Phil Edwards tounches on a good point. This has been considered thoroughly in the past. It is the reason why we have the setup that we have.
Note the first 4 rules of the F16 framework and their wording :
1.1.1 In case of doubt, the intention of the rule makers which is referred to as the spirit of the rule, shall take precedence over the letter of the rule.
1.1.2 For the construction, all materials and all methodes of construction are allowed when these
do not imply an unacceptable increase in risk of bodily harm or imply the operation of an unsafe craft.
1.1.3 It is the responsibility of the designers and builders to contact the Formula 16 class authority and make sure that their design or redesigned feature on an existing design is checked for compliance with the Formula 16 rules, the spirit of the rules as well as the official intepretion of the Formula 16 rules before declaring or marketing their new product as "Formula 16" or Formula 16 compliant.
1.1.4 It is the responsibility of the competitors to ensure their craft is safe and seaworthy.
1.1.5 When the Formula 16 Authority feels that a designer, builder, competitor or craft is failing to comply with the Formula 16 rules then the Formula 16 Authority may take appropriate action and even restrict the use of the craft or the participation of the competitor.
Note how these rules allow the F16 organisation to intervene when it suspects non-compliance or an unsafe craft but doesn't burden it with garanteeing safety. That is solely the responsibility of the owners and the designers/builders.
The whole F16 rule set is writen that way.
Also note the rules :
4.1.1 The Formula 16 authority has the right to check the boats for compliance and safety before the race, on the water and right after the race even when a valid measurement certificate has been presented.
4.1.2 An event may not be advertised or held as a (open) Formula 16 event when not all rules stated in this section as well as sections 1 and 2 are respected.
4.2.2 It is the responsibility of the individual competitor to judge when his or her capabilities are sufficient for the encountered conditions and to take appropriate action.
Each time the class is allowed to take action and check up on things but is not required to do so by the rules. Also each time the personal responsibility of the owners is stressed. There are several rules that put the responsibility back in the court of the designers, builders and owners.
In reply to Phils point. The internation F16 class organisation will not sanction any F16 event. The international organisation will only maintain the class rules and provide a network of contact within the local organisations can be formed and cooperate. It is the responsibility of the local organisations and the event organisers to secure themselfs against liability. The international class only controls the maintenance of the ruleset and the communication network and therefor is unlinked to any event where a liability issue may arise. It will be useless sueing it, especially since the international class is not seated in any Anglo-Saxon culture where sueing is a favourite passed-time. The law structure in mainland Europe is based on the ancient French model that stresses personal responsibility over communinal responsibility. As God intended us to be. Only obvious neglicense is punished by the system and only when the party accussed had control over the situation. The international F16 class will never fall under that header because it will never organise or control any event or action that can lead to damages directly.
Now I understand that some nations around the world have a different view on this but last time I checked these very nations didn't rule the whole world and they can't procecute a mainland European for something that to local European laws OR international laws isn't a crime or even a demeanour/threspass. Even when local laws do consider it as such then these laws do NOT have any juristictions to mainland Europe. If they would than all the local Coffee shops overhere would stand trial in some US court because a US tourist bought some dope in it. And believe me these places are packed with Americans and French people. Neither of them can do anything about. This thing is called souvereinity.
Now, this puts the issue in its proper perspective. The issue is only present in the Anglo-Saxon influenced area's. Chiefly the USA and Australia. For some reason the UK itself is less problematic; probably because as a partner in the EU they have to stay close to mainland Europe.
The F16 class solution to these difference between local area's is two fold.
-1- All local actions and events are solely the responsibility of the local organisations and organisations. So they will have to take care to satisfy local laws and regulations. Indeed Phill Brander registered the F16 class in Australia for this reason. So the international organisation will limit herself to only maintaining the rules and the communication network. Try to proof liability in that. I have yet to see the first gun maker being sued for making a hand gun that was used to murder somebody.
-2- The international organisation will not ask for fees of anything; nor will it garantee or rule local organisations in any way. The locals are fully free to run things as they like as long as they stay within the guidelines of the F16 class. There is no direct link between the international class and any damage persons. It acts like a cooperation of persons and organisations. It is like your fellow crew mate. You can't sue your fellow crew mate for not preventing a capsize that leads to one of the crew getting stuck under water and drowning. You were there by choice and your own actions contributed to such an outcome. Maybe you can sue yourself ? In my experience there is no law system in the world that allows you to off load the blame on a cooperating partner; the question of guilt is then impossible to pin on a single party and liability becomes a very difficult accusation to proof. But more importantly the freedom of a local organisation limits the responsibility of the international organisation to the extend that guilt can never be laid there.
This is one of the reasons why the cel structure was developped. It allows the class to morph to local conditions without burdening other parts of the class in area's that don't require such a setup. Once again; only making the different makes of F16's equal in performance is what must be internationally garanteed. All other aspects are only subject to local conditions and to local organisations. Here in the Netherlands all coastal sailors donate money to the rescue services because it is a old volunteer run organisation. We don't have a coast guard as the USA has. Over here it is a unwritten rule. But I'm not going to burden other F16 organisations in the world with this "out-of-the-ordinary" state of affairs. That is a local issue that is handled completely by the local organisation.
It is all about risk management and the first step is to set up a properly incorporated Association, at least at National level, with public officials elected in the usual democratic manner.
Phil is partly right here. In area's were such liability laws and regulations exist a more formal association needs to be set up. This doesn't mean that the same must be done to the international organisation or even in area's where such laws don't apply. We must take care to understand the differences between local playing fields and the international playing field. They are not the same and big differences may exist.
Also how can I (and the volunteers helping me) create a setup that will satisfy 189 local law systems ? That is when considering the USA as a single unit instead of 50 federated states with their own laws on things like liability. No court or even a trial lawyer can demand that of the international organisation.
So my advise to all local groups is to find out what the local laws, regulations and customs are and satisfy them in any way you can using the local tools available to you. This goes for sailors as well as organisers. I've done it for my own area here in the Netherlands.
I expect to see more formal organisations to pop up in USA and Australia because of the liability laws there. In Europe and several asian countries I expect to see a continuation of the loosely organised cel structures.
Wouter