30 Dec 2006 17:15:09
David Biddulph
SARA EGM result

From http://www.scottish-rowing.org.uk/News.html:

"30 December

SARA EGM: At today's EGM there was, as intended, a lengthy debate around a
number of issues relating to buoyancy, in particular regarding the final
sentence of the existing code which relates to the buoyancy requirements for
older boats.
After some discussion, the meeting agreed in principle with the existing
Water Safety Code and voted unanimously to retain the first two sentences of
the existing code but to amend the final sentence.
The Water Safety Code will therefore be updated from Monday 1st January 2007
to read:
"Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the FISA
Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:
A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the design
weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seating in the rowing
position, should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5cm
below the static waterline.
Clubs shall take reasonable measures to ensure all other shells shall have
similar buoyancy."
From an umpiring perspective, this has implications when acting on Control
Commission duties. The SARA Umpires' Commission issued the following
guidelines in May 2006, which were unanimously endorsed by the meeting. "It
will no longer be acceptable to have the space below the seats completely
open - umpires will look to see that some attempt has been made to achieve
additional buoyancy e.g. compartmentalisation or securely fitted buoyancy
bags".
For clubs who have not yet retrofitted their shells, advice is available
from a number of clubs and companies - contact the Executive for further
information."
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/




30 Dec 2006 12:20:28
Charles Carroll
Re: SARA EGM result



David,

Sorry to be such a nuisance but residing on the other side of the pond I am
not sure I understand what happened. Could you translate?

Cordially,

Charles




30 Dec 2006 20:30:14
David Biddulph
Re: SARA EGM result

"Charles Carroll" <charles_carroll@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:zfydnUMVEPOPVAvYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> David,
>
> Sorry to be such a nuisance but residing on the other side of the pond I
> am
> not sure I understand what happened. Could you translate?

As I read it, the EGM decided to retain the wording that said:

"Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the FISA
Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:
A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the design
weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seating in the rowing
position, should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5cm
below the static waterline."

The proposal to be debated at the EGM had been:
Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007
-insert:- "must show on their production plaque
whether the boat meets"
-delete:- "shall meet"
...
which would have made their wording similar to FISA's wording at bye-law
1.11 to rule 31 at http://www.worldrowing.com/medias/docs/media_350586.pdf

There was also a proposal:
-delete:- "All other shells shall be required to
have similar buoyancy below each
seat by 1st January 2007 with
compartmentalised buoyancy at each
seat being retrofitted if necessary."
and in this case they changed the wording to:
"Clubs shall take reasonable measures to ensure all other shells shall have
similar buoyancy."
with the additional guidance as follows:
From an umpiring perspective, this has implications when acting on Control
Commission duties. The SARA Umpires' Commission issued the following
guidelines in May 2006, which were unanimously endorsed by the meeting. "It
will no longer be acceptable to have the space below the seats completely
open - umpires will look to see that some attempt has been made to achieve
additional buoyancy e.g. compartmentalisation or securely fitted buoyancy
bags".
For clubs who have not yet retrofitted their shells, advice is available
from a number of clubs and companies - contact the Executive for further
information.

SARA should be congratulated on their efforts. I am not aware of any other
national federation which has introduced rules as strong as this, but I'm
sure that all rsr readers would be grateful to hear what the situation is in
the various federations around the world.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/




30 Dec 2006 13:12:34
Re: SARA EGM result


David Biddulph wrote:

> SARA should be congratulated on their efforts. I am not aware of any other
> national federation which has introduced rules as strong as this, but I'm
> sure that all rsr readers would be grateful to hear what the situation is in
> the various federations around the world.

Thank you David, for taking the time to circulate the outcome of the
meeting. As I expected, it made a bit of a nonsense of some earlier
comments posted recently. In all my dealings with the Scottish ARA, I
have never experienced anything other than good practice, common sense
and a genuine willingness to make the sport as safe as it can be.

It is a fact that I see more situations south of the Scottish border
rather than north, that can, and have, led to loss of life and injury
and this is in great part due to the efforts of the Scottish ARA, SARA
Club officials, Umpires and others who have safety at the foremost of
their minds.

Ken Hastie
Group Owner
NE Rowing Yahoogroup



30 Dec 2006 13:19:38
Charles Carroll
Re: SARA EGM result

David,

As I read it, "shall meet" means boats must meet FISA Guidelines. I take it
this is a victory for those who advocate full buoyancy?

Cordially,

Charles




30 Dec 2006 14:04:54
steveh
Re: SARA EGM result


Charles Carroll wrote:
> David,
>
> As I read it, "shall meet" means boats must meet FISA Guidelines. I take it
> this is a victory for those who advocate full buoyancy?
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles

As i read this that is not the case. As I read it what the SARA clubs
have agreed to is that any boats use for racing where there is normaly
good safety cover boats .must be buoyant whilst boats that are use just
at the clubs where there is normaly less safety cover need not be
buoyant.?

Steve



30 Dec 2006 23:01:59
Richard Packer
Re: SARA EGM result

On 30 Dec 2006 14:04:54 -0800, "steveh" <stephenhitchen2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>As i read this that is not the case. As I read it what the SARA clubs
>have agreed to is that any boats use for racing where there is normaly
>good safety cover boats .must be buoyant whilst boats that are use just
>at the clubs where there is normaly less safety cover need not be
>buoyant.?

I think you've misread it then. This appears to be the wording SARA
have agreed on, and it says nothing about any differences between
competition and training or any other activity.

"Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the
FISA
Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:
A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the
design
weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seating in the rowing
position, should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of
5cm
below the static waterline.
Clubs shall take reasonable measures to ensure all other shells shall
have
similar buoyancy."


30 Dec 2006 15:31:53
steveh
Re: SARA EGM result


Richard Packer wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 14:04:54 -0800, "steveh" <stephenhitchen2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >As i read this that is not the case. As I read it what the SARA clubs
> >have agreed to is that any boats use for racing where there is normaly
> >good safety cover boats .must be buoyant whilst boats that are use just
> >at the clubs where there is normaly less safety cover need not be
> >buoyant.?
>
> I think you've misread it then. This appears to be the wording SARA
> have agreed on, and it says nothing about any differences between
> competition and training or any other activity.
>
> "Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the
> FISA
> Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:
> A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the
> design
> weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seating in the rowing
> position, should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of
> 5cm
> below the static waterline.
> Clubs shall take reasonable measures to ensure all other shells shall
> have
> similar buoyancy."

Richard

You may well be right & I may well be being spliting hairs but why
change the origanal text which was a requirement to a guideline.

Steve



30 Dec 2006 23:39:16
David Biddulph
Re: SARA EGM result

"steveh" <stephenhitchen2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1167521513.874543.91890@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Packer wrote:
>> On 30 Dec 2006 14:04:54 -0800, "steveh" <stephenhitchen2002@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >As i read this that is not the case. As I read it what the SARA clubs
>> >have agreed to is that any boats use for racing where there is normaly
>> >good safety cover boats .must be buoyant whilst boats that are use just
>> >at the clubs where there is normaly less safety cover need not be
>> >buoyant.?
>>
>> I think you've misread it then. This appears to be the wording SARA
>> have agreed on, and it says nothing about any differences between
>> competition and training or any other activity.
>>
>> "Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the
>> FISA
>> Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:
>> A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the
>> design
>> weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seating in the rowing
>> position, should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of
>> 5cm
>> below the static waterline.
>> Clubs shall take reasonable measures to ensure all other shells shall
>> have
>> similar buoyancy."
>
> Richard
>
> You may well be right & I may well be being spliting hairs but why
> change the origanal text which was a requirement to a guideline.

What is the original text to which you refer, Steve?

As I understand it, the resolution passed by SARA in 2005 was as follows:

" The Water Safety Code be updated to include the following:
Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the
FISA Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:

"A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the
design weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seated in the rowing
position should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5cm
below the static waterline."

All other shells shall be required to have similar buoyancy below each
seat by 1st January 2007 with compartmentalised buoyancy at each seat being
retrofitted if necessary."
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/




30 Dec 2006 15:47:41
bookie
Re: SARA EGM result


> Richard
>
> You may well be right & I may well be being spliting hairs but why
> change the origanal text which was a requirement to a guideline.
>
because it allows people to continue to not bother doing anything abuot
boat buoyancy if they want; a requirement would mean they would HAVE to
do make the changes to conform a guideline is just that and does not
require or impel anyone to conform. If someone does not conform they
will just look a bit bad for not conforming but they are not breaking
any rules as such and so won't be thrown out of the organisation of
which they are members and which have set out these 'guidelines',
whereas if they did not conform to 'requirements' then they could be
kicked out.

or that is how i see it anyway.



31 Dec 2006 17:26:02
Carl
Re: SARA EGM result

bookie wrote:
>>Richard
>>
>>You may well be right & I may well be being spliting hairs but why
>>change the origanal text which was a requirement to a guideline.
>>
>
> because it allows people to continue to not bother doing anything abuot
> boat buoyancy if they want; a requirement would mean they would HAVE to
> do make the changes to conform a guideline is just that and does not
> require or impel anyone to conform. If someone does not conform they
> will just look a bit bad for not conforming but they are not breaking
> any rules as such and so won't be thrown out of the organisation of
> which they are members and which have set out these 'guidelines',
> whereas if they did not conform to 'requirements' then they could be
> kicked out.
>
> or that is how i see it anyway.
>

I agree: why change the original rule in any way? It was clear. It was
unequivocal. No room for argument or doubt.

However, having read & re-read the amended version (until I had spots
before my eyes), it does not seem so bad to me.

The Devil lies always in the detail. The revised final paragraph is
clumsy, but its requirement that "reasonable measures" be taken by clubs
to modify existing boats "to ensure all other shells shall have similar
buoyancy" seems open to very little dispute.

I would think that a court - given what has been so widely published &
discussed (including the South Manchester Coroner's verdict) & may thus
be taken as common knowledge on the vulnerability of crews of so many
present shells to the dangers of swamping-induced sinking, & given the
known ease of rendering those shells fully buoyant - would only read the
intention to be that existing boats should match or exceed the FISA
guidelines. And "reasonable measures" would describe conversion methods
already proposed &, in some cases, already applied to render shells
fully buoyant. It would, of course, be most helpful for the SARA
executive promptly to confirm their interpretation of the rule, to
forestall queries from clubs & lawyers.

It might have been helpful in to all had a clause been inserted to
provide a set period of grace (say until 1 April 2007?) for clubs to
make up lost ground in converting their boats to full buoyancy for the
coming season.

It would have been invaluable had SARA already published links to those
sources of information on buoyancy conversion to which its website
statement says it possesses. I trust SARA will make this information
available without delay?

If I am right, then it appears that Scotland will indeed lead the way on
fully-buoyant shells. This gives the strongest possible support to NE
Region's own decision to go fully-buoyant. And it neatly rolls the ball
back into the court of the ARA & its other regions.

So I congratulate all who attended that meeting - members & executive
alike - on jointly achieving this positive outcome. There could hardly
be a better way to mark the 6th anniversary of Leo Blockley's death, &
of the campaign which bears his name, than the swift implementation of
full shell buoyancy in Scotland.

3 Cheers - and a very Happy New Year to all!
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: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)


31 Dec 2006 21:54:20
David Biddulph
Re: SARA EGM result

"Richard Packer" <usenet@rjSURNAME.org.yookay > wrote in message
news:esrdp2d5rbdfkm5tt7uqtvf2tjlomnilgg@4ax.com...
> On 30 Dec 2006 14:04:54 -0800, "steveh" <stephenhitchen2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>As i read this that is not the case. As I read it what the SARA clubs
>>have agreed to is that any boats use for racing where there is normaly
>>good safety cover boats .must be buoyant whilst boats that are use just
>>at the clubs where there is normaly less safety cover need not be
>>buoyant.?
>
> I think you've misread it then. This appears to be the wording SARA
> have agreed on, and it says nothing about any differences between
> competition and training or any other activity.
>
> "Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the
> FISA
> Guidelines for Minimum Flotation:
> A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the
> design
> weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seating in the rowing
> position, should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of
> 5cm
> below the static waterline.
> Clubs shall take reasonable measures to ensure all other shells shall
> have
> similar buoyancy."

The SARA website has added further clarification:
"N.B. Clubs should note that the Water Safety Code applies to racing AND
training. Any boats which do not comply with the buoyancy requirements
should not be used until they have been retrofitted."
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/




02 Jan 2007 01:51:19
coach
Re: SARA EGM result




> The SARA website has added further clarification:
> "N.B. Clubs should note that the Water Safety Code applies to racing AND
> training. Any boats which do not comply with the buoyancy requirements
> should not be used until they have been retrofitted."


The FISA World U23 Champs are in Scotland this summer. I would be
interested to see if the FISA officials fully impliment the rules
themselves.

At Dorney last summer, I understand that there was some conflict during
the training week between the UK requirement that Life Jackets be worn
by coxes and the FISA requirements. During the racing week FISA rules
applied, but not during the training week.



02 Jan 2007 02:21:39
c.anton@blueyonder.co.uk
Re: SARA EGM result


coach wrote:
>
> At Dorney last summer, I understand that there was some conflict during
> the training week between the UK requirement that Life Jackets be worn
> by coxes and the FISA requirements. During the racing week FISA rules
> applied, but not during the training week.

But I did see British coxes wearing life-jackets during racing. It will
of course be interesting to find out if the ARA's water safety
committee takes a view now that the situation north of the border has
changed. There is an ARA council meeting on 10th February. Some Div
reps will have changed since yesterday. The complete list can be
obtained from the ARA's site. if you have views let them know.