Would appreciate jury's clarity on how these calculations could be accurate - would be happy to engage a specialist to work through the calculations
Request on behalf of Cadet 10089 Under Rule 66.2
Rule 66.3 a - New evidence of inability of Cadet 9824 boat handling capacity in the way fact found in hearing 05.
A) Port and starboard incident prior to race 6 resulting in significant damage to Cadet 10089 from port boat 9824 - damage can be viewed on cadet 10089 port gunwhale and hull
B) Penalty applied to Cadet 9824 in Race 8 showing disregard for RRS
Rule 66.3 b - Significant error - facts found two stationary objects coming together after 10 seconds - physically, theoretically and practically impossible.
If both boats stationary then no contact would occur in the manner described. For boom to pass between side stay and mast Cadet 9824 must have been proceeding past Cadet 10089 from clear astern @ a distance of less than 70cm likely 20cm - much less than the 1.6m in facts found
(Boom length 1.9m - beam 50% x 2 - 1.27m = 0.63m gap- likely less due to boom angle of approx 45 degrees)
Significanct error both boats stationary and contact would not of possibly occurred if that was the case apart from teleportation
Greater than 24hrs stated in rule 66.2 due to finding not being posted on the official notice board as advised
Rule 61.1 was not adhered to - resulting in boat 10089 being unable to exonerate - in fact assumed 9824 was exonerating by retiring therefore unable to proceed with protest against boat 9824 for breaching rule 15. Which was blatantly broken if we rely on physics of facts found - approach from astern in difficult conditions at enough speed to impact boom through mast and side stay to impact with significant impact at a gap of less then 0.7m giving 10089 in no way the ability to keep clear in a seaman like manner
Request dismissal of Hearing 05 or demonstration of how the facts found could in anyway actually result in the way impact is stated - possibly using two actual cadets rather than model boats.
