Talk:Unassisted sailing

Original research

The claim has been made this article contains original research. I have added a link to the WSSC rules document which spells out what is and is not included as "unassisted" - see rule 21h. It is fairly common knowledge that modern sailors who are attempting sponsored record voyages are often supported by considerable electronic and communication resources and are in more or less constant communication with a team of advisors at a base station. Such a level of assistance was a fraction of the current level when, for example, Kay Cottee made her voyage. I will try and add links to newspaper articles which document the level of assistance given to some modern sailors attempting records. Andreclos (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OR tag 9th May 2010

Just placing an Original Research tag doesn't help at all. WP:RESPTAG guidelines say that:

If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should really leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even if the reason seems plainly obvious to you.

— WP:RESPTAG

If no explanation is offered within a week I will remove the tag. Andreclos (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right - however, sometimes it takes more than a few minutes to write the explanation here. :)

With respect, I think that is an organisational deficiency, not a question of waiting a few minutes. If you think something is deficient then it makes sense to compose a short statement why, and post that AND the tag at the same time. Other readers can only see the tag with no explanation, and they do not know whether you are going to post an explanation or go to the beach. Even if the explanation is "I will post details shortly", the reader is not left in a void. Andreclos (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it seems that much of the "In practice" section is synthesis or OR. As some specific examples:

• The claim that the boat can be remotely controlled isn't supported by the sources: one source states that a remote control is available, but that is to be used while onboard the boat, not from onshore. So I'm assuming that the claim that it can be remotely controlled from elsewhere is based on extending that technology to a (hypothetical?) situation where someone on land can control a boat at sea, and that feels like OR.

See reply in next section Andreclos (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, the claim that the sailor may not have to contribute anything at all to the vessel's management seems very strong, and is currently unsourced: perhaps there is a source, but my first thought was that it was an assumption drawn from the capability of the technology. Personally, I'd be surprised if it was the case. Generally there is a lot of physical work that would need to be carried out, and I'm uncertain that even the best equipment currently available would mean that all decision making could occur onshore or automatically.

See reply in next section Andreclos (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether having remote advisers circumvents the rules. Given the rules as they stand, the claim seems incorrect.

The rule says no remote control, but it is patently obvious that you can get around this by having a skilled sailor at a base station tell the remote sailor exactly what to do. Thie doesn't break the rules but gets around the restriction. I have reworded the sentence for those who think circumvention is too strong a word. Andreclos (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I disagree with you here. Having the ability to request advice isn't the same thing as being remotely controlled: the sailor on board is still doing the work, and has to rely on their ability to perform the tasks. Certainly it is easier if you have the ability to ask for advice, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not doing anything, and extending this to say that the boat is under remote control is a bit of a jump. - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the article is a good idea, and using the WSSRC rules makes a lot of sense. I just think we need to be cautious about making comparisons between modern and older voyages, and drawing conclusions from the new technology. - Bilby (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference between old and new technology and voyages is just so obvious that a "reasonable person" (legal concept) can easily see it. If that is the case then we are entitled to spell it out for those who can't work it out.

It is patently obvious that solo sailing as done by Joshua Slocum and Francis Chichester was vastly more difficult and dangerous than modern voyages. These days the solo sailor has excellent communications, and information from radar about near objects and weather that might pose a danger. They can be warned about weather patterns several days away and steer around it. And if they do get shipwrecked, no problem, just press a button and wait for the airforce. The amount of assistance provided by technology and remote advice makes it completely absurd to say current solo sailors are "unassisted" when compared with the original solo sailors. How on earth can a reasonable person fail to see this absurdity? And if that is the case then we should make this plain so people get some actual information out of Wikipedia, not dumbed down platitudes that hide the truth. Andreclos (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that what Slocum and Chichester managed was far more impressive than doing the same feats today. But I don't really see a problem with that: both can be (and are) greatly respected for what they did, and their achievements aren't devalued by people who completed later circumnavigations. But we're not comparing unassisted sailing with them, as neither completed an unassisted voyage - that wasn't until Robin Knox-Johnston in '68. And when it comes to assistance, for half of the voyage Knox-Johnston had self steering, and he would have had marine radio and various other pieces of safety equipment. In addition, for his second unassisted circumnavigation, in 2007, he completed the trip with all the modern equipment. This doesn't devalue his achievement, either: it just means that there's not simple distinction between "no help, all danger", and "lots of help, no danger" - there are lots of states in between.

As an aside, you seem to have a lot of confidence in an EPIRB. :) Personally, I'm not so confident. It assumes that I can get to it in time, trigger it, that help can make it to where I am in time, and that when it arrives the weather is calm enough for a rescue. Tony Bullimore had to wait five days, and that was with the Australian Navy not too far off. Generally, when people talk about how modern equipment makes blue water sailing safe, I tend to remember the 1998 Sydney to Hobart, which always, sadly, puts things into perspective for me. - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sydney to Hobart was ocean racing where they quite deliberately limited their options - a very different situation. Solo sailors have a great deal more scope to steer around bad weather. Bullimore is not a good example for how dangerous it is, he is a good example for how safe it is, because even over 2000km from land in the depths of the Southern Ocean in a capsized dismasted yacht, he still survived in a relatively good degree of health - no significant injuries or health impairment. Take away the assistance of the EPIRB and he would have been a dead duck. Andreclos (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a dead duck, but not certainly. Consider Steven Callahan too. (SEC (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Supported statements

I restored the fact tag inserted by Bilby regarding remote control. The cited advertisement is about standing at the dock and using a remote control to motor and bow-thrust your boat into the dock. It is not comparable to remote control of a passage-making sailboat under sail. (SEC (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

This entire statement, "it is now feasible for an 'unassisted' sailor to contribute nothing at all to the management of the vessel, and for the vessel to be completely remotely controlled" is in direct contradiction of the definition shown here, the cited rules of WSSRC, which state "there must be no physical remote control". It should be removed from the article unless directly relevent reliable sources are cited. (SEC (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

We live in an age when a military person sitting in an army barracks in the US can fly a drone in Pakistan and fire missiles. This is done routinely and is regularly in the news, it is a matter of fact. It is an entirely reasonable inference that yachts can also be remotely controlled. It is also an entirely reasonable inference that almost all the skill can be supplied from a base station. Why do you want to hide this? Andreclos (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you are inferring it. That's where we run into OR. As far as I know, there aren't any remote control ocean-going sailing boats, and I'd be inclined to guess that it would be exceedingly difficult to make one. However, it's probably a bit of a strawman: the definition of unassisted circumnavigations means that these are irrelevant anyway, as even if one did exist it wouldn't be permitted. Thus I'm not sure that the possibility needs to be raised at all. - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You say I am inferring it, I say any reasonable person with the facts could infer it. I can see I am not going to win this one thought. Andreclos (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of Safety section

I changed the title of "Safety" to "Dangers reduced by EPIRBs". This is not an ideal title but better than safety. The whole point about that section is that the level of personal danger to the modern solo sailor is vastly less than that of the original solo sailors. Bullimore and Autissier were excellent cases in point. If you get shipwrecked in the Southern Ocean 2000 km from land, no problem, just press a button. Slocum and Chichester had to either make their own way back or die unless they were fortunate enough to get shipwrecked in a shipping lane. This reduction in danger makes it a lot easier for people these days to choose to be solo sailors and to complete the voyage, or in the case of Bullimore and Autissier, push the boundaries of where a solo sailor can sail and survive. Again, it makes the term "unassisted" absurd when comparing modern with past solo sailors, and I think the reader should have this presented to them. Calling it "Safety" just seeks to hide the point. Andreclos (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with changing the title, although if we extend that section to talk about other safety equipment then it might not work so well. I'm not sure that it is hiding anything, though, and per above I think you are overestimating the value of an EPIRB - I wouldn't sail without one, of course, but they don't guarantee that I'll survive. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is not what safety equipment solo sailors might use - I think that belongs elsewhere. The relevant point here is the degree to which dangers are reduced. I believe if you look at the stats of emergency situations with EPIRBs it could be shown that your chances of survival once your vessel becomes unseaworthy are very much higher than without it. Radio helps, but without a beacon to guide rescue craft it can be impossible to find small vessels. I may be wrong, but with a solo sailor not close to shore whose vessel becomes unseaworthy, I would say the probability of survival goes from something like 10% to over 90% if an EPIRB is used. This is not trivial. Andreclos (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "Unassisted"

It occurs to me that most of the disagreement about this article stems from confusion about the term "unassisted". It might help if you ask yourself the question:

Are modern "unassisted" solo sailors really unassisted when compared with the likes of Joshua Slocum?

If the answer is no, then we should explain why this is so, that the term "unassisted" has purely a narrow technical definition and in practice they are in fact considerably assisted, so that readers can get this understanding as well. Andreclos (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky question. Technically yes, but I understand your point, in that Slocum only had assistance when in port, and since the advent of radio modern sailors can get advice (which might be interpreted as assistance) at any time. The real distinction is probably between with stops and without, as it is much easier to sail from port to port than it is to complete a non-stop circumnavigation, all else being equal. - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a question of degree. All solo sailors were assisted to some degree or other, they didn't swim it, but modern sailors have massive assistance to such a degree as to make the term unassisted pretty meaningless except in a very narrow technical sense. The problem is the media and Wikipedia do not help the layman to understand this, they just parrot the meaningless word "unassisted" which out of context means nothing. However I see I am going to get nowhere with this, so I will have to leave it to be dumbed down. Thank you for your efforts, which I can see are well-intentioned and conscientious according to your views. Andreclos (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Andreclos, I understand your perspective and appreciate that your view is valid. Maybe I'm focusing on the wrong thing, but I think the issue is providing appropriate reliable sources, avoiding original research, and maintaining a neutral point-of-view. I suggest that reading those Wikipedia guidelines and perhaps all of us referencing them in our arguments and edits would help. I also think this article is confusing because hypothetical technology possible on a luxury motor yacht is interwoven into an article about unassisted sailing. Citations of actual examples used in unassisted sailing would be easier to support.

That said, I think we could have a fun and interesting debate about the meaning of unassisted. While I understand your view, you might look farther back into history too.

Sailors who sailed before charts may have been unassisted. Those who sail with charts are assisted by those who sailed before. I'd argue that's the biggest change in the entire history of sailing. Those who sailed after the development of the sextant and could tell their latitude received assistance from technology. With the later invention of the chronometer they could determine their precise location within a few miles. Just consider for a moment sailing before these changes vs after these changes; surely those are more significant changes than any modern technology (e.g., GPS without a chart is useless; it's only a trivial increase in accuracy as opposed to the increase in accuracy provided by the advent of the sextant and chronometer)

With the advent of radio a century ago, sailors could receive real-time advice and information from outside. And the WSSRC rules do make a distinction between advice and assistance. Isn't that what we're talking about here? Isn't that distinction pretty much the same as the difference between advice and assistance in just about any other sport or adventure?

Perhaps we'd do better to include a history section to expand upon the different developments that have assisted sailors and changed sailing over the last millennium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec906 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are no doubt correct. I will leave it in your capable hands to clean up. Andreclos (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)