Fleet check-in idea

[tiger beetle]

I read through the TransPac 2009 (full crew transpac out of Los Angeles), and rather like what they are doing with daily checkins within the fleet:

http://www.transpacrace.com/docs/2009racedocs/TPYC2009_SI.pdf

8AM SSB check-in across the fleet with dedicated communications yacht Alaska Eagle (ex-Flyer) to provide your 6AM position, and the interesting wrinkle is that Alaska Eagle will also accept positions received via email from the racers (e.g., email sent from the racer to the comm boat).

This might help our racing comm boat out as well, as it provides an additional path to the comm boat (redundancy) that does not appear to increase unduly the work of the comm boat.

A downside is that the positions are 2 hours old (not 30 minutes old), and the time required by the comm boat to establish an email connection via SSB & sailmail/winlink. I do not know if Iridium email is quicker to establish than SSB (I have not used Iridium email).

The LA TransPac is requiring SSB radios and you need to be in on the roll call in case local weather conditions are requested by the comm boat. This also means that there is a feedback loop for emailed positions: if Alaska Eagle reads out your emailed position over the radio then you know the email was received; if Alaska Eagle asks for your position then you know the email did not get through in time.

We've tried having racers telephone the comm boat via sat phone directly (that did not work too well), and route positions through the RC and back to the comm boat (that was a lot of extra hassle and headache). It strikes me that emailing data directly to the comm boat has good upside potential with minimal additional effort on the part of RC and the comm boat.

We would require SSB for check-in, and in addition allow competitors to email the position data in advance. This does require that the comm boat have email capability and if the email fails to get through it's no big deal. It also allows a competitor that has an iridium/email gateway setup on board to continue checking in even if the SSB radio goes down (that's the redundancy part).

What do people think? I think it's an interesting idea.

- rob/beetle

 

[Alchera]

I think this is OK if you have a dedicated comm boat, or even a crewed one. But I think that gathering all the emails could be pretty time consuming for a singlehander. That's why during the last SSS TransPac we permitted emails to the race committee, and left it up to the RC to consolidate all the emails and put them together for the comm boat.

I could see how if you had a dedicated comm boat, getting the positions ahead of time before checkin could save time, since all you would have to do in that case is read out the positions.

- Mark

 

[Velocious]

I am in the no SSB required camp, but if a check in is required and will incur a penalty there MUST be an alternate back up means of check in. In 04, my SSB worked great until it took a bath the first day out and never transmitted thereafter. I would have been mighty unhappy if I couldn't check in with the Sat Phone as back-up. I have had really bad luck with SSB, and I don't feel they are super reliable on little ultralight boats that are REALLY WET. As an aside, they really strain the electron budget for boats running solar only, and I would have had a hard time near the end of the race if it had been working. I realize this is part of the eternal battle and it feels much like the arguments over abortion, immigration and taxes that play out in our government. There is no middle ground: One side believes you must have an SSB or the world will come to an end and the other side believes that the SSB is the portent to the end of the world. Personally, I understand that it can make the race more fun for some people so they can chat at cocktail hour. I also see that it can be a boon to safety, although I believe we overregulate that aspect of our sport. IMHO, it should be a choice, not a requirement. If its required then provide redundency so it is not as burdensome. I would be happy to rent a tracking unit for $1000 rather than spend $2500 on the SSB, tuner, copper, installation etc only to have it fail on me again. (I really hate those damn things) George

 

[BobJ]

As written elsewhere, it appears check-ins via SSB will be required (Update: Strongly encouraged but not required) for the 2010 SHTP. However if a boat has a SSB installed and has been making check-ins with it, and then it craps out, I see no reason why another form of check-in couldn't be allowed solely as a backup.

Without a dedicated (non-racing) communication boat to handle e-mails, sat-phone calls, carrier-pigeon drops and all manner of other communication from the fleet, there needs to be a standard (IMO). Any alternative to that standard should be allowed in very limited circumstances.

From the skipper's perspective, each of us makes a huge commitment of time, money, and in some cases family harmony, etc. to do the SHTP. It is also a race and most of us are pretty competitive. To put our entire effort at risk (via time penalties) because one piece of gear breaks down is asking a lot - perhaps too much.

 

[Alchera]

To put our entire effort at risk (via time penalties) because one piece of gear breaks down is asking a lot - perhaps too much.

I agree, though perhaps during the boat inspection the skipper should be required to demonstrate the use of the SSB - too many skippers obviously have not adequately tested or used the SSB prior to the race and then we find out that it doesn't work or that they don't know how to switch channels!

As for the backup method of checkin, I'm still in favor of the method used in the last SHTP, whereby a skipper could check in by having an email sent (by any means possible) to the RC.

- Mark

 

[BobJ]

Yes, that's why they need to have been making check-ins with their SSB before it craps out.

Since it is hopefully only one boat having to use a backup means, it would be better for the comm boat to have their positions (vs. the RC) so they can be passed on to the fleet at every check-in. Nobody should be allowed to drop into stealth mode because "oops, my SSB won't work . . ."

As I recall we often didn't get the sat-phone boats' positions during the '08 race.

 

[Alchera]

Yes, that's why they need to have been making check-ins with their SSB before it craps out.

Since it is hopefully only one boat having to use a backup means, it would be better for the comm boat to have their positions (vs. the RC) so they can be passed on to the fleet at every check-in. Nobody should be allowed to drop into stealth mode because "oops, my SSB won't work . . ."

As I recall we often didn't get the sat-phone boats' positions during the '08 race.

As I remember it, the main problem we had with getting the satphone boat positions back to the fleet was that we didn't have a shoreside person assigned responsibility to consolidate email positions until the very last moment, and that didn't seem to work all that well at times. I don't think it was a problem with the boats so much. We could probably improve on the process with a little focus and prior planning and commitment on the shore side.

- Mark

 

[Ergo]

I'm really glad this is getting discussed now rather than a month before the next race. For what it's worth, the missing link in this discussion is the race chair who should have a major say in any decision regarding the race. It's fine to point out what may be possible with more shoreside support but, at this point, I have no idea where that shoreside support is going to come from.

I have asked a few SHTP vets (I believe it should be someone who has done the race) if they were interested in chairing the next race - no takers. I'd like to get the 2012 race documents posted as soon as the LongPac is completed. Ragtime has done a great job in putting together a first draft but, again, It would be best to have the race chair involved in trashing out the details.

In past years, the chairs and committees have done amazing jobs and we've had really great races. It seems, however, that technology, CG race permit requirements, a committment to make each succeeding race better than the last one, etc. make this a much more difficult exercise than the '78 race in which skippers took their own times, anchored and swam ashore to a bar to tell folks they'd finished. Part of what is needed for another great SHTP in 2012 is for someone to step up and help make it happen.

"Where are you: the world wonders" Message sent by Admiral Chester Nimitz to Bull Halsey, circa 1942.

 

[Ergo]

While I would like to get the 2012 race docs in hand, I suppose we should really get the 2010 docs done first. I'm looking for a new boat for 2012 and I guess that's become the "next" race in my head.

Bill Merrick

 

[solosailor]

Backwards

Here we go again. We have done this many times.... why are we going to make the SSB the sole means of checking in?


See update - SSB's are strongly encouraged but not required.

 

[BobJ]

Read the next sentence Greg.

 

[Sparky]

Alchera

"I agree, though perhaps during the boat inspection the skipper should be required to demonstrate the use of the SSB - too many skippers obviously have not adequately tested or used the SSB prior to the race and then we find out that it doesn't work or that they don't know how to switch channels!"

Prior to last year's SHTP, someone set up SSB practice sessions that were very helpful...especially for a first-timer.

 

[tiger beetle]

While I would like to get the 2012 race docs in hand, I suppose we should really get the 2010 docs done first. I'm looking for a new boat for 2012 and I guess that's become the "next" race in my head.

Bill Merrick

How about having a meeting for the TransPac 2010 rules, similiar to what we did for the LongPac required equipment at Synthia's sail loft? I do not believe that the club needs to wait for a TransPac chair in order to publish the race rules, equipment requirements, etc.

- rob

 

[BobJ]

I'd be open to that. In fact, to make this process more open I'll elaborate:

I have quite a few hours into the 2010 drafts, although substantive changes from 2008's rules are minor. With subsequent input from my informal polls on this board and comments I've received, I'd like to do one more edit and then I could send drafts out to the group (a morph'd LongPac safety committee?).

One comparison I made was to the 2002 rules (which Rob drafted). The only major change since then was the addition of storm sails, which really paid off in the 2004 race. I was pleasantly surprised how little has actually been added since 2002.

I'd especially welcome Rob's and Mark's input to close the loop on the communications/SSB/Roll-Call issue, which I believe comes down to how much burden we want to place on the volunteer comm boat(s). I think you two guys have the recent experience and technical knowledge to make good decisions on this thorny issue.

Anyway, I am not trying to be the R/C but for the benefit of those planning to race to Kauai in 2010, I really want to see the rules finished and published. I think it is up to the SSS board how they want to proceed though.

Frankly the NOR is the bigger issue at this moment. If you publish a NOR you need to be prepared to put on a race.

 

[Ergo]

With the 2009 LP behind us I'm all for moving ahead with the 2010 TP docs with the exception of the NOR. When Bob is finished with his next draft, we'll set a date.

Bill Merrick

 

[brianb]

SSB check ins - alternate approach

Hello All,

Suppose an outside station, on a shore line somewhere or several shorelines could communicate well with the racers via SSB. Would a check in with a network of shore stations be appealing/acceptable to SHTP racers ?

Brian

 

[BobJ]

It's appealing since it may not burden one of the racers with Comm Boat duties.

However, my recollection is that attempts to get a consistent signal to a shore station on either end of the course via SSB have not been successful. Yet in the two races I've done, nearly every boat made every SSB check-in with a Comm Boat out on the course. It seems there are too many sources of interference for a shore station, plus the quality of SSB signals varies so much within the fleet, especially as the boats get spread out.

 

[brianb]

Alternate check in method

There is a network today that works very well, nightly, over the exact same region. It is known as the seafarers net. They do a nightly roll call of vessels scattered across the pacific. They are quite successful at it. They have contribution stations on shore in California, Fiji, Hawaii, Australia, South America, and New Zealand. The net is run from Fiji most evenings.

http://www.pangolin.co.nz/yotreps/pacseanet.php
See their nightly roll call

You could get around any "weak" signals as you do today. You have those that can copy on the water relay those positions.

The way this would work. Early in the race you would be speaking to a Hawaii station or Fijian station, or possibly a Washington station. Middle course region, probably Hawaii or Fiji, or possibly Washington. End course region probably California or Fiji. With a network of station copying signals and capturing position data your not likely to miss anything.

 

[BobJ]

Thanks Brian, we'll stir that into the pot.
__________________________________

(Fluxgate problems seem to be solved - 2 degrees of deviation on one and 6 degrees on the other, before automatic correction. I can live with that.

Now I can switch A/P's "on the fly." The only part that's not redundant is the tiller itself (and presently the electrical source).

All dressed up and nowhere to go

 

[brianb]

flux gate

So wanted to tell you my experience in long pac with RayM ST5000 control head. In short, precisely the same symptoms you described to me. An offset of up to 40 deg would develop. Twice the AP went nuts.

Here is my theory:

These problems would always develop at night in foggy/damp condx where water would condense on the control head (and everything else on deck). Like clock work, it would fail around 1 am.

A fluxgate compass has to make some very sensitive measurements of analog voltage levels that come back from the fluxgate module. Moisture can be wicked into fiber glass panels via the fibers. Or condensation can occur on the surface of circuit boards. Both can cause a drop in resistance on/in the board between electrical connections. (I used to design precision instruments at Hewlett Packard).

The AP would start functioning again after I would set thecontrol head in the sun ( had to do this two days in a row) for about an hour.

I am certain the RM AP's are not properly designed for moisture. The boards are absorbing moisture and can take on a permanent offset or fail all together. I plan to take my RM unit apart and dry all elements then isolate the sensitive nodes with teflon offsets and see what happens.

bb