q What is required for the RG65 class to become recognised by IRSA? To gain international class status some straightforward, but important, standards have to be achieved. • The class has to have a certain number of boats across a certain number of continents and countries. • The class rules have to be written to a common standard, the WS Standard Class Rules (SCR) format. Whereas the numerical requirements are met, it is clear the requirement for WS SCR format class rules is not. Q Why is SCR format required for the class rules? Class rules written using the WS SCR format ensure that as far as possible the language used in class rules and the measurement methods employed are harmonised across the classes. Designers, builders, sail makers and measurers can then be confident of having a common understanding of class rules. Commonly used words like ‘boat’, ‘hull’, ‘hull appendage’ and a vast number of other similar boat part names are all very precisely defined in the Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS) which is a stand-alone document available as a download from the WS website. Q What else in the existing class rules might need to be changed? An issue that would prevent the RG65 achieving international status is the tradition that the boats are measured by the owners with no independent checking. A complicating factor here is a lack of a prescribed system for measuring sail area. Another tradition in the class, that of being able to replace the fin/ballast unit after each day’s racing, is not permitted either by the class rules or the Racing Rules of Sailing. The current lack of restriction on the material used for the ballast means that tungsten (also known as Wolfram) and other exotic high density materials are permitted. The unwelcome cost implications of this in the long term are clear. The concept of having only three rigs in the class is a sound principle that works well in the IOM class. Whereas the IOM class has several safeguards to keep cost down (no exotic materials in the hull, minimum hull weight, wood or aluminium spars only, one design sails) there are no such restrictions in the RG65 class and construction costs are higher than they would be otherwise. It is probably too late to introduce some of these concepts into the RG65 class – as “the horse has already bolted”. But there are some things that can easily be achieved that will help keep the class popular in the long term and restrict escalation of costs. Q What would IRSA RG65 class rules look like? Briefly: • The class rules would be written in the WS SCR format using terms defined in the ERS. • The sail measurement system would be specified. • Ballast materials denser than lead would be prohibited. • A draught limit would be introduced. • Sail marks rules would be rationalised with those in Appendix E of the RRS. • The rules for racing will be specified as the RRS. • Changing the fin/ballast unit after each day’s racing could either be facilitated by the class rules or, alternatively, prohibited. • Measurement and certification of boats would be by independent official measurers. • Each national association would keep a register of officially certified boats. Q Why does there have to be a draught limit? The draught limit is to ensure all boats at an event can be guaranteed to be able to sail. From an IRSA point of view it is imperative that the Race Committee of an IRSA event does not find itself embarrassed because some competitors with class rule compliant boats cannot compete. Q How will revised RG65 class rules be created? Under the guidance of Gerd Mentges, a sub-committee of the IRSA TC has already produced a first draft of an international standardised version of the RG65 class rules. It incorporates much of what has been learned over the last two decades from the Marblehead and Ten Rater Class rules. It deals with the above points and the TC will spend some time checking and refining its content. Q Could the RG65 owners create their own international class rules? Perhaps, but it may take longer to arrive at a result that is satisfactory to IRSA. Q How would revised RG65 class rules be adopted? When it is felt the revised class rules are of sufficient quality the intention is to post them on the IRSA website. While IRSA cannot impose such rules on anybody, it is hoped the RG65 community will find they like what they see and, if they want to progress to holding the first world championship for the class, there will be a clear pathway to do so. Q What is the pathway to a first world championship for the RG65 class? That pathway would be: • Use the revised class rules. • Achieve sufficient registered boats in sufficient countries and continents. • Apply to IRSA for International Status. • Apply to hold a world championship. Q Could the RG65 class run its own affairs? IRSA would like to see the RG65 class form a class committee within the IRSA structure. Although currently organised on a regional structure of representation, IRSA is in the process of re-structuring into a class based organisation. When the RG65 class committee becomes self-sufficient, IRSA policy is that it should split off to become an independent ICA in the same way as IOMICA.
  8. "the triangle it forms with the windward mark is the Course Side" I think not for E3.5 or RRS 29.1. In the "bad start 1" diagram, green is on the course side of the starting line. Outside the triangle, but on the course side. "Course side" is not a defined term in the RRS. So it has its "ordinary" meaning. It may be worth quoting the I, Z, or black flag rules. 30.1 I Flag Rule [...] any part [...] is on the course side of the starting line or one of its extensions during the last minute before her starting signal 30.2 Z Flag Rule [...] no part [...] shall be in the triangle [...] during the last minute before her starting signal 30.3 Black Flag Rule [...] no part [...] shall be in the triangle [...] during the last minute before her starting signal Rule 30.1 uses the same words as 29.1, making the penalty region clearer by mentioning extending the starting line, and bans dipping the line. Rules 30.2 and 30.3 introduce a new idea for a penalty. They talk about a triangle *in the period leading up to the start*. The start itself is the same for 30.2 and 30.3 as it is for 30.1, and it is 29.1/E3.5 which tells us about recalling (giving information to) a boat that (it) is on the course side. The point of the triangle is to define a region where a penalty can be applied if a boat is found to be in that region during some specified period. The triangle region does not define what is "course side", and I do not think it is intended to define "course side".
  9. Might be worth quoting the rule (smile)... RRS E3.5 Individual Recall Rule 29.1 is changed to: When at a boat’s starting signal any part of the boat is on the course side of the starting line [...] A purist might wish it said, "on the course side of the starting line *or its extensions*", but I think its meaning is reasonably clear as it is.
  10. A couple of points might be worth making. RRS A5 tells us that only the protest committee may take (other) scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score. So no, the RO does not have the power to DSQ anyone. Following an incident on the water, a protest from a boat, the Race Committee, or the Protest Committee *may* be made; a protest is not mandatory (RRS 60.1, 60.2, and 60.3). Where the Race Committee is aware of an unresolved incident, it is considered good practice in radio sailing in the UK for the RC to protest the boats involved for a (gross) breach of the rules (MYA Race Management Guide). (When acting as an RO, I would consider boat on boat contact to be a gross breach of the rules, but not all ROs are of the same opinion.) It is then for the Protest Committee to hear the protest. Note that, although the time limit for protesting might have expired, the Protest Committee can extend the time limit for good reason (RRS 61.3). (Where the RO is aware of an unresolved incident, and then learns that one of the boats involved has retired, it is my opinion that the RO may conclude the incident is now resolved. Not all ROs are of the same opinion.)
  11. Alternatively, do not hail "I am out of control". Instead, use some other words, such as "I cannot steer" or "I have no way", or "I seem to be hooked up on some weed"... Hailing "I am out of control" invokes E2.3.
  12. Graham was asking about IRSA activities following the GA. News is given in a couple of places, particularly "http://www.radiosailing.org/main/administration/committee-reports/committee-reports.htm" http://www.radiosailing.org/main/administration/committee-reports/committee-reports.htm and "http://www.radiosailing.org/main/administration/committee-reports/committee-reports.htm" http://www.radiosailing.org/main/administration/committee-reports/committee-reports.htm We'll be calling soon for nominations to co-opt a Secretary, Racing Chairman, Publicity Officer, and Treasurer, and we'll shortly be publishing the agenda and papers for our forthcoming Executive Committee formal meeting following the GA. Lester Gilbert Chairman, IRSA Executive Committee http://www.radiosailing.org
  13. Might be worth mentioning that ISAF Case 125 in the 2013-2016 Case Book Supplement refers.
  14. I know that it is rather bad form to let the facts get in the way of a good argument, but there are a couple that might be worth mentioning. The late Ken Roberts (GBR) was the ISAF-RSD Regional Officer Oceania from 1999 to 2001. I don't know that anyone called that a farce. In any case, it is for the voters to make their choice, since there are two candidates for the office, and both sides have nominated a candidate accordingly. It is of course natural that, if regional representation is to continue, the representative should be from the region. However, CEEFIE have made no secret of their intention, if voted in, to remove regional representation FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (it REMAINS in IRSA DNM representation) and to replace it with class representation. The CEEFIE proposals are to establish class committees to reverse the decline of the International classes which have IRSA as their International Class Association. It is quite unclear how past Regional Officers have particularly contributed to IRSA by virtue of being Regional representatives, though their other contributions have doubtless been valuable. And again, it is for the voters to make their choice. What the DNMs rejected in 2009 was a transformation of ISAF-RSD into only an international multi-class association. No problem with such rejection, and there remains no problem. CEEFIE will MAINTAIN the existing regional and country representation by the DNM representatives. Instead, the CEEFIE proposals are to establish class committees to reverse the decline of the International classes which have IRSA as their International Class Association.
  15. Hi MYA sailors, we know these newsletters make riveting reading, but sadly this is probably our last... Dear IRSA DNM Our seventh, and, we believe, last e-mail "newsletter" to you (parts will also be posted on-line). Voting There are some DNMs who may not be familiar with the procedures for voting at the 2014 GA as laid down by the IRSA Executive Committee. Your DNM vote will NOT count if you do not notify the Secretary of the details of your DNM GA representative. The deadline for this is 23:00GMT on 25th April 2014 – you have one more day if you are BEL, CAN, CZE, FIN, FRA, ITA, JPN, POL, or POR. "Under clause 6.2 of the constitution, each Member is required to give written notice of their Representative prior to the appointed time for the start of the GA. However, in order that the necessary pre-meeting administration can be carried out, the deadline for this notification to be received by the General Secretary will be 23:00GMT on 25th April 2014 (ie 7 days prior to the formal commencement of the GA)." http://www.radiosailing.org/main/administration/general-assembly/GA-2014-main.htm, "Documents" tab, "Procedures and Notes applying to the GA" document. Your DNM vote will NOT count if your DNM GA representative does not register their attendance at the GA. "Where a Member has not registered their attendance at the meeting prior to agenda items (9) and (11) being dealt with, their vote will be excluded from the relevant count." "Procedures and Notes applying to the GA" document. Transparency Most radio sailors probably know more about the workings, discussions, and decisions of their national secret service than they do about IRSA. We will seek to change that. It is true that some things need to be discussed and decided behind closed doors. They tend to be things where people could get hurt or property damaged. Anything else is probably better discussed and decided openly. Errors are more likely to be spotted and constituents are more likely to feel that justice is being done and being seen to be done. If elected, • We will set up an IRSA Executive Committee blog site. Every quarter or thereabouts, each executive committee portfolio owner (Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Technical, Racing, Events, Infocomms, Classes) will blog about their portfolio matters. • A particular feature of the proposed blog site is to give visibility to likely future matters on the planning horizons of the various EC committees (Technical, Racing, Events, Classes). • We will publish how EC and committee officers vote on the proposals and resolutions which are put before them. We hope you are sympathetic to the CEEFIE manifesto, and ask that you please vote for the CEEFIE candidates. CEEFIE are a determined group of concerned volunteers from a large variety of backgrounds with a common goal of wishing to make a difference in our sport, please help us achieve this by electing the whole group in May. The CEEFIE candidates Chairman Lester Gilbert (GBR) Vice Chairman Eric van der Kindere (BEL) General Secretary / Treasurer Henning Faas (GER) Racing Committee Chairman Nigel Winkley (GER) Technical Committee Chairman Graham Bantock (GBR) Organisation & Policy Committee Chairman Terry Rensch (GBR) Publicity Officer Pedro Egea (ESP) Regional Officer Americas Patrice Montero (FRA) Regional Officer Europe Matteo Longhi (ITA) Regional Officer Oceania Selwyn Holland (AUS)
  16. As election fever engulfs the DNM electors, we thought GBR sailors might be interested in the CEEFIE newsletter to DNM representatives on racing and event rules. Dear IRSA DNM Our sixth e-mail "newsletter" to you (parts will also be posted on-line). It deals with racing rules administration and event rules. We will seek to introduce procedures to yield the kinds of rules that radio sailors want. These will cover the effective management of the four-year cycle of Appendix E changes, as well as racing systems, event management, and competitor eligibility and ranking. We will seek to establish a new Events Committee. Racing rules The Racing Rules Committee will, in consultation with stakeholders, seek to develop and then implement IRSA regulations for managing input into the ISAF four-year cycle of rule changes to Appendix E. The management process will emphasise transparent consultation with all stakeholders and will provide a schedule of actions in each year of the cycle. Event rules The proposed Events Committee will, in consultation with stakeholders, seek to develop and then implement new IRSA regulations for managing changes to and improvement of the IRSA recommended racing system, IRSA SSIs, IRSA Addendum Q, guidelines for event management, competitor eligibility, and will re-draft the Championship Regulations. It is expected that such revised regulations will emphasise transparent consultation with all stakeholders. The Events Committee will, in consultation with stakeholders, seek to propose new IRSA regulations for a Worldwide ranking list of radio sailors. The Events Committee will, in consultation with stakeholders, seek to propose new IRSA guidelines and possibly regulations for an IRSA recommended race scoring software system. The CEEFIE candidates CEEFIE are a determined group of concerned volunteers from a large variety of backgrounds with a common goal of wishing to make a difference in our sport, please help us achieve this by electing the whole group. Chairman: Lester Gilbert (GBR) Vice Chairman: Eric van der Kindere (BEL) General Secretary / Treasurer: Henning Faas (GER) Racing Committee Chairman: Nigel Winkley (GER) Technical Committee Chairman: Graham Bantock (GBR) Organisation & Policy Committee Chairman: Terry Rensch (GBR) Publicity Officer: Pedro Egea (ESP) Regional Officer Americas: Patrice Montero (FRA) Regional Officer Europe: Matteo Longhi (ITA) Regional Officer Oceania: Selwyn Holland (AUS)
  17. As is becoming traditional, we thought GBR sailors might be interested in the CEEFIE newsletter dealing with the IRSA Executive Committee, sent recently to the IRSA Delegated National Members. Dear DNM This is our fifth newsletter to you, setting out our policy intentions for a better IRSA. The topic in this newsletter is our plan for developing the Executive Committee structure. Summary We will review the EC Administration and the EC committees and will make recommendations to bring the EC up to date and make it fit for purpose. While IRSA Membership, the DNMs, will continue to follow the ISAF model of regional membership, we expect that the EC structure will move from regional representation to an EC with a class based representation system. In addition to class committees, we expect to put the right people in the right places for measurement, treasurer, elections, events, and information and communications. Review of governance documents The Chairman will be tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of IRSA Administration (Constitution, Regulations, and Committee and Officer terms of reference) and with making recommendations to bring these up to date and fit for purpose. Measurement committee We will consult on the establishment of a Measurement committee to provide support for IRSA classes. Its purpose would be to develop International Measurers in liaison with ISAF, liaise with ISAF on the Equipment Rules of Sailing as they may affect radio sailing, develop improved and cost-effective measurement for IRSA and other radio classes, develop tools and procedures to support electronic measurement certificates which would be acceptable internationally as well as nationally, and investigate new developments, such as ISAF procedures for In-House Certification of sails. Treasurer The incoming Executive Committee will be tasked with conducting a review of the office of Secretary/Treasurer and delivering recommendations to address the increasingly difficult circumstances surrounding the management of IRSA finances. It is expected that a constitutional position of “Treasurer” will be established. Elections Officer In the run-up to the IRSA EC elections of 2014, we saw an unconstitutional attempt by the IRSA EC to refuse the nomination of a candidate. We saw interference with a free and fair election process by the IRSA EC who issued party political “statements” in the name of the IRSA EC. We saw the abuse of IRSA EC authority in the issuing of “communiques” in the name of the IRSA EC whose contents were entirely party political and quite divorced from the legitimate business of the EC. To reduce the possibility of similar actions in the future, we will seek appropriate constitutional and regulatory changes so that the EC election process is controlled by an independent Elections Officer who is not an interested party to the election. Events, Infocomms Our proposals for committees for Events, and for Infocomms, will be the subjects of our next newsletters. The CEEFIE candidates CEEFIE are a determined group of concerned volunteers from a large variety of backgrounds with a common goal of wishing to make a difference in our sport, please help us achieve this by electing the whole group. Chairman: Lester Gilbert (GBR) Vice Chairman: Eric van der Kindere (BEL) General Secretary / Treasurer: Henning Faas (GER) Racing Committee Chairman: Nigel Winkley (GER) Technical Committee Chairman: Graham Bantock (GBR) Organisation & Policy Committee Chairman: Terry Rensch (GBR) Publicity Officer: Pedro Egea (ESP) Regional Officer Americas: Patrice Montero (FRA) Regional Officer Europe: Matteo Longhi (ITA) Regional Officer Oceania: Selwyn Holland (AUS)
  18. I thought that GBR sailors might be interested in the fourth CEEFIE newsletter we've recently sent to the IRSA DMNs. Dear IRSA DNM, This is our fourth e-mail "newsletter" to you displaying our combined determination to modernise and move the IRSA into a new era that we can all be proud to be a member of. Following are a range of very specific goals in terms of Class Administration we will be looking to implement should you elect our group into the IRSA Executive Committee. Class Administration: A Core Initiative From The CEEFIE Group While IRSA is responsible for the M, 10R, and A, there is no IRSA Executive Committee activity which specifically administers these classes and which specifically promotes them. Therefore, we will seek to establish a committee for each of these classes from the elected Executive Committee which will operate as an international class association. In addition, we will actively seek applications for recognition from other classes which are raced internationally (RG 65, for instance). These IRSA international class associations will not displace any regional or country based association but rather work with them to advance and enhance their class. • Each executive class committee will operate as an international class association, tasked with managing and promoting its class. • Each executive class committee will authorise its World Championships (and any other International events) with Events Committee support and manage its class rules with Technical Committee support. • For each executive class committee, an early task will be to clarify the International status of their class with respect to the requirements laid down in the Regulations. • For the M and 10R Class committees, their class rules will be brought up to date and a number of recent technical issues addressed with Technical Committee support. • For the A Class committee, a long-overdue and substantial rewrite of the class rules in ISAF Standard Class Rules format will be undertaken with Technical Committee support. • We will encourage the formation of independent International class associations for the IRSA classes. • We will seek applications for recognition from other internationally active classes which will find such recognition attractive when they understand how IRSA wishes to grant them autonomy and support them along with rights to hold World and other international championships. • As an early example of being proactive in demonstrating overdue support, the Technical Committee will draft an ISAF Standard Class Rules version of the current RG65 class rules for that class to use should it want to. • As other new classes emerge in the international arena, the IRSA will also cooperate with them to support this growth in whatever way we can. If the IRSA takes a proactive lead in international radio yachting, then we will all grow in a unified way rather than haphazard and neglected. We will sustain the autonomy of IOMICA while providing IRSA support, adhering to the spirit and intent of the original ISAF-RSD / IOMICA Agreement of 2003 that IOMICA shall authorise International events for the IOM. We will re-sign the Agreement that has lapsed since RSD became IRSA. CEEFIE are a determined group of concerned volunteers from a large variety of backgrounds with a common goal of wishing to make a difference in our sport, please help us achieve this by electing the whole group in May. Not to take these initiatives would be to risk the possibility that the IRSA classes will fall even further behind to where they should be. Please let us tidy up this important international association for and with all the radio sailors of the world. This newsletter was completed by Selwyn, Matteo, and Patrice. Any correspondence, questions, points of clarification, or if you just want to chat, feel free to email us. Kind regards Patrice Montero (candidate for Regional Office Americas) patrice@ordiaix.com Matteo Longhi (candidate for Regional Office Europe) matteolonghi@ymail.com Selwyn Holland (candidate for Regional Office Oceania) selwyn.holland@gmail.com The CEEFIE candidates Chairman: Lester Gilbert (GBR) Vice Chairman: Eric van der Kindere (BEL) General Secretary / Treasurer: Henning Faas (GER) Racing Committee Chairman: Nigel Winkley (GER) Technical Committee Chairman: Graham Bantock (GBR) Organisation & Policy Committee Chairman: Terry Rensch (GBR) Publicity Officer: Pedro Egea (ESP) Regional Officer Americas: Patrice Montero (FRA) Regional Officer Europe: Matteo Longhi (ITA) Regional Officer Oceania: Selwyn Holland (AUS)
  19. In case the third CEEFIE newsletter sent to the IRSA DNM electors might be interesting to MYA members... (smile) CEEFIE Newsletter Mid-March 2014 Committee for the Election of an Effective IRSA Executive A newsletter from Graham Bantock and Lester Gilbert regarding the IRSA EC elections. May be distributed, circulated, or forwarded freely. Dear IRSA DNM Our third e-mail "newsletter" to you (parts will also be posted on-line). In this newsletter, Graham expands on his personal statement as a candidate for the Technical Committee Chairman. Introduction I’d like to expand on the brief objectives given in my personal statement written for the International Radio Sailing Association (IRSA) General Assembly page. I’d also like to address some concerns raised regarding commercial interest and personal interest. From a technical point of view The bigger picture Clarity in class rules, measurement, and certification procedures is fundamental to top quality competition whether casual or formal. Where grey areas emerge in class rules a considered response is needed. This should, ideally, take into account the wishes of the owners rather than of the few who speak on their behalf often without any consultation. To expand on this a little. In my experience when class rules are written or re-written they are the best effort of the authors to constrain the builders and designers in a way that creates a class where certain freedoms may be enjoyed but others may not. The authors strive to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity. Because they cannot imagine the ingenuity of the designers/builders they fail to do a perfect job so there will be grey areas where the meaning is not understood consistently by all of the rule users. The normal approach then is for one or more designers/builders/measurers/owners to request an interpretation. The interpretation process requires the relevant body (for the IOM it is the International One Metre International Class Association, IOMICA, for the M, 10R, and A Class it is IRSA) to consider the class rules and make a decision about their meaning. The interpretation has to be ratified by the IRSA EC and is then valid for a period of two years or until the class rules are changed. Interpretations When making an interpretation the technical committee shall consider only what the relevant rules and measurement forms state. They are not required to estimate what the authors of the rule intended or what the owners would prefer. The interpretation has to be ratified by the IRSA EC and is then valid for a period of two years or until the class rules are changed. Often an interpretation simply establishes that the current, common, understanding of the class rules is correct. No change is required or needed. But there are two other scenarios. One is where a feature is found to comply with the class rules but the class owners may prefer it to be prohibited. The second is the opposite case where a feature is found not to comply with the class rule but the class owners may prefer it to be permitted. In either case it would be best, in my view, if the owners themselves, rather than a representative in each country, had the opportunity to vote on the matter. This may be a little while away for IRSA but I am hopeful it will happen. IRSA regulations time limit interpretations to two years and hence all on the IRSA website are invalid. The class rules have to be updated if the effect of those interpretations is not to be lost. The purpose of time limiting interpretations is to ensure that the cause of the interpretation is addressed, i.e. the class rules are changed to make it clear the feature is permitted or is not permitted. Allowing an interpretation to lapse puts the class back to the point it was at before the interpretation was requested. Not such a bad thing if the interpretation was made erroneously but not helpful if it was useful. Rules maintenance The Marblehead and Ten Rater class rules are in need of routine maintenance and the A Class rules, edited by myself and still extant after 20 years, are well overdue for presentation in ISAF Standard Class Rules (SCR) format. It is time to consider the potential role of on-board sensors/computers/servos which might be used to sail the boat more or less automatically. The only input from the sailor might be to point the boat in a given direction. My feeling is that this is not something that should be permitted in mainstream rc sailing. The value of recognizing only the most recent certificate to be valid should be questioned. It seems at least one country positively ignores this rule for its internal use. Is it fair that visitors to that country are not aware of this freedom? As it is not obvious to event organizers how many certificates a boat may have or which is the most recent certificate, how can we be sure sailors from that country comply with the international rule when they compete elsewhere? The certificate for the Ten Rater sail measurement can be modified to help measurers know when they have made an error in their recorded sail dimensions. This will help ensure certificates are correctly completed, that sails do comply with the certificate, and that sailmakers have an easier time making replacement sails. The requirement for alternative sails to fit within the profile of larger sails is an historical one that was not addressed correctly in 1994 due to lack of available time. A better system is required that is clearer to understand and which permits replacement sails to be made that are guaranteed to comply with the certificate. Better for sailmakers and owners alike. The A Class rules, drafted in 1994 and directed by the owners’ association that existed at the time, have not been brought up to ISAF SCR standard. Although the class does not enjoy regular international competition, this move should be a worthwhile investment for the future of the class and help to ensure consistency across the fleets. RG65 class In the same way that IMYRU (now IRSA) took the initiative by formulating an international one metre class in 1988, IRSA can provide an international SCR version of the RG65 class rules that the owners may choose to use. Preferably this would be done with the consent and assistance of the class itself. This would create demand for world and continental championships for the class, welcome in an age where air travel with even an IOM is becoming costly. Foiling class IRSA could also formulate/propose an international class rule for a foiling rc boat. There are a good number of YouTube clips showing amazing performance from foiling rc models. Foiling is firmly established as the new target for many full size classes where that development is permitted. It would seem appropriate to post a class rule for foiling rc boats that has the potential to attract adherents in the future. Interests, personal and commercial My own commercial interest in the sport has been raised as an impediment to doing the technical committee chairman’s job. The commercial interests of any candidate for election to office and any candidate for selection to any IRSA committee shall be declared. No IRSA regulation debars a candidate with a commercial interest from service. Having a ‘personal involvement’, as the IRSA Regulation puts it (which need not be a commercial interest) does debar any member of the technical committee from taking part in any interpretation – IRSA Regulations 6 refers. During the time 1994 to 2002 there were occasions when interpretations on the IOM class rules called into question the compliance of products designed by myself and others. Those interpretations were chaired by Jan Dejmo, the previous TC chairman and then Vice Chairman and I seem to recall they all resulted in those products being ruled as non-permitted. Other designers/builders also fell foul of the same interpretations. The TC should comprise other members who possess the skills required to lead the TC should I find myself in a similar situation. Ensuring suitably qualified candidates are put forward as TC members is something positive that can be done to help. I recall two occasions during that time when the personal interests of EC members dictated the future of class rules against the recommendation of the technical committee:- The first of these was after the GER member proposed that carbon fibre should not be permitted in IOM fin construction. The TC concluded carbon fibre per se could not be prohibited because of the problems associated with testing but the effect of carbon fins could be mitigated by having a minimum fin thickness. This was proposed as a rule change and broadly supported by the members. At that time a significant number of the EC had carbon fins in their IOMs and they voted not to introduce the minimum thickness. The second occasion was when it became necessary to introduce a maximum draught restriction to the Marblehead and Ten Rater classes. The views of the members were sought and their preferences roughly established. It was clear that a draught of around 600 mm maximum was the draught that was preferred by a sizeable majority of respondents with 650 mm being the second preferred maximum. The then chairman of the EC had a boat with a draught of 654 mm. A draught limit of 700 mm was introduced. Personal interest has had an effect on the class rules in the past and this is another reason why I am fully supportive of the concept of a firm link between the owners and the rules governing the classes they sail.
  20. In the recent "IRSA Communique to Members", the IRSA EC notes, "We also find the manner in which the incumbent members of the IRSA Executive Committee are referred in [the CEEFIE newsletter] as rather derogatory and distasteful. There is no need for this type of personal attack on the incumbent IRSA officers in the run up to the General Assembly.” The reference in the CEEFIE newsletter reads, "We do wonder, though, if candidates Fairbank, Rowan, Hobbs, Granich, and Atkinson have respected their own statement of ethical and moral superiority and have accordingly withdrawn from the IRSA EC whenever it discussed the GA 2014 elections." We acknowledge this criticism. We apologise, and accept that we should have instead written, "We do wonder, though, if candidates Messrs Fairbank, Rowan, Hobbs, Granich, and Atkinson have respected their own statement of ethical and moral behaviour and have accordingly withdrawn from the IRSA EC whenever it discussed the GA 2014 elections."
  21. We have sent out our second newsletter to the DNM electors. We hope it might be interesting to GBR sailors. CEEFIE Newsletter Mid-February 2014 Committee for the Election of an Effective IRSA (International Radio Sailing Association) Executive. A newsletter from Graham Bantock and Lester Gilbert regarding the IRSA EC (Executive Committee) elections. May be distributed, circulated, or forwarded freely. Dear IRSA DNM (Delegated National Member) Our second e-mail "newsletter" to you (parts will also be posted on-line). The “executive summary”: • Two new CEEFIE (Committee for the Election of an Effective IRSA Executive) candidates • CEEFIE proposals for transparency include publication of committee agendas (not just decisions) and of officer voting records • CEEFIE proposals for reinvigorating the M (Marblehead), 10R (Ten Rater), and A ("A" Class) include setting up new class committees • Some “by the way” election news Candidates for “Publicity” and for “Regional Officer Europe” Matteo Longhi (ITA) has been nominated by ITA (Italy) as Regional Officer Europe, and Pedro Egea (ESP) has been nominated by ESP (Spain) as Publicity Officer. We welcome both candidates to CEEFIE. Transparency A key CEEFIE manifesto issue for a future IRSA is Transparency, where we will seek to make IRSA and the activities of the EC and the IRSA Committees more public and transparent. One of the challenges of IRSA as an organisation is that its DNM representatives are appointed to their positions through a wide variety of mechanisms at the national level in each of the approximately 30 member countries, and thereafter use an even wider variety of reporting and communicating mechanisms back to their DNM organisation. We intend to learn from the experience and methods of ISAF (International Sailing Federation), who have a similar membership structure and whose MNAs (Member National Authority) are similarly highly varied in how they manage their representation in ISAF. A feature of ISAF is the full and unrestricted access it provides not only to historical committee decisions, but also to the forthcoming resolutions which will be the subject of future committee debate and decision. We think that a way forward for IRSA, the EC, and the EC committees, is to be more public about the various forthcoming proposals and discussions. A second challenge for the IRSA EC is balancing the natural need for in-committee confidential discussion and debate with the need for ensuring that not only is “justice done but justice is seen to be done”. We note that a number of organisations are now publishing the voting records of their officers, and we think that a way forward to increase the transparency of the EC and the various EC committees is to publish how EC and committee officers vote on the proposals and resolutions which are put before them. Meeting these challenges requires a strong input from a new committee which CEEFIE will set up for “Information and Communications”. It is expected that the Publicity Officer will become the Chairman of this new Infocomms committee, and it is for this reason that we are very pleased to have Pedro Egea as our candidate for this task. Pedro has for some years now looked after the information and communication needs of IOMICA (IOM International Class Association) and other national NCAs (National Class Association) and DNMs. Class administration A second key CEEFIE manifesto issue for a future IRSA is Class administration, where we will seek a committee for each class which will operate as an international class association. We think the lack of effective promotion of the IRSA Classes has been a problem for far too long, and we think that a way forward is to set up a separate class association committee for each class. It is well-known that the Marblehead, “A” Class, and Ten Rater have had irregular World Championships and are struggling to reach the popularity they once enjoyed. We expect that class committees, which will operate like international class owners’ associations with all the freedoms and responsibilities that implies, will reinvigorate their classes. By the way… In our previous newsletter, we commented on the unconstitutional attempt by the IRSA EC to refuse the nomination by the MYA (Model Yachting Association, the DNM for GBR) of Graham as Technical Committee Chairman. Graham’s candidature has now been published on the IRSA GA (General Assembly) 2014 Web site, but the IRSA EC continues to interfere with a free and fair election process. It has issued a “statement” alongside the notice of Graham’s candidature, http://www.radiosailing.org/main/administration/general-assembly/GA-2014-main.htm# It is now quite clear that the IRSA EC is wrongfully interfering with the election process. It has refused to provide fair access to the GA 2014 discussions for external candidates; yet internal candidates enjoy such access, and it is self-evident to us that all candidates ought to have access to the elections section of the DNM forum up until the end of voting. It has refused to provide requested indication to the DNM electors about CEEFIE candidate affiliation. It has refused to communicate with candidates. And now with their “statement”, we see a partisan electoral action designed to discredit a candidate and harm Graham’s reputation which has nothing to do with the legitimate business of the IRSA EC. Contrary to the impression given by the IRSA EC “statement”, the regulations in sections 6.2 and 6.3 deal with the interpretation of Class Rules only, and not with the general business of the Technical Committee. The claim that Graham would “regularly find himself having to withdraw from the deliberations of the Technical Committee” because of these regulations is sadly both misleading and disingenuous. And contrary to the claim by the IRSA EC “statement”, regulations 6.2 and 6.3 deal with “personal involvement”, and NOT with a conflict of commercial interest. In a fair and transparent election, the internal candidates should withdraw from having any control of or input to the election process. We are in full agreement with the IRSA EC “statement” that “it should be absolutely clear and transparent that there would be no possibility of any conflict of interest at any time”. We do wonder, though, if candidates Fairbank, Rowan, Hobbs, Granich, and Atkinson have respected their own statement of ethical and moral superiority and have accordingly withdrawn from the IRSA EC whenever it discussed the GA 2014 elections. CEEFIE manifesto In addition to transparency and class administration: Rules administration: We seek to introduce procedures to yield the kinds of rules that radio sailors want, including the effective management of the four-year cycle of Appendix E changes. IRSA EC structure: We seek to move from a regional representation system to a class based representation system, as noted above. We seek to introduce long-needed committees for 'Events' and for 'Information and Communications'.
×
×
  • Create New...