Originally Published 2003 in the Hobie Hotline. 2003

Support Boats are the Keys to Success by Paul Ulibarri, NAHCA Race Director


There has been a great deal of conversation of late regarding the number of mark / safety boats (e.g. support boats) required at a points regatta. There are two concerns regarding this topic, and they are Safety and Availability. AVAILABILITY There are never enough support boats. The reality of the situation is that locating support boats is difficult and time-consuming, and as a result is usually given a low priority in the planning of an event. Often, the event host will go into the event knowing there are barely enough boats to set a start line and to drop marks. The feeling seems to be that once we get the marks in the water, by whatever means, we have a race course and we can continue. Planning is rare for the reality of power boat breakdowns that occur at many events. Often Safety is a secondary consideration. We all appreciate the difficulty of securing support boats. We also realize that more effort is spent in securing T-shirts, trophies, and the social aspects of the event than on support boats. There is some direction from ISAF, the Coast Guard, and most National Authorities on the number of support boats required to run an event. The number is fluid and relates to smaller events rather than major championships. The figure agreed upon by all organizations is one boat for every ten competitors, and in all cases a minimum of three support boats per race area. The standard set by the IHCA, NAHCA is five per event recommended, three required. Why do we need all of these boats? It would seem that a committee could set the course, move to a starting line position and run the event. mark, as well as a rescue boat for every ten competitors and a Signal boat for starts and finishes. The manual also goes on to mention stake boats, patrol boats, VIP boats, media boats, and a bathtub. (Just checking to see if you are paying attention.) There is a real need for a mark boat for every mark. As event organizers, we create a NOR, inviting members to attend our event. We imply by the same that the event will be a quality sailing experience. Our members then make a decision to attend that involves a commitment to the expenditure of time and money. Time often means taking off a Friday or Monday. Money usually means two to five hundred dollars for a family weekend. For this expenditure, a host should be expected to provide a quality racing venue, which means that the courses will be set square, and maintained as conditions change. To do so requires the ability to react quickly, this means mark boats. There can also be the valid expectation of a safety plan...

SAFETY Safety can be addressed in several ways. A knowledgeable race officer who knows when conditions are acceptable is essential. Safety training programs within the fleets are also recommended. Support boats that can implement a safety plan is a basic requirement. In addition, we need boat operators who know how to deal with capsized boats. When the Class mentions a minimum of three boats for safety purposes, it is suggesting that the course be divided into thirds with one boat for each third. Since we seldom have the luxury of mark boats and safety boats, the same three boats must perform both functions. Our normal boat distribution is one boat at the pin end of the line, one at the gate or leeward end, and one at the weather mark. If the boats are anchored, they must have a buoy on the anchor rode which can be tossed, enabling them to release quickly and proceed to their safety patrol area. The weather mark boat should have the upper third of the course, the gate boat the middle section and the pin boat the lower third. With a one-mile beat and considering that catamarans go to lay lines, this means that each safety boat must patrol a 1/3rd square mile area. It is easy to see why a minimum of three boats has been set as the standard. Add to this the need to maintain the course and we end up with three very busy crews.

SECURING BOATS As mentioned at the beginning, finding support boats is not easy. It is necessary. We find that the most successful boat hustlers are those that try for five or six boats, hound the boat owners weekly, work out insurance problems, and make the boat owners a part of the entire social experience. Properly done, the owners have a great time and are all ready set for the following year. Often the owner is a competitor and cannot attend as a support driver. They need to be assured that the person driving their boat is competent and will respect the equipment. If they act as a boat driver, they must be made to feel that they are an intricate part of the event. On the course itself, it is extremely important for the Race Officer to treat these individuals, as well as all volunteers, with a great deal of respect and courtesy.

The subject of liability is as important as the need to provide safety to our friends. We would be devastated if someone were killed at one of our events. Over the years we have become somewhat lax in maintaining the Class safety criteria regarding support boats at local regattas. We have been lucky. We would like to stress the importance of placing a higher priority on support boats for the 2003 season. Have a Hobie day, PU

Bold face are added by me.

Jack - US Sailing forbids the types of waivers you posted. Rule 82 (a US Sailing prescription) does not allow Hold Harmless or Indemnification agreements as a condition of entry.

Matt,

I see that you are correct as usual. I am curious, however, as to why?


-------------
I was on the Legal Committee of US SAILING when this was instituted (and I am not a lawyer). The term "waiver" is somewhat generic. But again in another thread I found it easier to break it down into pieces -

INDEMNITY, INDEMNIFY:
US SAILING found this type of terminology to be, 1. Contrary to public opinion, 2. Dangerous for anyone to sign. Why? You sign one of these and enter an event. A boat flips and skipper and crew are trapped underneath and die. You pack up and go home saddened by this event. Down the line you are served by a process server. What? By agreeing to indemnify an event, you are agreeing to participate in any loss in the event. When the two spouses of the two lost sailors sue the event, you have agreed to defend the event and become part of the lawsuit. You will be there with the insurance company, who may even try to use this indemnity agreement against you and recoup their costs for this event. Can you see why this is bad for public policy? [I would say that an indemnity can be more focused which can be a good thing, but with the indemnity contracts the Legal Committee reviewed, most were so broad that they made the sailors responsible for anything that happened at an event and as a result of this, found it better just to outlaw them all].

HOLD HARMLESS
Depending on how this is worded, it can follow the lines of the same problems as the Indemnity or Indemnify agreement above. As a result, US SAILING likes to see these banned to, to prevent sailors from taking on financial risk that was never their responsibility to begin with.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK
This is a "doctorine" which the lawyers felt did not need to be included in the ban, because it either doesn't get much use, or it hasn't been an effective tool (I forget which). They didn't see the need to include it in the ban as a result.

WAIVER
US SAILING actually doesn't mind the use of Waivers. What these do is simply say if you get injured on your own, you won't come after the club for your problem. Isn't that what you want? Now if the Race Committee boat runs you down, that wasn't an injury you sustained on your own and you would be eligible to collect from the club. Isn't that what you want?

I have simplified things greatly, and I am sure some legal beagles would get very technical with this stuff and pick it to pieces, but these were my general understandings of why these were needed.

INSURANCE
The second part of what they advise is related to what I do. As the clubs have the chance that they could get sued by yours, or your crews injuries, the Regatta Liability insurance is a key piece to their efforts to ban the Indemnity, Hold Harmless and Assuption of Risk agreements as it is very affordable and provides a very good deal at low premiums and protects the clubs from the potential of lawsuits from these injuries.
http://www.david-agency.com/signal/index.htm

So the idea is, make the sport financially safe for competitors, and make it safe financially for the clubs as well.

Thanks Glenn, well written.

For anyone who's really bored... the RM page on US SAILING's website has a link to this (their attempt at layman's terms):

http://www.ussailing.org/rules/documents/indemnitywaiverclauses.pdf

Mike

Glenn,

Thanks for the informative response. That answers a lot of questions.

Mike,

Thanks for posting that link. I wouldn't describe it as 'reading for the bored'. For those who organize events I think it has good guidance on the form of words to use for waivers on entry forms - as well as why an organizer should avoid hold harmless and indemnification clauses. I'll certainly be using it to review event entry forms in our region.

Chris.

Chris

If you pull those together could you post a consensus statement.

It seems silly to reinvent this language from event to event. The wisdom behind the language gets lost pretty quickly.

Thanks
Mark

Hey Chris,

Obviously, there are some of us here that like reading that stuff. Well, not me really, but it was helpful.

Using that link helped when we rewrote the waiver on the HCA membership form this year (thanks Matt).

Mike