# Rallies Gone Wrong



## azguy

Four rescued from storm-battered sailboat off Atlantic Coast - U.S. News


----------



## Tim R.

*Re: Offshore Rescues*

My friends are in that rally. I hope they are ok.


----------



## smackdaddy

*Re: Offshore Rescues*

Sounds like the Salty Dawg Rally is earning an unfortunate reputation:

CG responds to fifth distressed boat

_Five_ freakin' boats pushing the button? With 10'-12' seas reported?

What's going on out there?


----------



## T37Chef

*Re: Offshore Rescues*

??? 25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet.


----------



## Tim R.

*Re: Offshore Rescues*

None of those are my friends which is good.

One taking on water, one dismasted but continuing, one unknown but heading for Bermuda and one refused assistance(crew with broken arm returning). 10'-12' is no big deal for swells or unbreaking waves but if they were steep and breaking than they could be a problem for some boats/sailors.


----------



## capta

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*

"winds above 25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet."
Pretty sad, IMO, that folks are heading out into the ocean and have trouble bad enough to require calling for help in these conditions.
Something is very, very wrong here.
If this continues we are going to get the kind of government interference that NZ has, that restricts offshore sailors and is very costly to comply with.
"winds above 25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet." is just about what we sail in daily in the Caribbean Christmas winds; certainly nothing beyond the capability of any well found cruising boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

So there are now reports of at least five boats that have signaled distress in the new "Salty Dawg Rally". And from what is being reported in the press stories - the conditions don't seem to be all that bad. For example, one quotes the CG as reporting seas of 10'-12'. This is knocking out 5 boats?

This is the link to a now-ironic press release about the "Salty Dawg Rally":

PRESS: New, Free 'Salty Dawg Rally' Going 'Viral' in the Cruising World

It now seems to be going viral for all the wrong reasons.

It seems all that is required from an experience angle to participate in this rally is at least one off-shore passage:



> The Salty Dawg Rally is a grassroots, non-profit organization, comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage. There is no formal inspection of each boat, since it is the responsibility of each skipper to have proper safety equipment and to ensure that the vessel is prepared for the passage. Information including weather, Gulf Stream analysis, location of eddies, and daily weather forecasts during the passage is provided to each skipper by well‐known weather router Chris Parker, courtesy of Blue Water Sailing magazine. Volunteer Dick Giddings manages float plans for all of the boats in the fleet and maintains a daily SSB radio schedule, as well as daily positions for everyone (via HF radio and SatPhone). It is each skipper's responsibility to decide the course and whether or not to set out for the passage. The Rally, with an emphasis on safety, communication, camaraderie and fun, opens the door to new friends and experiences while cruising various areas in the Caribbean.


No boat/safety inspection, etc. This is pretty typical. But then we look back to distress/rescues in past rallies such as the NARC, etc. - and you have to wonder...

Is it merely the statistical concentration of this many boats in one rally - and we're simply seeing the standard ratio of distresses to the number of boats? Or is it something else?

Personally, as a dude that has researched off-shore rescues quite a bit, I'm wondering why these kinds of rallies don't require Safety At Sea training like off-shore racing does. Or why don't they at least enforce ISAF rules?

Seriously, what's the difference in the need for this kind of knowledge between racer and cruiser? Aren't dangerous conditions in a sailboat the same for both? Aren't safety procedures for those sailors roughly the same? Sure, the cruiser is inherently more conservative - but does that mean they can, therefore, be less prepared?

Something's wrong here.


----------



## chucklesR

This has BFS written all over it. 

Get out there and get some white knuckle time.


----------



## killarney_sailor

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*

I hope the report about the conditions is incorrect (certainly a good possibility), but if it is correct this is ridiculous. Last year crossing the Indian Ocean we had 20 to 30 knots with waves in the 10 to 15 foot range for two weeks. Best sailing of my life and I am hardly the gung-ho, let-it-rip type. It only got windy as we neared South Africa.

I agree with Capta, the nanny state will get us if we don't demonstrate common sense. BTW, for a South African to leave harbour in command of a vessel you need to have local yacht master credentials, not even the British ones are accepted, but 50 knots is pretty common here and the cruising guide talks of waves to 20 m (66 feet) in the Agulhas Current with the wrong wind. Maybe the answer is to get rid of rallies that are any more than social arrangements. They may give false security to people.


----------



## killarney_sailor

The conditions described are far from BFS-worthy.


----------



## jimgo

It's clearly the wrong crew on these boats. EVERYONE with any blue-water experience knows you need a sushi chef as captain and an 80+year old as part of the crew, or the boat just isn't going anywhere. 

OK, more seriously, I think events like this will tend to draw two groups: 
1) Inexperienced sailors hoping to learn by being around others, and,
2) sailors (both experienced and inexperienced) who have boats that MIGHT make the trip, and with others tagging along nearby they think they'll "just" be able to hitch a ride on one of the other boats if something goes wrong.

Kind of like the charter flotillas, except over a MUCH longer area, and with boats that aren't inspected.


----------



## smackdaddy

chucklesR said:


> This has BFS written all over it.
> 
> Get out there and get some white knuckle time.


You still don't quite get it. But that's okay.


----------



## chucklesR

chucklesR said:


> This has BFS written all over it.
> 
> Get out there and get some white knuckle time.


Just to be clear - if I do a rally it will be one like this one.

White knuckles and BFS 'worthy' are in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## smurphny

It's pretty obvious that these rallies create schedules. Although no set departure is required, people run with the herd. When they see others leaving they follow like lemmings. This weather system could be seen coming DAYS ahead of time. The idea of staying the hell out of the GS with a northerly wind is in sailing 101. You'd have to have your head examined to set off into the GS with this obvious upper level cold front approaching. No matter what any "router" might have said, common sense should have kept these boats at the dock. It seems that they were not prepared to heave to, set a sea anchor, a drogue, or deploy trysl's and storm jibs once it became obvious that they were in for a beating. The decisions to leave AND basic equipment seem to be in question.


----------



## Donna_F

*Re: Offshore Rescues*



smackdaddy said:


> Sounds like the Salty Dawg Rally is earning an unfortunate reputation:
> 
> CG responds to fifth distressed boat
> 
> _Five_ freakin' boats pushing the button? With 10'-12' seas reported?
> 
> What's going on out there?


Sounds like it's back down to three. One was a false alarm, another managed to rig something up and continue on when they weren't rescued as fast as they expected to be.


----------



## smurphny

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*

Perhaps if boats do not have storm sails, a sea anchor and/or drogue, liferaft, and at least one sailor who knows how to heave-to, they should not be allowed to have an EPIRB!


----------



## Argyle38

smackdaddy said:


> Personally, as a dude that has researched off-shore rescues quite a bit, *I'm wondering why these kinds of rallies don't require Safety At Sea training like off-shore racing does. Or why don't they at least enforce ISAF rules?*
> 
> Seriously, what's the difference in the need for this kind of knowledge between racer and cruiser? Aren't dangerous conditions in a sailboat the same for both? Aren't safety procedures for those sailors roughly the same? Sure, the cruiser is inherently more conservative - but does that mean they can, therefore, be less prepared?
> 
> Something's wrong here.


Because you don't need that kind of training to do this passage on your own. If you want to go, you go. Many do, some don't make it. Preparation+Luck, etc. If the rally organizers only purport to offer t-shirts, some weather routing and a party in the BVI's at the end, then the rest is up to the skipper.

I'm not a rally person myself, I'd rather pick my own weather windows and not have to worry about getting to a party by some time, but I do think that there is room for this level of event. Should folks be more prepared for what is a pretty serious offshore passage? No doubt. Is it the rally organizers' responsibility to make sure everyone is prepared? I don't really think so other than offering suggestions.

If the loss of boats in a given rally causes participants to realize that they are not actually much safer out there just because they are in a group, then that will probably mean fewer boats in the rally next year, with a greater emphasis on safety, which is a good thing. This will continue until the memory of the lost boats becomes shrouded in the mists of the distant past (typically ~ 5 years) and then once ill prepared sailors will start to fill the rally's numbers. Still, it's the skippers responsibility.

You can lead a horse to water and so forth.


----------



## smackdaddy

Argyle38 said:


> Because you don't need that kind of training to do this passage on your own. If you want to go, you go. Many do, some don't make it. Preparation+Luck, etc. If the rally organizers only purport to offer t-shirts, some weather routing and a party in the BVI's at the end, then the rest is up to the skipper.
> 
> I'm not a rally person myself, I'd rather pick my own weather windows and not have to worry about getting to a party by some time, but I do think that there is room for this level of event. Should folks be more prepared for what is a pretty serious offshore passage? No doubt. Is it the rally organizers' responsibility to make sure everyone is prepared? I don't really think so other than offering suggestions.
> 
> If the loss of boats in a given rally causes participants to realize that they are not actually much safer out there just because they are in a group, then that will probably mean fewer boats in the rally next year, with a greater emphasis on safety, which is a good thing. This will continue until the memory of the lost boats becomes shrouded in the mists of the distant past (typically ~ 5 years) and then once ill prepared sailors will start to fill the rally's numbers. Still, it's the skippers responsibility.
> 
> You can lead a horse to water and so forth.


You only have to do a single rally or race with hundreds of boats to understand how big the ocean is. For the first few hours, it's sails all over the horizon. The next morning, you might see couple. The next, probably none. The notion of "sailing in a group" is a very loose notion out there.

But I do think you guys have hit on an important issue. Though the rally organizer leaves the safety/seaworthiness responsibilities to the skipper (which is good) - they do, in fact, impose a schedule just like a race. And this inevitably means that the risks are higher. Yet, unlike a race, these risks are assigned across a fleet that is VERY uneven, and unverified, in terms of preparedness.

Where the race operates under ISAF regs, the rally doesn't. Is that good for sailing?

Sure, the argument is that such safety regs will reduce the number of sailors participating in a rally. Is that a bad thing? What are the motivations of the organizers of a rally vs. a race? Aren't there financial incentives for both? Yet the liabilities are different? How do corporates sponsors look on the issue of the organizers of one activity insisting on safety and another not..especially when things go wrong?

I just think there are some very questionable distinctions being drawn in the rally vs. race conversation.


----------



## nolatom

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*

Here's more detail from the Coast Guard today:

Coast Guard rescues 4, assists others off Va., NC coasts

I fully concur with "don't go to sea if you can't handle 25+ and 5-8' seas", but this, describing a lost mast on one boat, and arm injury on another, suggests it may have been worse than 25 knots, etc??

Also note that several of the boats (including lost mast) reported they were able to continue on without further assistance. So the Maydays may have been sent just in case it got much worse (ie the mast could have pierced the hull during recovery or cut-away) before it got better.

I, at a nice warm desk on a sunny day, commenteth not further.. ;-)


----------



## tommays

Mr. and Ms. Tom are in well above average condition and we can only stay wet and cold for X amount of time



In my experience the wet and cold part of this deal has been vastly under estimated as I have never been colder in my life than doing bow in 40 knots in July

It took about a month to dry Zzzoom out after the last trip in those conditions


----------



## nolatom

*Re: Offshore Rescues*

We have a double thread going on with "trouble enroute Caribbean", where I posted before seeing this thread. Shall we pick one?


----------



## capttb

Hadn't heard about this so I looked up the CG reports:
Coast Guard rescues 4, assists others off Va., NC coasts | Coast Guard News
Sounds like all the boats are still afloat, some crews wanted out when conditions were bad. When in a gale it's always seemed unlikely that someone could locate and safely rescue me from my not sinking boat.


----------



## jameswilson29

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



capta said:


> "winds above 25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet."
> Pretty sad, IMO, that folks are heading out into the ocean and have trouble bad enough to require calling for help in these conditions.
> Something is very, very wrong here.
> If this continues we are going to get the kind of government interference that NZ has, that restricts offshore sailors and is very costly to comply with.
> "winds above 25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet." is just about what we sail in daily in the Caribbean Christmas winds; certainly nothing beyond the capability of any well found cruising boat.


Yes, but they also got seasick! Time for a rescue....:laugher


----------



## tempest

I don't know all the facts surrounding this rally...but these rallies seem to offer a false sense of security to the inexperienced and unprepared. Once in the soup..everyone has their hands full. It's not like you can all raft up out there and sing kumbya.. With few exceptions, The only one coming to get you is the CG or the Navy. 

Leaving a safe port on some arbitrary schedule set months in advance..because you see others doing it without factoring in all the variables: ship, crew, experience, etc is just reckless.


----------



## Donna_F

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



jameswilson29 said:


> Yes, but they also got seasick! Time for a rescue....:laugher


I've been seasick on a boat delivery. Fortunately, I was the only one of the crew and it was temporary and the conditions were nowhere near what the rally encountered. For about 18 hours my ability to handle the most basic of tasks was impaired although I tried as best I could to pull my weight. I can kinda see how, an entire crew being seasick under the conditions the rally went through, even if some of you think those conditions "not all that bad", would increase the risk of something catastrophic happening if everyone on the boat was impaired and unable to make a reasoned decision. I don't know this for certain, but if on top of that the crew was inexperienced, that risk would be even greater.


----------



## Donna_F

I'm going to merge all of the rally threads into this one.


----------



## smackdaddy

I did just notice that NARC has put up on their main page an account of the 2011 fatality and rescues:

*THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE ONLY INVITING LARGER BOATS AND EXPERIENCED SAILORS*

Much different than booze on a beach.

Good on them.


----------



## PCP

*Re: Offshore Rescues*



smackdaddy said:


> Sounds like the Salty Dawg Rally is earning an unfortunate reputation:
> 
> CG responds to fifth distressed boat
> 
> _Five_ freakin' boats pushing the button? With 10'-12' seas reported?
> 
> What's going on out there?


 *"25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet. "*

*"The rescued boaters, who reported they were taking on water and were sick"*

Four rescued from storm-battered sailboat off Atlantic Coast - U.S. News

What means taking on water? means that the boat was taking some water (that is a normal thing in a storm) or that they had problems and were taking more water than the one they could pump out?

Sick? Meaning seasick, or really sick?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I did just notice that NARC has put up on their main page an account of the 2011 fatality and rescues:
> 
> *THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE ONLY INVITING LARGER BOATS AND EXPERIENCED SAILORS*
> 
> ...


It seems these guys think that larger boats are safer.

*"The Rally this year is restricted to Professionally crewed boats or boats that are big enough or fast enough to get to Bermuda in 4 to 4 1/2 days and crewed by experienced crew who have made the passage before. Smaller boats and less experienced sailors should spend September and October heading down to the Chesapeake and check out their boat and systems while they are still close to land. The are two rallies that depart from Hampton Roads Virginia Nov 4th."*

Some here would strongly disagree

Regards

Paulo


----------



## capta

Perhaps it's time people were charged for this service. I can't even imagine what it costs the taxpayers to send a Hercules or two and a chopper out 275 miles or so because some folks are seasick and scared.
There have been a few times when I wanted to whistle for a taxi, and every time the wind was a lot closer to 100 knots than 25, but they just weren't available in those days, thankfully. We always got through it, no matter how bad it was. We learned that we'd be just fine if we did what we were supposed to do, IE: heave to, run a drogue or whatever the conditions required.
I'm guessing it's just too easy to give up and call for a free ride, these days.


----------



## killarney_sailor

chucklesR said:


> Just to be clear - if I do a rally it will be one like this one.
> 
> White knuckles and BFS 'worthy' are in the eye of the beholder.


Have to disagree with this. The ocean is a constant. The thing that changes is one's confidence that things will turn out OK, ie I will not die after all. Going in a rally does not make it safer, that is only a illusion. If you feel that you would only do a passage on a rally you should not go.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> I did just notice that NARC has put up on their main page an account of the 2011 fatality and rescues:
> 
> *THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE ONLY INVITING LARGER BOATS AND EXPERIENCED SAILORS*
> 
> Much different than booze on a beach.
> 
> Good on them.


I would be interested to know which factor - big or experienced, they would consider more important. I assume big since the chance of a weather window lasting means that 170+ days would be most important.

In general the idea of leaving from Newport so late in the season does not appeal to me at all. Your chances of avoiding anything hitting the fan are much better from the Chesapeake.

About any of these passages from the US to the Caribbean in November, the biggest problem is that you are doing a potentially very difficult passage before you have had the chance to develop the experience you need.


----------



## manatee

Exxon Valdez
Edmund Fitzgerald
Titanic
Poseidon
Mary Celeste
....and so on. 

It's not so much the size of the boat, but the seamanship of the crew.

A 23-foot open boat, 19 men, 3,600 miles:

Bounty's Launch

He may have been "an overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood" of an S.O.B. of a captain, but William Bligh was a consummate seaman, having trained and served under the greatest navigator of the age, James Cook.


----------



## SVAuspicious

How many people commenting on this thread have had command on a passage of five days or more without bailouts? Maybe it's more than I think.

As I understand it the only requirement for the Salty Dawg is that you've done a real offshore passage before. 

I'm not sure there is better weather forecasting than Salty Dawg provides. It all still comes down to the skipper's responsibility.

We all know from experience that people--skipper and crew--get in over their heads. We all know that sometimes someone on the boat just wants to get off and sometimes that leads to calls for aid. Sometimes it leads to bad decision-making.

We can come up with rules for whether a boat is ready to go offshore. There are lots of existing rules that (mostly) make sense. Who makes the call if a crew is ready to go offshore? Boats outperform crews all the time.

What I see of weather offshore makes me surprised that a boat was dismasted and that a small handful of other boats want to pull the plug. Still, I'm not out there. I don't know what they are seeing, what they missed in prep, what surprises the crew faced. 

It is one thing to learn from the experiences and mistakes of others. It is something entirely different to second guess the people on the scene. That way lies armchair sailing. 

The Caribbean 1500 left Saturday. Salty Dawg recommended leaving Wednesday. My own analysis led to a recommendation to leave Monday pre-dawn. How things come out in one event isn't really statistically significant. There are two many variables and not enough measurables. 

I'm not a rally person. I do think there is a false sense of security associated with rallies. If I sail in one it will be as a delivery skipper and I'll treat it like any other delivery, making my own decisions based on my own best judgment and the best data available to me. That said, I like the Salty Dawg concept and I personally think it is good for the cruising and offshore sailing community.


----------



## vtsailguy

What's really interesting in the salty dawg and Carib 1500 is that they both left (more or less) the same time, and to be in the Carib you need NO offshore experience. I am not really sure the support is any greater than the salty......


----------



## smackdaddy

*Re: Offshore Rescues*



PCP said:


> *"25 mph, with ocean swells of 5 to 8 feet. "*
> 
> *"The rescued boaters, who reported they were taking on water and were sick"*
> 
> Four rescued from storm-battered sailboat off Atlantic Coast - U.S. News
> 
> What means taking on water? means that the boat was taking some water (that is a normal thing in a storm) or that they had problems and were taking more water than the one they could pump out?
> 
> Sick? Meaning seasick, or really sick?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


This is actually a very good question. In my research for the article I wrote for Cruising World - the "thin red line" in unabashedly triggering a rescue is "we're taking on water". Being sick or uncomfortable is manageable - taking on water means that the clock is ticking.

But what does that phrase really mean...to the skipper? Does it really mean you're sinking - in relatively immediate danger of dying? I remember in Doug's thread where, in retrospect, he felt that they were not in as much danger as he initially perceived it to be - when later weighed against the very real danger of the actual rescue.

It seems the definition of "taking on water" needs to be very carefully considered by the skipper when a boat's in distress.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> have to disagree with this. The ocean is a constant. The thing that changes is one's confidence that things will turn out ok, ie i will not die after all. Going in a rally does not make it safer, that is only a illusion. If you feel that you would only do a passage on a rally you should not go.


+1.


----------



## smurphny

What's likely to happen is that the USCG will start requiring permits for all these organized events with minimum safety requirements. It's too bad because more regulation will probably not change the fact that it seems too many folks do not appreciate what can happen and seem to be ignorant of some really basic stuff. You can understand someone getting caught by weather on a long passage but it's hard to fathom why people choose to set sail when waiting is obviously the best choice. Everyone wants to get going but it seems that too many can't resist the urge and throw the dice.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> As I understand it the only requirement for the Salty Dawg is that you've done a real offshore passage before.


But what does "real" mean? Again, why not conduct the rally under ISAF regs?


----------



## PCP

capta said:


> Perhaps it's time people were charged for this service. I can't even imagine what it costs the taxpayers to send a Hercules or two and a chopper out 275 miles or so because some folks are seasick and scared.
> ....
> I'm guessing it's just too easy to give up and call for a free ride, these days.


I have been saying and many disagreeing that this sort of situations is going to fall on the ones that take or/and are experienced. I bet that on these times of economic difficulties somebody is going to look at the numbers and costs and will stop with this nonsense. It is logical that the ones that benefice from SAR should the ones to pay for it, instead of the money coming from all tax payers.

That can be made trough mandatory insurance that obviously is going to be more expensive than the actual one. That would also auto regulate the boats that should or not go offshore and crew experience. I don't believe the premiums regarding SAR will be the same for all boats and some in what regards offshore would be simply not insurable. A certification that needs sailing experience will also lower premiums. They are not there to lose money.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Argyle38

smurphny said:


> What's likely to happen is that the USCG will start requiring permits for all these organized events with minimum safety requirements. It's too bad because more regulation will probably not change the fact that it seems too many folks do not appreciate what can happen and seem to be ignorant of some really basic stuff. You can understand someone getting caught by weather on a long passage but it's hard to fathom why people choose to set sail when waiting is obviously the best choice. Everyone wants to get going but it seems that too many can't resist the urge and throw the dice.


I don't see that happening as long as we don't have huge gates at all of the inlets to the ocean. There's nothing stopping folks form just picking up their anchor and sailing the route on their own. Requiring a permit to sail in a rally will just send rally's like this underground. I mean, you can't stop people from sailing in a group either. I just don't see how it would work.


----------



## PCP

manatee said:


> Exxon Valdez
> Edmund Fitzgerald
> Titanic
> Poseidon
> Mary Celeste
> ....and so on.
> 
> It's not so much the size of the boat, but the seamanship of the crew.
> 
> A 23-foot open boat, 19 men, 3,600 miles:
> 
> Bounty's Launch
> 
> He may have been "an overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood" of an S.O.B. of a captain, but William Bligh was a consummate seaman, having trained and served under the greatest navigator of the age, James Cook.


We are talking about safety and you come with this stuff

Do you really think that it is a question of seamanship and not luck for a 23ft open boat with 19 men to be able to do 3600NM? Sure, there are seamanship evolved but mostly a HUGE *LUCK!!!*

Assuming that seamanship make a 23ft open boat as safe as the Exxon Valdez, Edmund Fitzgerald, Titanic, Poseidon or Mary Celeste as not any sense and it is a dangerous thing to say or thought.

A movie to you about a silly boy with a dream. He was silly but persistent and surely he was a good sailor. See the movie, that is a nice one and you will see how lucky he was.

I hope that after that you don't think that what he had done was safe, just because he got away with it


----------



## oceangirl

Am I missing an article? So far Ive read two distress vessels from the rally, not all five from the rally...?
My interpretation:
"Taking on water" means without intervention the boat will most likely sink.
"The vessel is sinking" means all interventions available have been employed and the boat is going down.


----------



## boatkied

I have to dis-agree with many of the posts here. I sailed with the Salty Dawg Rally last Fall of 2012 and I have to say it was very well run. They first off have Safety in mind. They work closely with numerous orgs to ensure participates are qualified, trained etc...  They work VERY CLOSE with Chris Parker to ensure that conditions are right before leaving. 

This year, I could not attend, but I have several friends in the Rally and again, they work with Chris Parker and team to ensure they are following the right course and weather is right. In this case, the forecast was right when they left and suddenly it changed overnight. That is not a reflection of the Rally organizers, but more of a reflection weather forecasting anomaly's...

We delayed for many days last year before leaving and everything was perfect to go. This year, they did the same thing with the same due diligence and the forecast was different. 

If you more experienced posters on this site followed the Atlantic Weather overnight, it had a serious shift...


----------



## smurphny

Argyle38 said:


> I don't see that happening as long as we don't have huge gates at all of the inlets to the ocean. There's nothing stopping folks form just picking up their anchor and sailing the route on their own. Requiring a permit to sail in a rally will just send rally's like this underground. I mean, you can't stop people from sailing in a group either. I just don't see how it would work.


There's no way to stop impromptu rallies of people who want to reach some destination together but there seem to be just too many boats getting in trouble in these organized events. People are pressured to get there with the rest. Many inexperienced boaters think they're sailing "together" with others which is extremely misleading and in fact impossible. It would not be out of the question for the CG, under direction of the accounting office, to be tasked with finding a solution to this particular expensive problem.


----------



## capta

PCP said:


> We are talking about safety and you come with this stuff
> 
> Do you really think that it is a question of seamanship and not luck for a 23ft open boat with 19 men to be able to do 3600NM? Sure, there are seamanship evolved but mostly a HUGE *LUCK!!!*


I don't mean to be harsh, but you are blowing wind with that one. Bligh was a consummate mariner with years of experience and with Cook, he charted most of the waters he sailed on that trip. There was no luck involved; it was seamanship and discipline that got him and his 23 men through.
Luck plays little part in most open water survival stories. Shackleton wasn't lucky; he was determined to save his crew. These were men who made decisions and choices that they had to live by; there was no help available and they knew it. Today people abandon perfectly good boats because they are uncomfortable, unhappy, lazy or afraid, not because the boat is in jeopardy. Because they can! And in some cases, like the perfect storm story, it costs the rescuers their lives.


----------



## SOVT

From Noonsite.

http://www.noonsite.com/Countries/USA/24th-arc-caribbean-1500-heads-offshore

"By Thursday evening, with the pre-departure social programme in full swing for ralliers, the organisers started creating a contingency plan for an early departure. The forecast indicated a tight weather window in which to get the fleet safely across the Gulf Stream in reasonable conditions and after consulting with Weather Routing Inc, a revised start time was proposed. An impromptu weather briefing was held at Ocean Marine Yacht Center to keep the fleet informed and by 0800 Saturday morning, the decision became official - the 2013 1500 start line would take place at 3:00pm off Hampton Flats.

It was unprecedented last year," said Miles Poor of Karina, the Tayana 55 who is a perennially entry in the 1500. "And for it to happen again, only a year later? Twice in 24 years? That's remarkable."

"The organizers were able to make a starting line for the Cruising Division thanks to marina residents at Ocean Marine who generously offered to use their Sea Ray 32 Cloud Nine as committee boat. The starting gun fired at 3:10pm local time and the fleet was off under clear skies and a light northerly wind. 18 yachts competed for the starting line of the competitive Cruising Division, with nearly a dozen other yachts following as part of the Open Division.

_The true value of a professionally organised rally was demonstrated when several yachts listed as participating in the Salty Dawg Rally also left with the ARC Caribbean 1500 fleet, against their organizers decision to delay their own start until Wednesday or Thursday_, when they are likely to experience light contrary winds."


----------



## smurphny

In making decisions as to what the wind is going to do, I put a lot of reliance on the 500mb charts before even looking at surface charts. Looking at today's 500mb chart: http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/fax/PPAA10.gif it's apparent that the 564 line, that line which determines storm tracks and weather patterns, is right off the Chesapeake. This "cold front" barreled through just when they decided to leave. I wonder whether too much weight is given to surface forecasts rather than looking at the bigger picture of the mid level winds. There is a good explanation of interpreting the 500mb charts here:Mariners Weather Log Vol. 52, No. 3, December 2008 IMO, having a basic grasp over weather principles really helps in making sailing decisions.


----------



## PCP

capta said:


> I don't mean to be harsh, but you are blowing wind with that one. Bligh was a consummate mariner with years of experience and with Cook, he charted most of the waters he sailed on that trip. There was no luck involved; it was seamanship and discipline that got him and his 23 men through.
> Luck plays little part in most open water survival stories....


Sorry but I do not agree. Certainly there are needed navigation skills to make a 3200NM ocean passage before GPS, on a small boat certainly more than in a ship but surviving a big ocean passage on an open 23ft open boat not designed to be particularly seaworthy (it was an auxiliary boat) involves a lot of luck. I cannot understand how you can say otherwise.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

Someone here recommended Caroline Alexander's _The Bounty_ to me a while back, which I read. It gave me a good appreciation for the extraordinary capability of Bligh. He was no common seaman.


----------



## PCP

Tempest said:


> I don't know all the facts surrounding this rally...but these rallies seem to offer a false sense of security to the inexperienced and unprepared. Once in the soup..everyone has their hands full. It's not like you can all raft up out there and sing kumbya.. With few exceptions, The only one coming to get you is the CG or the Navy.
> 
> Leaving a safe port on some arbitrary schedule set months in advance..because you see others doing it without factoring in all the variables: ship, crew, experience, etc is just reckless.


I agree. Look at the number of boats that are going to make the different "ARC" this November. Why almost 300 boats crossing the Atlantic at the same precise time?

That is typical herd mentality. If so many boats are doing it, surely it it is easy and safe, even if I don't have a considerable experience and have a "crew" without any experience.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



nolatom said:


> ... So the Maydays may have been sent just in case it got much worse (ie the mast could have pierced the hull during recovery or cut-away) before it got better.
> 
> I, at a nice warm desk on a sunny day, commenteth not further.. ;-)


Hummm, maybe on the States a Mayday is sent just in case it got much worse. That's not like that in Europe. Authorities may be contacted to report concerns or in case of problems a Pan Pan may be issued but a Mayday is only for real life threatening situations not for possible or eventual life threatening situations.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



DRFerron said:


> I've been seasick on a boat delivery. Fortunately, I was the only one of the crew and it was temporary and the conditions were nowhere near what the rally encountered. For about 18 hours my ability to handle the most basic of tasks was impaired although I tried as best I could to pull my weight. I can kinda see how, an entire crew being seasick under the conditions the rally went through, even if some of you think those conditions "not all that bad", would increase the risk of something catastrophic happening if everyone on the boat was impaired and unable to make a reasoned decision. I don't know this for certain, but if on top of that the crew was inexperienced, that risk would be even greater.


Not really understand your point. I understand what you mean but are you saying that a Mayday should be issued if all the crew is seasick, it is inexperienced and that can potentially lead to a very dangerous situation?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



PCP said:


> Hummm, maybe on the States a Mayday is sent just in case it got much worse. That's not like that in Europe. Authorities may be contacted to report concerns or in case of problems a Pan Pan may be issued but a Mayday is only for real life threatening situations not for possible or eventual life threatening situations.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


It's the same here.


----------



## ccriders

Some here are forgetting that Capt. Bligh had a pretty large crew of experience sea men that were motivated to get home to England. Tough men who lived in tough times. Could he have done it by himself or with a crew of four or five? Maybe/maybe not. Would he have called for help had help been callable? Probably, unless he really was the asole he is said to have been.
As to limiting offshore cruising/racing to large boats, how can one state seriously the minimum size that could be said to be safe enough and durable enough that help will not be required for any conditions that could be possible?
I sure hope insurance is never the determiner for who gets to go sailing. Look how that industry so royally screws us every day. Also, the Coast Guard is somewhat like the emergency room. They really cannot turn down a request for help. Should the requester be financially liable for the help requested? You answer is probably directly proportional to how red meat conservative you are, or how far removed you are from the danger.


----------



## Donna_F

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



PCP said:


> Not really understand your point. I understand what you mean but are you saying that a Mayday should be issued if all the crew is seasick, it is inexperienced and that can potentially lead to a very dangerous situation?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


No. But there are degrees of seasickness beyond simple queasiness. Once you get severely seasick, your ability to make good decisions is impaired not to mention your ability to physically do anything to save yourself should it come to that. If everyone on board is in the same state, how is that safe? If everyone on board is incapacitated, coupled with 8 to 12-foot seas, add to that a potentially inexperienced crew, how is that safe?

We don't know. We weren't there. All I'm saying is castigating them because of seasickness is not fair.


----------



## capta

PCP said:


> Sorry but I do not agree. Certainly there are needed navigation skills to make a 3200NM ocean passage before GPS, on a small boat certainly more than in a ship but surviving a big ocean passage on an open 23ft open boat not designed to be particularly seaworthy (it was an auxiliary boat) involves a lot of luck. I cannot understand how you can say otherwise.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I have sailed the waters that he crossed and many of the routes he sailed with Cook. I have read of these men since I was a child and in very few cases have I found that anything these guys did was left up to luck. If luck is involved, then I would imagine that they had a great deal more bad luck than good.
It's obvious you have never commanded men aboard ship, but when it comes down to the bottom line, you had better not be trusting to luck when there are 23 thirsty, starving, hardened seamen in the same boat as you.


----------



## PCP

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



DRFerron said:


> No. But there are degrees of seasickness beyond simple queasiness. Once you get severely seasick, your ability to make good decisions is impaired not to mention your ability to physically do anything to save yourself should it come to that. If everyone on board is in the same state, how is that safe? If everyone on board is incapacitated, coupled with 8 to 12-foot seas, add to that a potentially inexperienced crew, how is that safe?
> 
> We don't know. We weren't there. All I'm saying is castigating them because of seasickness is not fair.


I agree with you but it is not a situation to issue a mayday.

I guess that in what regard that here you have a different situation. To be that offshore you have to have a formal qualification and training, one that comes after other formal qualifications for smaller navigation areas. You know exactly in what situations you can ask for a mayday. Till one of the imminent life threatening situations that can justify a mayday happens you put a floating anchor, go inside, close the boat and suffer praying that you don't need to ask for a Maday.

Those boats were not even close to the shore.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

capta said:


> I have sailed the waters that he crossed and many of the routes he sailed with Cook. I have read of these men since I was a child and in very few cases have I found that anything these guys did was left up to luck. If luck is involved, then I would imagine that they had a great deal more bad luck than good.
> It's obvious you have never commanded men aboard ship, but when it comes down to the bottom line, you had better not be trusting to luck when there are 23 thirsty, starving, hardened seamen in the same boat as you.


I continue not understanding your point. It was not 23 but 18 sailors plus Bligh.

I am not diminishing Bligh feet. Yes, it is an extraordinary navigation and human feat and he certainly had to have remarkable commanding qualities to have all under control. That is not the part I am referring when I am talking to luck.

They have made that voyage not in a sailboat with ballast neither in any specially seaworthy small 23ft boat but on the Bounty's launch. The Bounty's launch is an auxiliary boat, an open boat that serves as a tender and eventually to pull the Ship in port maneuvers. It was an open boat not suited at all for any offshore sailing.

The fact that such boat, without any special preparation, have managed to successfully made a 3618NM voyage on an open ocean has to do mainly with luck, even if it was sailed by the best possible crew.

The fact that you had made the same voyage with your boat has nothing to do with it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tempest

Luck and skill...sometimes work together. ;-) 

It would have been very unlucky to have been anywhere near the phillipines this week in an open boat


----------



## svHyLyte

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



DRFerron said:


> No. But there are degrees of seasickness beyond simple queasiness. Once you get severely seasick, your ability to make good decisions is impaired not to mention your ability to physically do anything to save yourself should it come to that. If everyone on board is in the same state, how is that safe? If everyone on board is incapacitated, coupled with 8 to 12-foot seas, add to that a potentially inexperienced crew, how is that safe?
> 
> We don't know. We weren't there. All I'm saying is castigating them because of seasickness is not fair.


With all due respect young Lady, one darned well better know whether one can handle 8-12 foot, to say nothing of 20+ foot seas, and winds of 25 Knts gusting to 35, for an extended period long before one sets off on an ocean voyage. Long before.

The fact of the matter is that all of the so called "safety devices" and CGMB (" come get my butt") rescue locators in vogue today, coupled with the erroneous idea of "safety in numbers" (which only applies if you're a Sardine in a school being hunted by Dolphins) gets unqualified people into these events where they should not be to begin with. A review of the NDBC records indicates no unusual or exceptional conditions that should have been of any particular concern/difficulty for any boat equipped to make the planned voyage. The wave period was a bit fast at one point--5 sec, but even then, the waves were from the north-northwest as was the wind. If one can't handle that, one sure as shoot shouldn't have gotten oneself out there to begin with, to say nothing of yelling help and quitting a perfectly seaworthy boat. No wonder our insurance premiums are off the chart.

Jeeze, what'a senseless, unnecessary waste of boats and resources...


----------



## tdw

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



svHyLyte said:


> With all due respect young Lady,


Young Lady ? I do believe the word I'm looking for is "patronising".

Really, that was uncalled for.


----------



## T37Chef

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



svHyLyte said:


> With all due respect young Lady


Anyone gots some popcorn to share? :laugher

I see you live in Tampa Bay, makes sense since you're old as dirt!


----------



## svHyLyte

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



tdw said:


> Young Lady ? I do believe the word I'm looking for is "patronising".
> 
> Really, that was uncalled for.


Ah... Well... "Andy",

Me being "Old as Dirt" (as my daughter insists), any woman under the age of 60 is a "Young Lady" to me; and, whereas Ms. (Mrs. ?) Ferron and I have not been formally introduced in any meaningful way, referring to her as "Young Lady" rather than the rather presumptuous first person familiar, "Donna", or the more formal, but rather cold, "Ms. Ferron", is rather an accommodation than a diminution. Moreover, I remind you that in past "Ms. Ferron" has more than amply demonstrated her capability of standing her own ground rather well in a verbal jousts, absent the intervention of would-be Galahads, if that were my intention (which it was not), No?


----------



## Donna_F

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



svHyLyte said:


> With all due respect young Lady, one darned well better know whether one can handle 8-12 foot, to say nothing of 20+ foot seas, and winds of 25 Knts gusting to 35, for an extended period long before one sets off on an ocean voyage. Long before.
> 
> ...


Point taken. But, there's no guarantee that it will happen every time. I know it doesn't with me. No idea why (except for that morning after the Buffalo wings and alcohol, but that wasn't repeated.). But there are times in rough weather when I have no problems at all.


----------



## Donna_F

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



svHyLyte said:


> Ah... Well... "Andy",
> 
> Me being "Old as Dirt" (as my daughter insists), any woman under the age of 60 is a "Young Lady" to me; and, whereas Ms. (Mrs. ?) Ferron and I have not been formally introduced in any meaningful way, referring to her as "Young Lady" rather than the rather presumptuous first person familiar, "Donna", or the more formal, but rather cold, "Ms. Ferron", is rather an accommodation than a diminution. Moreover, I remind you that in past "Ms. Ferron" has more than amply demonstrated her capability of standing her own ground rather well in a verbal jousts, absent the intervention of would-be Galahads, if that were my intention (which it was not), No?


I am old enough to appreciate the Galahads and secure enough that I won't snap if a door is held open for me or if one feels inclined to draw a sword in my defense. Given that you are of a certain age, I understand your explanation and I admit that at first "young lady" did make me blink a few times. However, since I do have it in my signature, please feel free to call me "Donna" and thank you kindly for the compliment.


----------



## tdw

*Re: Trouble on Route to the Caribbean*



svHyLyte said:


> Ah... Well... "Andy",
> 
> Me being "Old as Dirt" (as my daughter insists), any woman under the age of 60 is a "Young Lady" to me; and, whereas Ms. (Mrs. ?) Ferron and I have not been formally introduced in any meaningful way, referring to her as "Young Lady" rather than the rather presumptuous first person familiar, "Donna", or the more formal, but rather cold, "Ms. Ferron", is rather an accommodation than a diminution. Moreover, I remind you that in past "Ms. Ferron" has more than amply demonstrated her capability of standing her own ground rather well in a verbal jousts, absent the intervention of would-be Galahads, if that were my intention (which it was not), No?


Whatever ... to my mind the term is still at best unsatisfactory and at worse demeaning and sexist. This is after all the 21st century and even us old fogies need to be dragged if necessary kicking and screaming into the here and now.


----------



## manatee

Tempest said:


> Luck and skill...sometimes work together. ;-)
> 
> It would have been very unlucky to have been anywhere near the phillipines this week in an open boat


substitute 'any' for 'open' 

Sorry folks, I did not mean to start a war. The tongue-in-cheek list was a reminder that big boats can get into trouble too. Maybe that's their 'bad luck'. The riff on Bligh was a reminder that small boats can do a lot more than they are given credit for if they are lucky enough to have a crew of skilled seamen. *NOWHERE* did I intend to imply equality between large and small boats. If that is what you read, I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly.

Gary


----------



## SVAuspicious

I've had the privilege to meet Donna Ferron a number of times. I can assure you that she is a lady, and certainly younger than I.

Back on subject ...



boatkied said:


> I have to dis-agree with many of the posts here. I sailed with the Salty Dawg Rally last Fall of 2012 and I have to say it was very well run. They first off have Safety in mind. They work closely with numerous orgs to ensure participates are qualified, trained etc... They work VERY CLOSE with Chris Parker to ensure that conditions are right before leaving.


That has been my experience. I'd point out that the 2012 Salty Dawg ran on the heels of Super Storm Sandy. I was supposed to speak at the pre-departure seminars but couldn't get down after Sandy. The Knowles and their supporters made the Salty Dawg work.

I don't think any reasonable person can find fault with the Salty Dawg. Personal responsibility is emphasized in every interaction with the rally.



svHyLyte said:


> A review of the NDBC records indicates no unusual or exceptional conditions that should have been of any particular concern/difficulty for any boat equipped to make the planned voyage.


Which goes to my earlier point. It isn't about the boat, it's about the crew. Frankly this is why I like the Yachtmaster credential over the USCG Master's license for recreational boats. The US Coast Guard gives you a test. The MCA takes you sailing.



DRFerron said:


> Point taken. But, there's no guarantee that it will happen every time. I know it doesn't with me. No idea why (except for that morning after the Buffalo wings and alcohol, but that wasn't repeated.). But there are times in rough weather when I have no problems at all.


So far I've been sea sick once. It was a real surprise as I had never been sick before, absent one episode that was definitely the flu. When I was sea sick the conditions were not nearly as bad as the worst I have been through before. I managed to keep the crew fed throughout although it may well have not been my finest hour in the galley. I kept up nav and weather but when someone had to crawl onto the foredeck to address damage from boarding seas it was my good friend Adam Plourde who took care of things. I am and will always be grateful to Adam for his contribution.

Powering through sea sickness myself was based on the example set by Carlos Mendoza who sailed with me from Goteberg to Horta. Carlos got sick as Falmouth sank below the horizon. He couldn't keep anything down, including water. Ice chips kept him hydrated, mostly. I have pictures of Carlos flaked out on the sole. Nevertheless he never missed a watch. The ultimate solution to seasickness (sitting under a tree) was attained in Horta. Carlos lost over 20 lbs in 18 days (we still call it the "Carlos Mendoza adventure diet") but it still took a long discussion about dehydration and offshore rescue to get him on a plane. I figured if Carlos could do his part for two-and-a-half weeks of misery I could do a few days.

When we arrived in Bermuda Carlos was on the dock waiting for us and made the trip to Norfolk and on to Annapolis.

Two take-aways from my rambling: sea sicknesses can hit anyone and it is really bad, and I am truly blessed with good friends like Adam, Carlos, and Chip (whose exploits deserve their own thread, if not a book).


----------



## tempest

SVAuspicious said:


> Which goes to my earlier point. It isn't about the boat, it's about the crew. Frankly this is why I like the Yachtmaster credential over the USCG Master's license for recreational boats. The US Coast Guard gives you a test. The MCA takes you sailing.


You probably have personal experience with crews, that informs your preference.

But, you know it takes a little more than just test taking to get a Master's Ticket. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Trip to Bermuda and back from the eastern US could qualify someone for a Yachtmaster Ocean credential (Within 10 years. )

While a CG master 100T, near coastal would require 720 total days of which 360 must be near coastal 
with 90 days of recent sea time beyond the Boundary line.

No intent to argue the merits of one over the other. Other than to say that it's more than sitting down and taking a test..


----------



## christian.hess

when I took my 100 ton masters it was as simple as having a captain sign your log book, saying you actually sailed...truth be told ANYONE could do this...I used my logbook as I was the captain on my boat and then had the captain of the spanish boat I crewed on sign my other...

never did somebody verify this...and this was at one of the bigger schools in ft lauderdale fl...

and I trully agree...licenses SHOULD be practical tests...or be much more hands on...not to mention I still beleive that the whole 6pack and masters licenses are really useless when it comes down to it...sooo much jibberish and very little practical real world information..
oh and even less useful for sailors...I laughed so hard when the sailing endorsement was basically a 5 page booklet that one took AFTER the whole course...same for towing...

about rallies I remember there was one going up the red sea when the pirate attacks started becoming more frequent and we decided to go alone and not use our navigation lights at night specifically to help us be less evident and be caught...we used radar though.

The last thing we would of wanted was to be a huge floating mass of sailboats all in a herd all lit up and communicating between eachother day an night like most rallies do, making us the biggest target ever!

anywhoo

the great thing about it all is that one has options still...last thing I would want is for every country to adopt laws forcing people to be "masters of the sea" and make it so hard to go beyond the harbor or achorage without doing something ilegal that it would kill most peoples aspirations to even start sailing.

rallies when done well can be nice...the baja haha for example has a great record...and doesnt imply its something greater than it really is etc...

peace


----------



## smackdaddy

boatkied said:


> I have to dis-agree with many of the posts here. I sailed with the Salty Dawg Rally last Fall of 2012 and I have to say it was very well run. They first off have Safety in mind. They work closely with numerous orgs to ensure participates are qualified, trained etc... They work VERY CLOSE with Chris Parker to ensure that conditions are right before leaving.
> 
> This year, I could not attend, but I have several friends in the Rally and again, they work with Chris Parker and team to ensure they are following the right course and weather is right. In this case, the forecast was right when they left and suddenly it changed overnight. That is not a reflection of the Rally organizers, but more of a reflection weather forecasting anomaly's...
> 
> We delayed for many days last year before leaving and everything was perfect to go. This year, they did the same thing with the same due diligence and the forecast was different.
> 
> If you more experienced posters on this site followed the Atlantic Weather overnight, it had a serious shift...


I want to make it clear that I'm not saying this particular rally - or any other - is not being well-run. And I know they all "have safety in mind". But by what standard? This is the problem.

You can have the best weather router in the world - but weather changes - as you've just pointed out. Then it comes down to the preparedness of the participants. If they aren't prepared - you have a serious problem.

Why not hold rallies to the same safety standards as races? It really makes little sense not to.


----------



## capttb

What safety standards were involved here ?
The you need one person on board who don't get seasick and has been in enough bad weather that his faith in the boat will sustain the others rule ?


----------



## killarney_sailor

Smack, rallies are not races except that they may cross the same hunk of ocean. The vessels are different, the crews are different and the intentions of the trip are different. 

It would be nice to think that people are smart and aware enough to make proper decisions, but I suspect at some point there will be legislation requiring qualifications like yacht master before a voyage can start.

Had a thought about this. Is there a problem with the common sailor's nature to exaggerate the winds and seas they are in. We have all heard people in the YC bar talking about being out with full #1 and main in 35 knots and 10 foot seas in their xxxxxxx 27 when in fact the winds never went above 22 and the waves 6 feet. They hear about offshore conditions being similar to what they have 'experienced' and feel comfortable with going.


----------



## jameswilson29

The frequency of these incidents creates a good business opportunity for a salvage company near Hatteras. One could send a boat 200 miles off the coast at the start of each rally, then with radio coordination onshore and maybe a helicopter or plane, locate, secure and board these relatively, expensive large sailboats when the courageous skippers call for a rescue and abandon when they start feeling queasy. Collect the salvage fee and repeat!


----------



## SVAuspicious

Tempest said:


> You probably have personal experience with crews, that informs your preference.
> 
> But, you know it takes a little more than just test taking to get a Master's Ticket. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Trip to Bermuda and back from the eastern US could qualify someone for a Yachtmaster Ocean credential (Within 10 years. )
> 
> While a CG master 100T, near coastal would require 720 total days of which 360 must be near coastal
> with 90 days of recent sea time beyond the Boundary line.


I was referring to the evaluation and not to the prerequisites. To get a Yachtmaster (or the Master of Oceans) from MCA you have to go sailing with a credentialed evaluator.

I've sailed with lots of licensed crew (who I call paper captains) who built up the time one way or another (including a number who did it as stewardesses on big boats) but couldn't apply the knowledge they demonstrated on the test. The red ensign licenses require that you demonstrate application in addition to knowing the answers. It's a good approach.

Let's not forget that the ralliers (whether you like rallies or not) are out there.

Decision-making changes when you are at sea. The books don't matter so much.

I am very curious about the dismasting. Was it a boat problem with the rigging (in which case ISAF-like regulations might have helped) or a crew problem (for example back-to-back crash gybes) in which case all the inspections in the world won't help.


----------



## PCP

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack, rallies are not races except that they may cross the same hunk of ocean. The vessels are different, the crews are different and the intentions of the trip are different.
> 
> .....


Yes but neither the sea is different as probably the sailors are less experienced. Minimum safety standards should apply yo all organised offshore events.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ScottUK

The link to this publication states 2 of the 5 boats were part of the rally.

Sail-World.com : Caribbean-bound yachts head south - five rescues in 24 hours


----------



## ccriders

ScottUK said:


> The link to this publication states 2 of the 5 boats were part of the rally.
> 
> Sail-World.com : Caribbean-bound yachts head south - five rescues in 24 hours


I came to this conclusion after looking at the tracking data on the rally's web page. Three of the boats were not listed.
When an incident like this hits the news, it sets off a lot of discussion about the who, what, when, where and (especially) why. Yet news coverage is sketchy, inaccurate, and confusing. Confusing because often the reports use terms inaccurately. 
At one point in our discussion, the size of the boats was indicated to be an important factor. It seems that there are seven boats under 40 feet, about 50 that are between 40 and 50 feet, 13 are between 50 and 60 feet and one over 60 feet. These aren't dinks out there braving the elements. Indeed, most of the comments are along the lines "boat and crew doing fine, good sailing". 
Maybe it's my goody two shoes attitude, but one would think that the owner of a 40-60 foot sailboat would have prepared himself and his boat before embarking on a major sea voyage. It seems that this is in fact true.
So now it appears that two salty dog ralliers made calls for assistance. A Morgan OI 416 suffering from seasickness asked to be evacuated. And a 38 foot dismasted sailboat called but refused evacuation and is continuing on to the Bahamas.
For their sake, I hope the SDR people parse the news and give an account of how their participants fared. One case of a sea sick crew should be treated as an anomaly. 
One thought cones up though. Maybe the CG should air drop some of those electronic sea sickness wrist bands to a crew like that on the Ahmisa and check back later.


----------



## ScottUK

So basically there should have been 2 pan pans. Don't think there is a need for aspersions for this particular rally. I do question a may day call for seasickness by a boat that has not been underway for very long. It appears they risked the safety of the CG for their own comfort. The report was that they were also taking on water and that might be the case so would be a reason for a mayday. However if that boat is later found still afloat I think the people should be charged for the rescue. Some might think this could have a chilling effect and it should because going offshore in a pleasure craft is a choice and people need to take personal responsibility. I think charging people for superfluous rescues would have a larger impact then any regulations.


----------



## HeartsContent

So the answer is taxation? That's pretty disturbing as what's really being said is that we should leave sailing to the wealthy.

It's sad to see this sentiment as it's so against what the spirit of the sea is.



PCP said:


> I have been saying and many disagreeing that this sort of situations is going to fall on the ones that take or/and are experienced. I bet that on these times of economic difficulties somebody is going to look at the numbers and costs and will stop with this nonsense. It is logical that the ones that benefice from SAR should the ones to pay for it, instead of the money coming from all tax payers.
> 
> That can be made trough mandatory insurance that obviously is going to be more expensive than the actual one. That would also auto regulate the boats that should or not go offshore and crew experience. I don't believe the premiums regarding SAR will be the same for all boats and some in what regards offshore would be simply not insurable. A certification that needs sailing experience will also lower premiums. They are not there to lose money.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## PCP

HeartsContent said:


> So the answer is taxation? That's pretty disturbing as what's really being said is that we should leave sailing to the wealthy.
> 
> It's sad to see this sentiment as it's so against what the spirit of the sea is.


All are paying for you to have SAR and they pay it with tax.

You mean the spirit of the sea is that the ones that don't do sail have to pay for the rescue of the ones that sail, I mean in what regards recreational activity?

An insurance, if the boat is fit for what is insured for, it is not necessarily expensive and represents only a small part of what you pay for boat maintenance and eventually marina costs, not mention cruising costs.

I don't see what this is to be wealthy or not. Having a cruising boat does not come cheap but it is affordable not only by wealthy people, that are a minority if we take into consideration all cruising boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

ScottUK said:


> So basically there should have been 2 pan pans. Don't think there is a need for aspersions for this particular rally. I do question a may day call for seasickness by a boat that has not been underway for very long. It appears they risked the safety of the CG for their own comfort. The report was that they were also taking on water and that might be the case so would be a reason for a mayday. However if that boat is later found still afloat I think the people should be charged for the rescue. Some might think this could have a chilling effect and it should because going offshore in a pleasure craft is a choice and people need to take personal responsibility. I think charging people for superfluous rescues would have a larger impact then any regulations.


If you are from the UK you know for certain the outcome of that incident where a racing boat was rammed by a cargo ship on a race? The sailor was condemned to pay a HUGE fine.

Without responsibility we will not have safe sailing and without people being held responsible for their acts responsibility will always be a question of opinion.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ScottUK

I am aware of the fine but that was a different scenario. There was a guy in the UK this year who was 'rescued' a number of times. They finally took away his boat. They should have charged him for all the rescues as was my point in my last post.


----------



## tomandchris

The whole idea of who should cover costs is an interesting one. Freedom of the sea has never meant that everything is FREE. Anybody that owns a boat knows that. Saving your life once may be covered under the USCG rules. However, their are people that cry wolf when they should not and put others at jeopardy. Natural selection should come in at some point. 

If you cruise the CF forum you may be reading about Scooberts planned trip south from NY to Florida. This is a very inexperienced sailor (mostly reading books on sail trim), with a new to him boat that has needed more than lots of work. He and his wife and sister in law (neither of which has any experience but are going to be standing watch while he sleeps) are leaving some time this week. They think it may take up to a week!

Yesterday he commented that he could not understand why the people in the rally are calling for help when it is only blowing 25Kts with 8' seas. He has done that in a 22' powerboat! He followed that with the fact that he knows he will not have any problem because a sister boat to his survived un scathed in 35' breaking waves. What do you think the odds are for this guy in 8' seas. CG please help....my wife is going to kill me
This guy should get the bill if he needs rescuing.


----------



## PCP

ScottUK said:


> I am aware of the fine but that was a different scenario. There was a guy in the UK this year who was 'rescued' a number of times. They finally took away his boat. They should have charged him for all the rescues as was my point in my last post.


I do not disagree, not with you neither with Tom. That as to do with responsibility and living in society. Someone that calls for a rescue when there is not a life threatening situation is irresponsible. Someone that sails offshore in a boat not meant to or in bad shape is irresponsible.

This is a question about responsibility an knowledge and the main issue is to know if the decisions should be free (like going to sail without knowing nothing about it or in an unsuitable boat) and later people be held responsible for their actions or if should be taken preventive measures regarding people going to the sea without knowing what they are doing and in anything that floats.

Clearly in Europe they have gone to preventive measures. On most countries the boats have to be insured and RCD says exactly what is the type of boat that can be used in each situation. Defines minimum requirements regarding the boats that can be used offshore and the boats have to be certified by the manufacturer. On top of that the boats have pass regular inspections and it is not only necessary to have a boat that is authorized to do that but also to have all the equipment needed for that.

Even if you have all that is needed in what regards material, you will need a licence that supposedly says that you are competent. An Oceanic licence can only obtained after several years and several other licences that include not only knowledge but practice.

I am not saying that this is a perfect system or the right way but certainly will prevent a crazy guy that decides to set sail for the horizon with a derelict, risking the lives of others and cost a fortune in SAR operations to be paid by all.

The other way to do it is maintaining apparently freedom without any limitations and make mandatory for the ones that sail a SAR insurance that will pay an eventual rescue. Insurance companies will take car of making impossible mad situations. They will charge according to the risk and for the ones that the risk is too high, they simply will not find an insurance and will not be able to put their live or others lives in jeopardy.

Take your pick

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ccriders

PCP said:


> Clearly in Europe they have gone to preventive measures. On most countries the boats have to be insured and RCD says exactly what is the type of boat that can be used in each situation. Defines minimum requirements regarding the boats that can be used offshore and the boats have to be certified by the manufacturer. On top of that the boats have pass regular inspections and it is not only necessary to have a boat that is authorized to do that but also to have all the equipment needed for that.
> 
> Even if you have all that is needed in what regards material, you will need a licence that supposedly says that you are competent. An Oceanic licence can only obtained after several years and several other licences that include not only knowledge but practice.
> 
> Paulo


In Texas, we call that the nanny state and many argue it will lead to the decline of the species.
John


----------



## PCP

ccriders said:


> In Texas, we call that the nanny state and many argue it will lead to the decline of the species.
> John


You mean living in society or someone be held responsible for his actions?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## davidpm

capta said:


> There was no luck involved; it was seamanship and discipline that got him and his 23 men through..


I certainly hear where you are coming from. There is a saying something about experienced people make their own luck.

There is a serious risk however because their are lots of kinds of luck.
An experienced person is always stacking the deck in their favor and because of that most of the time they will be "lucky".

The risk is that someone thinks they it all figured out because they are now "experienced".
There are bad luck scenarios that can hit us that even the most prudent person would not have anticipated nor been able to handle. Maybe not many but enough to keep us all humble.

Just surviving the drive to the grocery store has a significant element of luck in it.


----------



## smurphny

ccriders said:


> In Texas, we call that the nanny state and many argue it will lead to the decline of the species.
> John


We, up in the sticks (aka most of) NY call it the same. Europe seems to be much more willing to accept intrusive regulation. It's a cultural thing.


----------



## paperbird

I went to the saltydawg rally web site and listened to the daily radio logs they have recorded. The Morgan 416 that requested rescue was on the recording. They reported taking on water beyond the capacity of their pumps and at least one crew member seasick to the point of uncontrollably vomiting blood. 

Seems to be well beyond queasy.


----------



## ccriders

Paolo, you need to come visit Texas and a few other states to understand my comment. We actually have regulations up to our ears, probably much like in Europe. Which has led to political upheaval intent on destroying government, first the national and then the state level. There are many who believe in the "self made man" myth and live by a "frontier" mentality. Being a a member of society is secondary to being a free man, but always responsible for you self. It is like the slogan from the Revolutionay War - "Live free or die."
John


----------



## GMFL

ccriders said:


> In Texas, we call that the nanny state and many argue it will lead to the decline of the species.
> John


Believe it or not. Some of us in California call it that too.


----------



## capta

Tempest said:


> You probably have personal experience with crews, that informs your preference.
> 
> But, you know it takes a little more than just test taking to get a Master's Ticket. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Trip to Bermuda and back from the eastern US could qualify someone for a Yachtmaster Ocean credential (Within 10 years. )
> While a CG master 100T, near coastal would require 720 total days of which 360 must be near coastal
> with 90 days of recent sea time beyond the Boundary line.
> No intent to argue the merits of one over the other. Other than to say that it's more than sitting down and taking a test..


The USCG 100 ton ticket is a joke internationally. It can be gotten by anyone who fakes sea time and takes a course on how to pass the test; there is rarely a verification process. It is not valid in any other country and does not equal a certificate of competency, it is only a permit to operate vessels certified by the USCG.
I know nothing about the RYA system other than it is recognized in the industry as the standard for capable and qualified mariners.
On the other hand, my Commonwealth Pacific Islands Certificate of Competency as a Mate was a 25 hour examination after I operated as harbor pilot, docking/undocking all merchant vessels for a month, not some silly multiple choice exam.
I have worked under several unlimited master's certificates, the Commonwealth certificate and a USCG 200 ton Master's License from the USCG and can unequivocally state that the USCG paper is worthless as a testament to a person's knowledge and abilities.


----------



## tempest

capta said:


> The USCG 100 ton ticket is a joke internationally. It can be gotten by anyone who fakes sea time and takes a course on how to pass the test; there is rarely a verification process. It is not valid in any other country and does not equal a certificate of competency, it is only a permit to operate vessels certified by the USCG.
> I know nothing about the RYA system other than it is recognized in the industry as the standard for capable and qualified mariners.
> On the other hand, my Commonwealth Pacific Islands Certificate of Competency as a Mate was a 25 hour examination after I operated as harbor pilot, docking/undocking all merchant vessels for a month, not some silly multiple choice exam.
> I have worked under several unlimited master's certificates, the Commonwealth certificate and a USCG 200 ton Master's License from the USCG and can unequivocally state that the USCG paper is worthless as a testament to a person's knowledge and abilities.


Well, I guess, I've been told. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sorry, I'm late to this party, but just want to offer a few comments, regarding what I see as a fair amount of misconception in this thread...

The 1500 and the SD did NOT depart at roughly the same time... While a few SD boats - CELEBRATION, DISTANT STAR departed well in advance of the majority of the SD fleet, the 1500 has been sailing in an entirely different weather situation... Dave/Auspicious and I had some discussion of this in the "Where do I sleep" thread a week ago...

Heed Dave's comments on the Salty Dawg... I know the Knowles' as well, they're very experienced, and have put together a very good program with the SD... It is a VERY loosely organized 'rally' in comparison to the 1500, they have always made it very clear their function is not to hold anyone's hand, everyone is responsible for making their own decisions re departures, and everything else... The Salth Dawg Rally definitely does NOT adhere to any sort of 'schedule', whatsoever...

I've only heard bits and pieces over the past two days, having been on the water myself... I left Annapolis Friday morning with a Cabo Rico 42, and just returned to the boat from the usual wonderful dinner in Coinjock...

I'm inclined to believe the conditions that the boats offshore saw might have been considerably more impressive than what's being reported... Our sail down the Bay yesterday and last night was fantastic, but featured a lot more breeze behind that front than was forecast... Talking with some boats here tonight in Coinjock, that were held up for a couple of days in Portsmouth waiting for a passage thru the damaged Great Bridge Lock, it sounded like the weather that passed thru the Tidewater in association with the latest front was pretty serious... And, based upon the kick-ass sail we had yesterday down to Smith Point, I'd believe it...

From what I understand, a Catana 46 was dismasted, and a Catalina 42 ("JAMMIN") has lost their steering...

As I said to Dave last week, I think the 1500 made the better call this year, leaving when they did... They've had a very fast trip, but some pretty challenging conditions for much of the way... When the crew of a boat like a Hylas 54 reports that "everything is absolutely soaked", you know it's been a pretty sporty ride, hard on the breeze. Good luck to all those out there, looks like another very broad area of gale conditions will develop from Hatteras to Canaveral by Wednesday.... I'm hoping to at least hop outside again on Tuesday from Morehead to Wrightsville, but even that might be cutting it close, we shall see, but I'm guessing I'll be inside the rest of the way from Little River to Charleston...

Anyway, sorry this is rather disjointed, haven't had much sleep since Annapolis  But based upon what I've seen and heard out on the water the past 2 days, I'm inclined to give some of these rally participants the benefit of the doubt, some of these recent weather features have been highly localized, variable, and intense...

btw, for those that haven't had the pleasure, a CR 42 on a broad reach in 30 knots of November breeze, it's like sailing a freight train, what a sweet ride...  We had the Bay mostly to ourselves yesterday, though we did pass one catamaran north of Cove Point who was motoring in those conditions, hugging the western shore, and flying _no sail whatsoever_...

Some people should just be shot...


----------



## ScottUK

> They reported taking on water beyond the capacity of their pumps and at least one crew member seasick to the point of uncontrollably vomiting blood.
> 
> Seems to be well beyond queasy.


If in such a dire state of health I got to wonder why medical treatment was refused once ashore.

As I said before if they were taking on water then that could be a valid reason for a mayday. However if the boat is found afloat then their story wouldn't hold water. Couldn't resist the pun.


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think it is important to point out that not all rallies are the same or even similar. The 1500 and SD point this out as do events like Sail Indonesia which seems to be focussed on dealing with the country's incredible bureaucracy. The Pacific Puddle Jumpers is nominally a rally but you can leave from anywhere on the Pacific coast of the Americas (we went from Ecuador) whenever you want so long as you reach French Polynesia within a window of a few months.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> I'm inclined to believe the conditions that the boats offshore saw might have been considerably more impressive than what's being reported... Our sail down the Bay yesterday and last night was fantastic, but featured a lot more breeze behind that front than was forecast...


And before anyone beats up the forecasters, the weather was quite odd. We don't often see cold fronts pushed along in front of a high instead of dragged along by a low. The high stalled and the cold front intensified over Tidewater Virginia and then drifted offshore to pound the boats out there. It was all very flaky. I don't think anyone got it right.

I agree that C1500 made the best call leaving Saturday although conditions have been sporty. I was recommending Sunday night into Monday morning which might have been late. Mid- to late-week turned out not to be so great. Everyone was trying to make conservative assessments but the weather simply didn't develop the way we expected.



JonEisberg said:


> btw, for those that haven't had the pleasure, a CR 42 on a broad reach in 30 knots of November breeze, it's like sailing a freight train, what a sweet ride...


Are you on Utopia?


----------



## chall03

This thread would have to be the biggest heap of stinking armchair excrement I have seen on Sailnet in a while.

Two boats we know very little about have gotten in trouble offshore in circumstances we know very little about. Thats the story. That and they were part of a rally.



smackdaddy said:


> You can have the best weather router in the world - but weather changes - as you've just pointed out. Then it comes down to the preparedness of the participants. If they aren't prepared - you have a serious problem.
> 
> Why not hold rallies to the same safety standards as races? It really makes little sense not to.


Standards??? Regulation??? From Mr BFS.......

Bite me.

Because cruising is not racing.

I go cruising to escape bureaucratic morons trying to tell me what to do. Thankyou very much but I will not be asking them to inspect my boat and grant me permission to take my boat offshore.

Two words.

*Skippers Responsibility. *

It begins and ends there.

Rallies can be fun. I didn't think they would be our cup of tea, but they have helped us build confidence, not because we expected other experienced boats to bail us out offshore, but because we got to chat with those guys before we went and we learn't a thing or two and when we got there those guys were also there to raise a glass and toast the fact that we had conquered challenges. 
If any one let's a rally make decisions for them and follows blindly then they are an idiot and need to read the two words above. However if being in a rally every now and then makes us bad, irresponsible silly sailors then......

Bite me.

As for PCP charging us all, taxing and licensing sailors to the hilt......

Bite me.

That conversation annoy me and i have had it several times.

I personally think as a group sailors contribute enough to society, but this is the kind of wonderfully emotive topic that get's people all angry and righteous everytime some poor bastard punches his eprib.

Without getting political- I think you will find that the money spent rescuing sailors is insignificant compared to the money governments spend dealing with things like self imposed health issues, crime, etc etc. When everyone receives a bill for their burden on society then I will be open to sailors paying more.

BTW I am a RYA Yachtmaster (Offshore). So yes I have done safety and sea training and my boat currently meets ISAF CAT 1.

Yet there would be people on here who have none of this and are 100 times more suited than I to cross oceans.


----------



## benesailor

> I personally think as group sailors contribute enough to society, but this is the kind of wonderfully emotive topic that get's people all angry and righteous everytime some poor bastard punches his eprib.
> 
> Without getting political- I think you will find that the money spent rescuing sailors is insignificant compared to the money governments spend dealing with things like self imposed health issues, crime, etc etc. When everyone receives a bill for their burden on society then I will be open to sailors paying more.


Couldn't have said it any better myself.


----------



## jameswilson29

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, I'm late to this party, but just want to offer a few comments, regarding what I see as a fair amount of misconception in this thread...
> 
> . Good luck to all those out there, looks like another very broad area of gale conditions will develop from Hatteras to Canaveral by Wednesday....


Obviously, a few of these big boat owners should have hired an experienced pro like you or Dave to help them take their boats down with them - might have saved them from an expensive loss of property. Perhaps, some should reconsider their plans for the trip back...


----------



## jameswilson29

paperbird said:


> I went to the saltydawg rally web site and listened to the daily radio logs they have recorded. The Morgan 416 that requested rescue was on the recording. They reported taking on water beyond the capacity of their pumps and at least one crew member seasick to the point of uncontrollably vomiting blood.
> 
> Seems to be well beyond queasy.


Exactly, some of these folks should never have been offshore, given their general physical condition. I have been severely seasick twice to the point of vomiting and nauseated at least half a dozen times to the point where it affected my performance. Scary stuff. Lack of sleep, anxiety and dehydration definitely contribute to mal de mer. In those conditions, you might not want to be outside, looking at the horizon or steering.

Understanding your physical condition and your limits are important considerations in cruising. Many of these big boat sailors might be better suited to being safely inside on the ICW, instead of 200 miles off Hatteras...


----------



## oceangirl

Vomiting blood, is not any seasickness I've heard of. Maybe ulcer, perforated something, but not seasickness. My crew was vomiting blood, especially bright red, I'd get him to med services ASAP.


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> T....
> As for PCP charging us all, taxing and licensing sailors to the hilt......
> 
> Bite me.
> 
> That conversation annoy me and i have had it several times.
> 
> .....
> Without getting political- I think you will find that the money spent rescuing sailors is insignificant compared to the money governments spend dealing with things like self imposed health issues, crime, etc etc. When everyone receives a bill for their burden on society then I will be open to sailors paying more.
> ...


I don't care about political solutions on society problems in other countries but it is obvious that while education, health and security are problems that matters to all and are indispensable, recreational sailing is a recreational activity that only respects to a very small minority.

Note that I am not talking about fishing or commercial navigation.

It is more than fair than problems that regards to all society should be paid by all (tax) and that problems and costs that are linked exclusively with a recreational activity that only regards to a minority should be paid for those that indulge in that activity and by those alone, otherwise it would not be fair or socially acceptable.

I like fairness even when it goes against my own interests.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ScottUK

> This thread would have to be the biggest heap of stinking armchair excrement I have seen on Sailnet in a while.
> 
> Two boats we know very little about have gotten in trouble offshore in circumstances we know very little about. Thats the story. That and they were part of a rally.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by smackdaddy
> You can have the best weather router in the world - but weather changes - as you've just pointed out. Then it comes down to the preparedness of the participants. If they aren't prepared - you have a serious problem.
> 
> Why not hold rallies to the same safety standards as races? It really makes little sense not to.
> 
> Standards??? Regulation??? From Mr BFS.......
> 
> Bite me.
> 
> Because cruising is not racing.
> 
> I go cruising to escape bureaucratic morons trying to tell me what to do. Thankyou very much but I will not be asking them to inspect my boat and grant me permission to take my boat offshore.
> 
> Two words.
> 
> Skippers Responsibility.
> 
> It begins and ends there.
> 
> Rallies can be fun. I didn't think they would be our cup of tea, but they have helped us build confidence, not because we expected other experienced boats to bail us out offshore, but because we got to chat with those guys before we went and we learn't a thing or two and when we got there those guys were also there to raise a glass and toast the fact that we had conquered challenges.
> If any one let's a rally make decisions for them and follows blindly then they are an idiot and need to read the two words above. However if being in a rally every now and then makes us bad, irresponsible silly sailors then......
> 
> Bite me.
> 
> As for PCP charging us all, taxing and licensing sailors to the hilt......
> 
> Bite me.
> 
> That conversation annoy me and i have had it several times.


This is a sailing forum these kind of the things are the fodder for discussion. That is what forums are for.

As for your bold faced statement I agree with you completely, see post no.80. However the name calling, the telling of people what to do and your general tenor is rude. This kind of crap belongs to forums like SA and not SN.


----------



## capttb

> Obviously, a few of these big boat owners should have hired an experienced pro





> Many of these big boat sailors might be better suited to being safely inside on the ICW, instead of 200 miles off Hatteras...


Now that I sail boats over 30 ft. I should stay inshore or can I still go out in the ocean safely ?
I've never vomited on a boat, from seasickness.


----------



## Donna_F

chall03 said:


> This thread would have to be the biggest heap of stinking armchair excrement I have seen on Sailnet in a while.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of what you said but the tone was a bit much in my opinion.

Personally, I learn a lot from threads that discuss situations such as this. You have the people who have been out there and done it sharing with those who have not or hope to. It's how people learn. It's part of why this forum exists. After some time being in the forum you identify the sailors with the actual experience and those who haven't left the couch and you sort through the information provided so that you can add to your own bag of sailing tools to become a better sailor.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DRFerron said:


> After some time being in the forum you identify the sailors with the actual experience and those who haven't left the couch and you sort through the information provided so that you can add to your own bag of sailing tools to become a better sailor.


Oh Oh Oh - can we replace the "Thanks" button with 'this person is an armchair sailor?' *grin*

Sorry - I have a warped sense of humor. You may now return to your previously scheduled programming.

Seriously, we should all tread gently. If you weren't out there you don't really know what happened. Did a boat fail? Did a crew member fail? Was the data available before departure deficient? Was analysis in error?

As others have pointed out here, on SA, and on CF the conditions don't SEEM to have been sufficiently harsh to result in the kind of damage being reported but we don't know and probably won't. Data collection is generally acknowledged as under reporting conditions, and individuals--particularly those with less experience--grossly over report conditions. We'll never really know.

There is still the opportunity to learn by exploring. Judging our colleagues (well the colleagues of those of us who sail offshore) doesn't contribute to that, even if part of the learning is by considering human failure.


----------



## PCP

Here's a breakdown of each incident provided by the U.S. Coast Guard:

*Rescue #1:

Crewmembers aboard the 41-foot sailboat, Ahimsa, sent out a distress signal via a satellite tracking device, stating that they were taking on water approximately 230 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance.

5th District watchstanders launched crews aboard a Hercules airplane to search and a Jayhawk helicopter to perform the rescue. Watchstanders also contacted the Navy, who diverted the USS Vella Gulf to assist.

At approximately 11 p.m., the Jayhawk crew arrived at the Vella Gulf's location and refuled aboard the ship. Proceeding from the Vella Gulf, the Jayhawk hoisted four people from the Ahimsa at approximately 1:30 a.m., and took the boaters back to Air Station Elizabeth City, where they declined medical treatment.

Rescue #2:

In a second case, crewmembers aboard the 38-foot sailboat Nyapa, sent out a distress signal via a satellite tracking device stating that they had lost their mast and were taking on water approximately 275 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance.

5th District Watchstanders diverted the first Hercules crew from the Ahimsa case to search for the Nyapa, but were unable to locate the boat. A HC-130 crew from the air station launched at approximately 10 p.m., and utilizing new information recieved from the coordinator of the Salty Dawg Rally, located the Nyapa and established communications.

A crewmember aboard the Nyapa stated they had 4 people aboard and confirmed they lost their mast, but no one was injured and they were continuing south via motors and no longer needed assistance.

Rescue #3:

In a third case, 5th District watchstanders received an alert from an emergency position indicating radio beacon registered the sailboat Aurora. The alert positioned the Aurora 230 miles east of Elizabeth City, N.C.

Both Hercules crews searched the area but were unable to locate the boat. The crew of a nearby sailboat, the Dreamreach, responded to the Coast Guard's radio broadcasts inquiring the after Aurora, stating that they had been in contact with the vessel and that the Aurora was not in distress and were heading to Bermuda.

Rescue #4:

In a fourth case, crewmembers aboard the sailboat Brave Heart, located approximately 50 miles southeast of Ocracoke Inlet, N.C., contacted Sector North Carolina watchstanders, reporting a 67-year-old man aboard had a arm injury.

Watchstanders launched a Coast Guard Station Hatteras Inlet crew aboard a 47-foot Motor Life Boat to attempt a medevac. Once on scene, the MLB was unable to conduct the medevac due to adverse weather conditions.

The Coast Guard Cutter Block Island was dispatched to escort the Brave Heart into Beaufort, N.C., but was diverted to assist with another case with a disabled sailboat. Watchstanders established a communication schedule with the Brave Heart and planned to send a crew from Coast Guard Station Fort Macon to escort the Brave Heart in, but crewmembers aboard the Brave Heart stated they no longer needed Coast Guard assistance.

Rescue #5:

In a fifth case, crewmembers aboard the 54-foot sailboat, Zulu, located approximately 100 miles east of Oregon Inlet, N.C., contacted Sector North Carolina watchstanders via satellite phone, reporting that they were disabled and adrift. The Cutter Block Island crew arrived on scene and is preparing to set up a tow to bring the Zulu back to shore.*

U.S. Coast Guard Comes to Rescue of ?Salty Dogs? Off Virginia Coast | gCaptain ? Maritime & Offshore News

Another report from a newspaper>

Late Thursday night, the Coast Guard rescued four people from a sailboat off Va. Beach. The boaters on the Ahimsa were glad to be rescued and said they suffered from extreme sea sickness after getting hit by 12-foot waves.

Two other sailboats, the Nyapa and the Aurora which are part of the race, have been located and are fine, the U.S. Coast Guard confirmed. The crew aboard the boat off Va. Beach reporting their boat has a broken mast but they're under motor power.

The boat off the NC coast was spotted by another boat in the area. It relayed a message that all aboard are fine and they're continuing the race to the Bahamas.

In a fourth case, the Coast Guard went to assist boaters on the Brave Heart, off Ocracoke, NC, but bad weather hampered their efforts. Later communication from the boaters said they were no longer in distress.

Coast Guard rescues boaters off Va. Beach; 4 other boats OK | WVEC.com Norfolk - Hampton Roads

*ST PETERSBURG, FL -
The Coast Guard rescued three stranded sailors who were trapped 80 miles west of Tampa.

On Monday afternoon, the sailing boat 'Grateful' was making its way from Louisiana to Cape Coral. The three-man crew was delivering it to its owner when things went horribly wrong.

"It was nerve wracking," said sailor Brian Burke. "By Monday morning, we had lost our engines, blown out a sail, and by that time we were adrift."

The crew sent out a distress signal.

"Within about an hour and 45 minutes we had a helicopter overhead, he was communicating with us," said sailor Craig Toomey.

Soon after, the Coast Guard Cutter 'Nantucket' was sent to the rescue.

"[The water] was pretty bad," Captain Ryan Waitt said. "The biggest issue was the seas were building, we saw about 6 to 8 feet."

"It was a little dicey, and a little uncomfortable and not something I wanna do again anytime soon," said Cleve Fair, another sailor on board....Currently, the 'Grateful' is still disabled and stranded at sea....Despite this obvious mishap, these men still plan to finish the job they started, and deliver the boat to Cape Coral. *



Coast Guard rescues 3 boaters 80 miles west of Tampa - WFLA News Channel 8

*ST. PETERSBURG - Three boaters who were stranded in the water after their vessel's engine lost power Monday were all brought to safety at the Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg Tuesday.
The boaters' 30-foot sailing vessel shut off 80 miles west of Tampa Monday, according to reports.
Watchstanders at the Coast Guard 7 th district in Miami received a distress signal at 8:50 a.m. Monday. ...

Cleveland Fair, a 74-year-old resident of Mandeville, La., thanked the crew of the Coast Guard Cutter Nantucket, a 110-foot Island Class patrol boat homeported in St. Petersburg, Fla., for rescuing him and his two friends at Sector St. Petersburg, Tuesday.
No injuries occurred.*

Read more: Three boaters rescued by Coast Guard after boat engine died returned to St. Petersburg

If you guys think that this is all normal, that a Mayday should be sent on all these situations and that the tax payers should pay for all of this ....well, its American tax payer money and I guess that even if some of those situations here would not be normal, I guess that it is all a cultural question, but I wonder who is the nanny state.

....


----------



## ScottUK

> Vomiting blood, is not any seasickness I've heard of. Maybe ulcer, perforated something, but not seasickness. My crew was vomiting blood, especially bright red, I'd get him to med services ASAP.


Again, I would ask why the person refused medical treatment once ashore. That is what piqued my curiosity along with saying they were taking on water rather then sinking. Could be bad reporting I don't know but it does makes me wonder.


----------



## chall03

ScottUK said:


> This is a sailing forum these kind of the things are the fodder for discussion. That is what forums are for.
> 
> As for your bold faced statement I agree with you completely, see post no.80. However the name calling, the telling of people what to do and your general tenor is rude. This kind of crap belongs to forums like SA and not SN.


I don't think I called anyone a name, or told anyone what to do other than to bite me. I did use strong language to illustrate a point a feel very strongly about, perhaps that equates 'rude tenor'.



DRFerron said:


> I agree with a lot of what you said but the tone was a bit much in my opinion.
> 
> Personally, I learn a lot from threads that discuss situations such as this. You have the people who have been out there and done it sharing with those who have not or hope to. It's how people learn. It's part of why this forum exists. After some time being in the forum you identify the sailors with the actual experience and those who haven't left the couch and you sort through the information provided so that you can add to your own bag of sailing tools to become a better sailor.


Perhaps I went A bit far with that line. I had read through the entire thread and that was the first thing thought that popped into my head. I really have an issue ( you may have noticed) with further regulation and interference into what is my life.


----------



## davidpm

ScottUK said:


> Again, I would ask why the person refused medical treatment once ashore. That is what piqued my curiosity along with saying they were taking on water rather then sinking. Could be bad reporting I don't know but it does makes me wonder.


I would take anything reported by the media with a grain of salt.
Maybe they refused going to the emergency room as they found a doctor to treat them.

Not exactly the same as refused medical treatment but could be reported as such.


----------



## jameswilson29

capttb said:


> Now that I sail boats over 30 ft. I should stay inshore or can I still go out in the ocean safely ?


Sorry, you need a minimum of 40 ft. to go in the ocean safely, soon to be required by regulation. Plus, you must have completed all the ASA courses, including the Blue Water Sailing course (only $1,999 for a limited time) and crewed on someone else's 40+ foot boat in the ocean. Sailing is an esoteric art, limited to a few initiates, not every slob who can afford a boat...sailing is rocket science, after all!



capttb said:


> I've never vomited on a boat, from seasickness.


If you feel you are about to vomit, please immediately activate your EPIRB while you can still operate it. You might also consider attaching it to the vomit bucket so you can have it handy before vomiting. One of our sponsors is having a 2 EPRIBs for the price of 1 special! (you can never have enough EPIRBS, particularly if one of the crew locks himself in the head with one.)

You should also activate the EPIRB if any rain-driven water drips from the windows or the front hatch. (Tell the Coast Guard you are "taking on water.") You can never activate it too early!


----------



## chall03

jameswilson29 said:


> Sorry, you need a minimum of 40 ft. to go in the ocean safely, soon to be required by regulation. Plus, you must have completed all the ASA courses, including the Blue Water Sailing course (only $1,999 for a limited time) and crewed on someone else's 40+ foot boat in the ocean. Sailing is an esoteric art, limited to a few initiates, not every slob who can afford a boat...sailing is rocket science, after all!


Of course your 40ft boat will have to be inspected yearly to ensure I hasn't shrunk and been modified to an unsafe 39ft  .......Certification will be by an approved( $$$) licensed ($$$) boat length auditor and It must meet Offshore length standard IS012344 amendment B *Please note a committee of 'sailing officials' are currently meeting to discuss how long 40ft actually is and how you measure it. A set of new standards will be released shortly


----------



## PCP

That limitation would be a shame since it would prevent that Swedish guy that has a fixation on really small boats to circumnavigate non stop on a boat with a bit more than 1m. We would never would be able to know if it is safe to circumnavigate in a boat with less than 2m and that would be a shame. 

The real value of that information is much superior to all costs of a possible rescue and those costs are perfectly justified since that information is useful to all, sailors and non sailors alike.


----------



## chall03

Here in Australia we rescue our fair share of sailors. ( Normally singlehanded Europeans in the Southern Ocean ) 

Like I said Paulo it is a wonderfully emotive discussion, every-time it happens here people run that kind of line. The same people would think nothing about dialling our 911 equivalent on land if in the course of pursuing their lifestyle they found themselves in harms way. 

Incidentally we kind of do what you are suggesting unofficially. Here in Australia if you get in trouble along the coast, you will most likely be 'rescued' by a volunteer organisation known as Marine Rescue. After your tow back, there is an unofficial system in place where you are strongly encouraged to perhaps make a sizeable donation their way


----------



## Melrna

I am just catching up on this thread so bare with me. I have been here in Georgia shaking-down my new boat. I am not sure what was reported here on the real weather that was out there has beed accurate. When I first heard of the news I pulled the Navy Weather Ocean data. Seas were 25 feet or greater and gale force winds 40-50 knots. Down south here in GA we had 40 knots winds and seas 15-20' just off the coast. Needless to say we did not go out. We did go out yesterday for Shakedown #2 in 20-30 knot winds and 5-7 foot seas 3 sec spacing. The seas are a mess still but getting better. The new boat and crew did great in our practice run out there. Having sailed at 5-6 knots my whole life and now sailing with a longer waterline and sailing 8-9.7 knots it is a whole new world out there. We were very comfortable when I figured out which boat speed is best for sea conditions. 
Bottom line, is if any boats were in the Gulf Stream in that kind of weather, boats will break without good seamanship, crews will get sick and injuries will happen. I just hope those that are Monday Night Armchair Sailing have been out in these kinds of seas and winds. I suspect NOT for most here. 
Another thought I have is the number #1 thread here on SailNet and others is "Can I sail in the ocean in a Cheap ( hopefully free), 20-30 something Old boat that needs $$$ to fix up, but I will do the work myself, with no experience". While this may not pertain to the Salty Dog Rally participates, one wonders of the experience, boat maintenance, and other factors involved here. Lets learn from this Rally, find out what works and what didn't. Let have a discussion based on facts not Armchair Sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> This thread would have to be the biggest heap of stinking armchair excrement I have seen on Sailnet in a while.
> 
> Two boats we know very little about have gotten in trouble offshore in circumstances we know very little about. Thats the story. That and they were part of a rally.
> 
> Standards??? Regulation??? From Mr BFS.......
> 
> Bite me.
> 
> Because cruising is not racing.
> 
> I go cruising to escape bureaucratic morons trying to tell me what to do. Thankyou very much but I will not be asking them to inspect my boat and grant me permission to take my boat offshore.
> 
> Two words.
> 
> *Skippers Responsibility. *
> 
> It begins and ends there.
> 
> Rallies can be fun. I didn't think they would be our cup of tea, but they have helped us build confidence, not because we expected other experienced boats to bail us out offshore, but because we got to chat with those guys before we went and we learn't a thing or two and when we got there those guys were also there to raise a glass and toast the fact that we had conquered challenges.
> 
> If any one let's a rally make decisions for them and follows blindly then they are an idiot and need to read the two words above. However if being in a rally every now and then makes us bad, irresponsible silly sailors then......


My point is that if someone is going to put on an organized, sponsored sailing event (be it rally or race) that is this big of an off-shore passage - there should be a high standard of safety that participants should adhere to. This is especially important in the case of a rally, where the notion of "cruising in a group" creates a false sense of security...which, in turn, creates undue risk for less prepared participants. This risk, therefore, is created by the organizers of the event - and can only be balanced by them requiring a higher standard of safety and preparedness (e.g. - ISAF regs).

This says absolutely nothing about how and where an individual like you wants to cruise. Sail where ever you want, when ever your want, with whatever other boats you want. I have never believed in the need for "papers" to go sailing. The whole "nannny state" argument is a load of crap in this case. It's a red herring.

The bottom line is this: When an organization encourages groups of sailors, the level of preparedness of whom it has no earthly idea (beyond very basic and vague "offshore experience"), to undertake such a large passage - it has a level of responsibility...if not liability...for standards of safety for that group. And this is _especially_ true if this organization is in any way realizing revenue from the event. And I want to make it clear I'm talking about any organization - not particular one.

There is absolutely no reason ISAF regulations should not be in place, and enforced, for a sponsored rally....just like a race. This is nothing but good for everyone involved.

(PS - As "Mr. BFS", I have always advocated sailing big...pushing your envelope. Absolutely. But I've *always* advocated doing it safely. The bigger the sail, the higher your standards of safety and preparedness need to be. There's absolutely no conflict here. It's really just common sense...unless you want be believe an unprepared skipper should forever sail into serious trouble simply because he has the right to.)


----------



## PCP

"*A pan Pan is used to signify that there is an urgency on board a boat, ship, aircraft, or other vehicle but that, for the time being at least, there is no immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself.
This is referred to as a state of urgency.* *This is distinct from a Mayday call, which means that there is imminent danger to life or to the continued viability of the vessel itself"*

A sailboat loses the auxiliary engine and a Mayday is issued.

Another one issues a Mayday because had lost the engine and the Genoa.

Another issues a Mayday, two C 130 are deployed and find nothing in the Area. Another sailboat says to them that there is no problem with the boat that deployed the Epirb.

Another issues a Mayday because the boat had lost the mast and is taking water. When the c 130 arrives there a crew member says that everything is alright. No Injuries and they are motoring to port.

Another issues a Mayday because they were sick and the boat was making water. A C 130 is deployed plus an helicopter that rescues 4 that are seasick. When arriving they refuse medical treatment. There are notices (that need confirmation) that the boat is afloat. Let's wait some days to see if the boat is salvaged. The crew did not report any malfunction with the boat besides the boat "taking water".

At first I thought that the definition regarding a mayday was different in Europe and in the States, but apparently it is not. I can only conclude that many Maydays are been issued in situations that call for a Pan Pan and never for a Mayday.

By the content of this thread It also seems to me that many of the "real" sailors on sailnet don't know in what conditions a Mayday can or should be issued.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> My point is that if someone is going to put on an organized, sponsored sailing event (be it rally or race) that is this big of an off-shore passage - there should be a high standard of safety that participants should adhere to.


A high standard of safety yes. That is a given, but who sets this standard? Who is responsible for ensuring any given boat is 'safe'? What you say sounds good on the surface, but the issue is that what you are fundamentally talking about is taking responsibility for safety away from the skipper and handing it to someone else. This creates a false sense of security, you get a CAT 1 bumper sticker and a piece of paper saying you have sat in a liferaft in a pool with your mates so therefore you are offshore safe.



smackdaddy said:


> This is especially important in the case of a rally, where the notion of "cruising in a group" creates a false sense of security...which, in turn, creates undue risk for less prepared participants. This risk, therefore, is created by the organizers of the event - and can only be balanced by them requiring a higher standard of safety and preparedness (e.g. - ISAF regs).


I disagree that a rally 'creates a false sense of security'. I think anyone who is in a rallly to feel 'safe' when they otherwise wouldn't is an idiot. CAT 1 regs won't stop you being an idiot.



smackdaddy said:


> (PS - As "Mr. BFS", I have always advocated sailing big...pushing your envelope. Absolutely. But I've always advocated doing it safely. The bigger the sail, the higher your standards of safety and preparedness need to be. There's absolutely no conflict here. It's really just common sense...unless you want be believe an unprepared skipper should forever sail into serious trouble simply because he has the right to.)


The bigger the sail the higher my standards of safety are. I don't need ISAF, YA, RYA, Rally organisers to set them for me. These guys mean well but by their nature can only be a blunt instrument. I know the regs backwards, I have researched every aspect of them, and applied them as I believe appropriate to my boat, knowing it is my ass on the line.

Dress it up how you want, we differ on this Smack because you believes regulation equals safety. I don't necessarily.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> A high standard of safety yes. That is a given, but who sets this standard? Who is responsible for ensuring any given boat is 'safe'? What you say sounds good on the surface, but the issue is that what you are fundamentally talking about is taking responsibility for safety away from the skipper and giving it to a regulatory body.
> 
> I disagree that a rally 'creates a false sense of security'. I think anyone who is in a rallly to feel 'safe' when they otherwise wouldn't is an idiot. CAT 1 regs won't stop you being an idiot.
> 
> (PS - As "Mr. BFS", I have always advocated sailing big...pushing your envelope. Absolutely. But I've always advocated doing it safely. The bigger the sail, the higher your standards of safety and preparedness need to be. There's absolutely no conflict here. It's really just common sense...unless you want be believe an unprepared skipper should forever sail into serious trouble simply because he has the right to.)
> 
> The bigger the sail the higher my standards of safety are. I don't need ISAF, YA, RYA, Rally organisers to set them for me. These guys mean well but by their nature can only be a blunt instrument. I know the regs backwards, I have researched every aspect of them, and applied them as I believe appropriate to my boat, knowing it is my ass on the line.
> 
> Dress it up how you want, we differ on this Smack because you believes regulation equals safety. I don't necessarily.


You know me, Chall. I don't mind the disagreement at all.

Who sets the standard? ISAF is a great start. It's really pretty simple. And just like a race, it IS still up to the skipper, but the organizers - just like in a race - do some level of verification that the boats/skippers/crews are in compliance (spot checks, whatever...).

*IF this "racing-level" standard of safety was an approach that rally organizers adopted - rallies would be invaluable in that they would become a great way to up the game of all participating cruisers.*

As it is, it's essentially a sponsored crapshoot.

Again, my argument is putting _absolutely nothing_ on you as an individual. My argument is putting the onus on the organizers of sponsored rallies. Period.


----------



## sailvayu

I have read through this whole thread and in all the finger pointing and blaming weak/scared crews boats not ready for the voyage and all, not one person has gotten the facts right. I love how people are so quick the judge others when they do not have a clue as to the facts. I have listened to these boats everyday on the SSB. I have heard the distress calls as they came in. I have a good friend on one of the boats towed in. So I will summarize.

First boat down a Cartalina 54? catamaran, lost mast, made it back in under their own power. Distress call but refused help just wanted CG aware.

Second boat down Braveheart. Injury broken arm. Distress call but made it in under their own after they found it unsafe for injured crew transfer. 

Third boat down Alden 54 ketch, lost rudder, was towed to Chesapeake after drifting for 2 days. 

Fourth boat down, Morgen 41 Outisland, Taking on water (beyond what pumps could keep up with), Bulkheads coming apart, severely sick crew. Crew of 4 air lifted to Elizabeth City

Fifth boat down, Hans Christen 38, lost mast, vessel still underway under their own power to Norfolk, No assistance given. Reported in this evening all is well aboard.

Sixth boat down, Catalina 42, lost rudder, waited 3 days for tow should be back in this evening. (I personally spoke with this skipper while at sea and he simply was not equipped for makeshift repairs.) 

Seventh boat down Catalina 38, lost steering and engine. tried to make Bermuda but had to give up with no help from private tow (their first choice) They were advised to abandon by USCG because of worsening weather condition and little hope of other help. 3 crew air lifted today to Elizabeth city. (so they tried for 3 days to make a go of it) 

Lastly Aurora had a false alarm on their EPIRB, Capt. admitted mistake while checking gear. No assistance needed however a plane was sent to their location before the mistake was found. 

So 2 boats had air rescues only 1 with sick crew and they were breaking up. Second air lift at the assistance of CG as there was little hope for anything else.

2 boats towed back due to no steering.

The fleet left knowing a cold front was to pass but it was supposed to pass fast and then good conditions, Instead it stalled and the fleet was stuck in the stream with 20-25. The problems came in the squalls with 30-40 against the stream. 

I do not think the skippers did that bad if anything maybe they were not fully prepared to do jury rigs and make emergency repairs. 

At least now this thread can have some real facts to work with. For those that belittle those out there claiming they were just seasick you can see now there was more to it. Until you have been there maybe we should not be so quick to judge.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> You know me, Chall. I don't mind the disagreement at all.
> 
> Who sets the standard? ISAF is a great start. It's really pretty simple. And just like a race, it IS still up to the skipper, but the organizers - just like in a race - do some level of verification that the boats/skippers/crews are in compliance (spot checks, whatever...).
> 
> *IF this "racing-level" standard of safety was an approach that rally organizers adopted - rallies would be invaluable in that they would become a great way to up the game of all participating cruisers.*
> 
> As it is, it's essentially a sponsored crapshoot.
> 
> Again, my argument is putting _absolutely nothing_ on you as an individual. My argument is putting the onus on the organizers of sponsored rallies. Period.


Starting with ISAF for safety is great. That is where I_ started_ when I set our boat up safety wise, but not where I finished 

Your argument is putting something on me as an individual if I wish to participate in a rally - Incidentally most rallies are doing what you suggest in one form or another, all I am sure will follow soon. 
ARC entry fees currently are based on length but you will drop about a cool 2-3K in fees. That guy who will come on your boat with his ISAF clipboard and declare you BFS safe isn't free you know  ( nor will he be there with you in the liferaft).


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Starting with ISAF for safety is great. That is where I_ started_ when I set our boat up safety wise, but not where I finished
> 
> Your argument is putting something on me as an individual if I wish to participate in a rally - Incidentally most rallies are doing what you suggest in one form or another, all I am sure will follow soon.
> ARC entry fees currently are based on length but you will drop about a cool 2-3K in fees. That guy who will come on your boat with his ISAF clipboard and declare you BFS safe isn't free you know  ( nor will he be there with you in the liferaft).


Yes, it's putting something on you...IF you wish to participate in a rally, just like if you wish to participate in a race. If not - you've got no worries.

I have no problem with any of what you lay out above. Nothing's free. And at least you have a liferaft to be in.

I hope the rallies are moving in this direction. It would be a very good thing.


----------



## manatee

sailvayu said:


> I have read through this whole thread and in all the finger pointing and blaming weak/scared crews boats not ready for the voyage and all, not one person has gotten the facts right. I love how people are so quick the judge others when they do not have a clue as to the facts. I have listened to these boats everyday on the SSB. I have heard the distress calls as they came in. I have a good friend on one of the boats towed in. So I will summarize.
> 
> First boat down a Cartalina 54? catamaran, lost mast, made it back in under their own power. Distress call but refused help just wanted CG aware.
> 
> Second boat down Braveheart. Injury broken arm. Distress call but made it in under their own after they found it unsafe for injured crew transfer.
> 
> Third boat down Alden 54 ketch, lost rudder, was towed to Chesapeake after drifting for 2 days.
> 
> Fourth boat down, Morgen 41 Outisland, Taking on water (beyond what pumps could keep up with), Bulkheads coming apart, severely sick crew. Crew of 4 air lifted to Elizabeth City
> 
> Fifth boat down, Hans Christen 38, lost mast, vessel still underway under their own power to Norfolk, No assistance given. Reported in this evening all is well aboard.
> 
> Sixth boat down, Catalina 42, lost rudder, waited 3 days for tow should be back in this evening. (I personally spoke with this skipper while at sea and he simply was not equipped for makeshift repairs.)
> 
> Seventh boat down Catalina 38, lost steering and engine. tried to make Bermuda but had to give up with no help from private tow (their first choice) They were advised to abandon by USCG because of worsening weather condition and little hope of other help. 3 crew air lifted today to Elizabeth city. (so they tried for 3 days to make a go of it)
> 
> Lastly Aurora had a false alarm on their EPIRB, Capt. admitted mistake while checking gear. No assistance needed however a plane was sent to their location before the mistake was found.
> 
> So 2 boats had air rescues only 1 with sick crew and they were breaking up. Second air lift at the assistance of CG as there was little hope for anything else.
> 
> 2 boats towed back due to no steering.
> 
> The fleet left knowing a cold front was to pass but it was supposed to pass fast and then good conditions, Instead it stalled and the fleet was stuck in the stream with 20-25. The problems came in the squalls with 30-40 against the stream.
> 
> I do not think the skippers did that bad if anything maybe they were not fully prepared to do jury rigs and make emergency repairs.
> 
> At least now this thread can have some real facts to work with. For those that belittle those out there claiming they were just seasick you can see now there was more to it. Until you have been there maybe we should not be so quick to judge.


Thank you for the info. It's good to have a source besides the non-nautical media. Your friend OK?


----------



## sailvayu

Yes he is fine thanks, a bit bruised and dehydrated but safe. Oh and forgot to mention there was boat that turned back in the first 24 hours due a sick crew. Felt it best not to take chances. Also should mention a big thanks to the Navy and CG personal for all their efforts to help those in need. Not just in this rally but everyday.


----------



## PCP

sailvayu said:


> ...
> 
> First boat down a Cartalina 54? catamaran, lost mast, made it back in under their own power. Distress call but refused help just wanted CG aware.


The boat should have issued a Pan Pan, that's what should be used to make the CG aware of the situation, instead they issued a not needed Mayday.



sailvayu said:


> Second boat down Braveheart. Injury broken arm. Distress call but made it in under their own after they found it unsafe for injured crew transfer.


The boat should have asked a medical evacuation not have deployed a Mayday.



sailvayu said:


> Lastly Aurora had a false alarm on their EPIRB, Capt. admitted mistake while checking gear. No assistance needed however a plane was sent to their location before the mistake was found.


Do you have seen an activated Epirb? How can someone not notice that an Epirb is activated?

and he waited airplanes to be searching for him to say that he had activated the Epirb?



sailvayu said:


> I do not think the skippers did that bad if anything maybe they were not fully prepared to do jury rigs and make emergency repairs.


Funny thing to say I give up, it seems that you all know a lot more than me.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## manatee

sailvayu said:


> Yes he is fine thanks, a bit bruised and dehydrated but safe. Oh and forgot to mention there was boat that turned back in the first 24 hours due a sick crew. Felt it best not to take chances. Also should mention a big thanks to the Navy and CG personal for all their efforts to help those in need. Not just in this rally but everyday.


A heartfelt *THANK YOU!* to all our service folk, past and present.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> The boat should have issued a Pan Pan, that's what should be used to make the CG aware of the situation, instead they issued a not needed Mayday.
> 
> The boat should have asked a medical evacuation not have deployed a Mayday.
> 
> Do you have seen an activated Epirb? How can someone not notice that an Epirb is activated?
> 
> and he waited airplanes to be searching for him to say that he had activated the Epirb?
> 
> Funny thing to say I give up, it seems that you all know a lot more than me.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo - I think you're being absolutely reasonable here. One of the problems appears to possibly be mixed signals sent by the sailors - causing the CG to run all over the place sorting these out.

If the listed facts are right - it seems there were radio-voiced Maydays, EPIRBs, DSC calls, and even Spot SOSs. ALL of these were viewed as Maydays...not Pan-Pans...until confirmed otherwise.

So the biggest question in my mind right now is what the conversations were between the CG and those distressed boats/crews. It seems an awful lot of SAR hardware and personnel were moved into place in multiple locations for these calls (the greatest thing about the CG - they just do). It would be great to know what the sequence of those communications was...in other words, at what point did those sailors go from Mayday to Okay?

The difference between Pan-Pan and Mayday is critical. So you have a valid point.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Paulo - I think you're being absolutely reasonable here. One of the problems appears to possibly be mixed signals sent by the sailors - causing the CG to run all over the place sorting these out.
> 
> If the listed facts are right - it seems there were radio-voiced Maydays, EPIRBs, DSC calls, and even Spot SOSs. ALL of these were viewed as Maydays...not Pan-Pans...until confirmed otherwise.
> 
> So the biggest question in my mind right now is what the conversations were between the CG and those distressed boats/crews. It seems an awful lot of SAR hardware and personnel were moved into place in multiple locations for these calls (the greatest thing about the CG - they just do). It would be great to know what the sequence of those communications was...in other words, at what point did those sailors go from Mayday to Okay?
> 
> The difference between Pan-Pan and Mayday is critical. So you have a valid point.


Smack, the deployment of an Epirp is a Mayday. A DSC emergency call is a Mayday.

CG would not have sent airplanes in a SAR operation if maydays have not been deployed.

The two cases that I had refereed about Maydays been deployed basically because a sailboat had lost the engine had not to do with this rally but were two recent cases, these ones:



PCP said:


> ...
> ..
> *ST PETERSBURG, FL -
> The Coast Guard rescued three stranded sailors who were trapped 80 miles west of Tampa.
> 
> On Monday afternoon, the sailing boat 'Grateful' was making its way from Louisiana to Cape Coral. The three-man crew was delivering it to its owner when things went horribly wrong.
> 
> "It was nerve wracking," said sailor Brian Burke. "By Monday morning, we had lost our engines, blown out a sail, and by that time we were adrift."
> 
> The crew sent out a distress signal.
> 
> "Within about an hour and 45 minutes we had a helicopter overhead, he was communicating with us," said sailor Craig Toomey.
> 
> Soon after, the Coast Guard Cutter 'Nantucket' was sent to the rescue.
> 
> "[The water] was pretty bad," Captain Ryan Waitt said. "The biggest issue was the seas were building, we saw about 6 to 8 feet."
> 
> "It was a little dicey, and a little uncomfortable and not something I wanna do again anytime soon," said Cleve Fair, another sailor on board....Currently, the 'Grateful' is still disabled and stranded at sea....Despite this obvious mishap, these men still plan to finish the job they started, and deliver the boat to Cape Coral. *
> 
> 
> 
> Coast Guard rescues 3 boaters 80 miles west of Tampa - WFLA News Channel 8
> 
> *ST. PETERSBURG - Three boaters who were stranded in the water after their vessel's engine lost power Monday were all brought to safety at the Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg Tuesday.
> The boaters' 30-foot sailing vessel shut off 80 miles west of Tampa Monday, according to reports.
> Watchstanders at the Coast Guard 7 th district in Miami received a distress signal at 8:50 a.m. Monday. ...
> 
> Cleveland Fair, a 74-year-old resident of Mandeville, La., thanked the crew of the Coast Guard Cutter Nantucket, a 110-foot Island Class patrol boat homeported in St. Petersburg, Fla., for rescuing him and his two friends at Sector St. Petersburg, Tuesday.
> No injuries occurred.*
> 
> Read more: Three boaters rescued by Coast Guard after boat engine died returned to St. Petersburg
> ......


Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Seriously, we should all tread gently. If you weren't out there you don't really know what happened. Did a boat fail? Did a crew member fail? Was the data available before departure deficient? Was analysis in error?
> 
> As others have pointed out here, on SA, and on CF the conditions don't SEEM to have been sufficiently harsh to result in the kind of damage being reported but we don't know and probably won't. Data collection is generally acknowledged as under reporting conditions, and individuals--particularly those with less experience--grossly over report conditions. We'll never really know.
> 
> There is still the opportunity to learn by exploring. Judging our colleagues (well the colleagues of those of us who sail offshore) doesn't contribute to that, even if part of the learning is by considering human failure.


The more I hear, the more I'm inclined to believe that at least some of those boats out there saw conditions well in excess of what has been reported...

There have been some communications relayed over on CSBB from Tom Brownell on DISTANT STAR, a very experienced sailor on a Hylas 54 who left with the earliest of the Salty Dawg departures... Beyond the Stream, they experienced very squally conditions for a couple more days, with gusts to 50 knots...

This blog post from the Najad 460 SERAFINA, and another pretty experienced crew:



> 32:50.75N 69:20.33W
> 
> Well firstly the good news which is that it is now Saturday and things have
> finally settled down, we have just shaken three of the four reefs out of the
> mainsail and are sailing at 6 to 7 knots almost directly towards the BVI's.
> That is a real first on this trip as we spent most of the last day or so
> either heading for Florida or Bermuda depending on which tack we were on.
> 
> Yesterday we were congratulating ourselves on coming out of the storm intact
> and in fair shape and with the wind forecast to drop to around 20 knots we
> felt the worst was behind us, but we should perhpas have paid a litle more
> attention to the mountainous waves that kept threatening to engulf us. We
> have experienced Atlantic rollers before, but these monsters where
> vertiginous and with massive breaking crests - then there were the odd rogue
> ones running at an angle to the main sweep and these pounded us and broke
> hard against the hull sending tons of water over the decks and of course
> whoever was sat in the cockit at the time! But it was fine and heavily
> reefed still we made good speed although mostly heading directly towards
> Bermuda. The first hint that it was not all over was at sunset and we saw
> another big formation of clouds bearing down on us that had all the signs of
> being another front. The air temperature plummetted and once again we were
> hit by winds over 40 knots. The minor disaster occured just as I went
> off-watch and was stood at the foot of the companionway stairs speaking up
> to Sarah in the cockpit. In the dark she never saw it coming, but heard it
> all just a bit too late and two huge rogue waves slammed into our side
> engulfing us in water, a significant part of which entered the cockpit and
> streamed straight down inside the boat leaving a trail of devestation in
> terms of wet bedding, clothing, chart table and me just as I was about to
> jump into the sea berth for a deserved attempt at sleep!
> 
> But in a sense that was the worst of it all and although we had the
> washboards in for the rest of the night, the wind did abate and the seas
> gradually eased until we reached the happier situation today.
> 
> On Thursday night Sarah had listened to some drama on the VHF as she could
> hear a US Coastguard cutter co-ordinating what sounded like two major
> situations, one involving a dismasting and the routing of a tanker to effect
> a resue of the crew. But we have heard nothing more and the only two boats
> we have been in contact with since know nothing more than us.
> 
> So the forecast has this weather staying much the same now for a few days
> and then we may face a southely wind for several days (we are trying to go
> south which is a pain, but cést la vie.)
> 
> Clearing flying fish off the decks regularily now and if it gets a bit
> flatter, we will start fishing, but not just yet.
> 
> Very many thanks to all of you who have been cheering us up with emails
> (only send to rob {CHANGE TO AT} rhbell {DOT} com please)
> 
> Sarah stopped being sick finally yesterday and we are begiing to feel a bit
> better about life and might yet even enjoy the last part of the trip!





SVAuspicious said:


> Are you on Utopia?


No, I'm on KOKOMO... She's available, "Owner wants her Gone"... 

2003 Cabo Rico 42 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Great day today, departed Coinjock at 0500... Sporty crossing of Abemarle sound, there was just enough W in the breeze to sail across, fetching the Alligator River entrance... Ours were the only sails unfurled/hoisted I saw today...

South of the Alligator bridge, we were passed by a brand new Beneteau Oceanis 45, under power, like we were standing still... At that point a couple of miles south of the bridge where the channel bends to the SE, we had the most beautiful sail imaginable, close reaching in about 15-18 knots in flat water... About as good as it ever gets, too bad that reach doesn't continue forever...

the couple on that Beneteau, inside their full cockpit enclosure, couldn't even be bothered to unfurl a jib, or their in-mast main...

Further evidence, that East coast snowbirds just don't sail...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Again, my argument is putting _absolutely nothing_ on you as an individual. My argument is putting the onus on the organizers of sponsored rallies. Period.


In what regard are the rally organizers 'responsible' for the safety of the participants?



> Benefits of Becoming a Dawg
> 
> *The Salty Dawg Rally is a grassroots, non-profit organization, comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage. There is no formal inspection of each boat, since it is the responsibility of each skipper to have proper safety equipment and to ensure that the vessel is prepared for the passage.* Information including weather, Gulf Stream analysis, location of eddies, and daily weather forecasts during the passage is provided to each skipper by well‐known weather router Chris Parker, courtesy of Blue Water Sailing magazine. Volunteer Dick Giddings manages float plans for all of the boats in the fleet and maintains a daily SSB radio schedule, as well as daily positions for everyone (via HF radio and SatPhone). *It is each skipper's responsibility to decide the course and whether or not to set out for the passage.* The Rally, with an emphasis on safety, communication, camaraderie and fun, opens the door to new friends and experiences while cruising various areas in the Caribbean.
> 
> The Salty Dawg Rally


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> In what regard are the rally organizers 'responsible' for the safety of the participants?


My point is that they should be just as "responsible" for safety of their participants as race organizers are. NOT having a standard of safety such as ISAF, which the organizer makes a reasonable attempt to ensure across the fleet, is, in my opinion, a very bad move...for everyone.

Your point is valid, of course. Just like in racing - it always comes down to the skipper. But how on earth can one argue _against standard safety regulations_ in sponsored rallies when those rallies increase potential risk, just as a a race increases potential risk? It makes no sense.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Smack, the deployment of an Epirp is a Mayday. A DSC emergency call is a Mayday.
> 
> CG would not have sent airplanes in a SAR operation if maydays have not been deployed.
> 
> The two cases that I had refereed about Maydays been deployed basically because a sailboat had lost the engine had not to do with this rally but were two recent cases, these ones:
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I understand that. The Spot SOS was apparently treated as a Mayday as well - which makes sense (though I don't know what actual CG procedure is on Spot calls).

My point is that radio contact would have been established between the CG and the boat(s) if possible. From there a discussion would have occurred as to the nature of the emergency. I just wonder at what point in that discussion the Mayday became a Pan-Pan? No way to know of course - but it would be an interesting transcript.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Your point is valid, of course. Just like in racing - it always comes down to the skipper. But how on earth can one argue _against standard safety regulations_ in sponsored rallies when those rallies increase potential risk, just as a a race increases potential risk? It makes no sense.


How does such a rally "increase the potential risk" of any of the participants?

Have any of them been coerced, or even 'encouraged', to make the passage from Hampton to the Caribbean, against their will?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I understand that. The Spot SOS was apparently treated as a Mayday as well - which makes sense (though I don't know what actual CG procedure is on Spot calls).
> 
> My point is that radio contact would have been established between the CG and the boat(s) if possible. From there a discussion would have occurred as to the nature of the emergency. I just wonder at what point in that discussion the Mayday became a Pan-Pan? No way to know of course - but it would be an interesting transcript.


Smack I can't speak to the US CG specifically. You are obviously more informed than I on the detail there. In my part of the world though, interestingly the rescue response that is triggered for a Mayday and a Pan Pan is almost identical. ( I am NOT suggesting anyone incorrectly call a Mayday for a situation that is a PAN PAN).

Like you said, it is also the nature of the CG and rescue services in general to jump to action, assume the worst case and go from there, it's actually part of the training, once someone rings a bell, any bell they go and make their own assessment.

Seems you want to have your cake on this and eat it too - Skippers take responsibility, but hold organisers of events responsible for ensuring skippers are responsible???

Doesn't work.

You end up with less rallies 'cause there a PITA to organise, high entry fees to cover your 'BFS approved' bumper sticker, skippers who are more concerned about meeting regs, than ACTUALLY being safe, and not much else will change.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Seems you want to have your cake on this and eat it too - Skippers take responsibility, but hold organisers of events responsible for ensuring skippers are responsible???
> 
> Doesn't work.
> 
> You end up with less rallies 'cause there a PITA to organise, high entry fees to cover your 'BFS approved' bumper sticker, skippers who are more concerned about meeting regs, than ACTUALLY being safe, and not much else will change.


I'm only advocating some level of shared responsibility in rallies just like there is in off-shore racing. And it absolutely _does_ work in racing. The organizers are responsible for holding up the standard of safety/preparedness for the event (e.g. - ISAF) - the skippers are responsible for meeting and adhering to that standard. There's nothing at all nefarious in that relationship. It works.

Less rallies because its a PITA to have a higher standard of safety? C'mon dude. If that's the case, then so be it.

As I said earlier, if rallies followed the same safety protocols as races, rallies would be a tremendous way to improve every cruiser's ability and preparedness across the board. By dodging these protocols, while presumably making some coin from the events, you have a recipe for big trouble.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> How does such a rally "increase the potential risk" of any of the participants?
> 
> Have any of them been coerced, or even 'encouraged', to make the passage from Hampton to the Caribbean, against their will?


"Have any of them been coerced, or even 'encouraged', to make the passage from Hampton to the Caribbean..."

Sure. That's the whole point of the rally isn't it?

"...against their will?"

Of course not. But there are three undeniable factors in a rally such as this that increase risk:

1. A schedule.
2. A relatively low bar of experience/preparedness required.
3. The perception of "safety in numbers".

When you stack all 3 of these on top of each other and the weather turns (from the SDR website)...



> The Salty Dawg Rally got under way this week from Hampton, Va., Beaufort, NC and other ports with boats in the 116 strong fleet departing as each skipper saw fit beginning on November 2 and on through today. November 4 had been set as the fleet departure date but the basic philosophy of the SDR is to have each skipper determine the schedule and course of their own vessels and to take responsibility accordingly.
> 
> A strong front was forecast to pass over the mouth of the Chesapeake on the 4th and 5 so many skippers, heeding the advice of weather router Chris Parker, decided to start on Wednesday the 6 while others delayed their departures until the 7 and 8 . Defying the weather models, the front slowed and grew more intense as it passed over the bulk of the SDR fleet on Wednesday night and Thursday.
> 
> *There were several incidents and emergencies among the fleet in the first 36 hours in which five boats had rudder and rig failures, seasickness and one broken arm. *The U.S. Coast Guard, working closely with SDR volunteers, are assisting the sailors in need of outside help quickly and efficiently.


Then this...

After distress calls, rally's decision-making questioned | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

From the article...



> Andy Schell fears the episode could be a black eye for ocean sailing. Schell, an event organizer for World Cruising Club, is in charge of planning the Caribbean 1500, an annual cruise, or rally, from Hampton Roads to the Virgin Islands.
> 
> The rally was scheduled to begin last Sunday, but the threat of back-to-back cold fronts prompted event organizers to set sail a day early from Portsmouth. Each of the 30 boats participating in that event crossed through the Gulf Stream without issue, Schell said.
> 
> "Nobody wants to see this happen," Schell said. "It's really a shame. That's why we use the sailing model that we use - to minimize the risk as much as possible and keep everyone safe."
> 
> *The Caribbean 1500, which charges a participation fee and adheres to International Sailing Federation safety standards, has long required each boat to submit to pre-event safety checks and strongly suggests that its participants set sail within a certain window. *If the boats hadn't left a day early, Schell said, forecasts suggested it would be at least a week before conditions improved enough to begin the event.


As I say - it's pretty simple.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Less rallies because its a PITA to have a higher standard of safety? C'mon dude. If that's the case, then so be it.


Higher standard of safety???? I call BS on that. Again your equalling safety with regulation.

I just do not accept that to be the case. Nor do I accept that it has made racing inherently safer. Nor do I see rallies like this as being the same as an organised yacht race.

Incidentally I can introduce you to circumnavigators who have not done any of the training( letting flares off and sitting in a liferaft in a pool with your mates come on) and who have boats that would fail CAT 1 ( probably because their bosun's chair was made in the wrong year), and they would be out there sailing their boats home long before many an 'offshore' racing boat has cried for mummy.

The rally in question is essentially free, based on likeminded cruising boats grouping together largely socially as best as I can make out. Not your cup of tea? Thats fine. But let's not make them suffer ISAF regs.

The onus of safety though is and should remain solely on the skipper.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Higher standard of safety???? I call BS on that. Again your equalling safety with regulation.
> 
> I just do not accept that to be the case. Nor do I accept that it has made racing inherently safer. Nor do I see rallies like this as being the same as an organised yacht race.
> 
> The rally in question is essentially free, based on likeminded cruising boats grouping together largely socially as best as I can make out. Not your cup of tea? Thats fine. But let's not make them suffer ISAF regs.
> 
> The onus of safety though is and should remain solely on the skipper.


Okay. I can't disabuse you of what you see as BS. But the ISAF regulations came about for a reason.

As for "suffering" such safety regulation - you're right. This appears to be a primary reason the SDR was started (from the above article)...



> The Salty Dawg Rally started three years ago after a core group of mariners from the Caribbean 1500 broke away. Linda Knowles and her husband founded the rally for seasoned mariners who desired a less rigid experience.


The SDR had 116 boats. The C1500 had 30. So the SDR's "seasoned mariners" (i.e. - "those who have completed at least one blue water passage") definitely seem to like less rigidity. It's just that the approach and outcome of both rallies is raising some valid questions.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> "
> 
> From the article...
> 
> The Caribbean 1500, which charges a participation fee and adheres to International Sailing Federation safety standards, has long required each boat to submit to pre-event safety checks and strongly suggests that its participants set sail within a certain window.
> 
> As I say - it's pretty simple.


That's great. I know my boat is safe in the Caribeen 1500 'cause Bob the safety audit guy, who I don't know a thing about has given me a 'BFS approved' sticker. Bob who seems like a safe kind of guy cause he has a ISAF shirt and wears his socks up to his knees has ticked everything off on his sheet.

He doesn't know anything about my boat, why I have the amount of bilge pumps I have, whether I am dumb enough to get into my "ISO Standard 9650" Type 1 Group A with service Pack 1 liferaft that I had to buy, or whether I'm just a moron who doesn't like big waves and who should play golf.

I'm glad I'm paying big $$$$$ for bob to tell me I'm safe otherwise I would have to figure that out myself, like the guys in the free rally over there...

Bob tells me that ISAF recently amended it's lifejacket regs again, so I have to go and read their 400 page document to ensure I'm compliant, and drop another grand on more lifejackets. I was going to use that time and money to become a better sailor, but Bob's right I only need to understand the provisions of Amendment 4a section 3-11.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> That's great. I know my boat is safe in the Caribeen 1500 'cause Bob the safety audit guy, who I don't know a thing about has given me a 'BFS approved' sticker. Bob who seems like a safe kind of guy cause he has a ISAF shirt and wears his socks up to his knees has ticked everything off on his sheet.
> 
> He doesn't know anything about my boat, why I have the amount of bilge pumps I have, whether I am dumb enough to get into my "ISO Standard 9650" Type 1 Group A with service Pack 1 liferaft that I had to buy, or whether I'm just a moron who doesn't like big waves and who should play golf.
> 
> I'm glad I'm paying big $$$$$ for bob to tell me I'm safe otherwise I would have to figure that out myself, like the guys in the free rally over there...
> 
> Bob tells me that ISAF recently amended it's lifejacket regs again, so I have to go and read their 400 page document to ensure I'm compliant, and drop another grand on more lifejackets. I was going to use that time and money to become a better sailor, but Bob's right I only need to understand the provisions of Amendment 4a section 3-11.


Everyone hates ISAF Bob. But he's hilarious when he's hammered. Have you seen his Big Freakin' Sock dance?

BTW - here's a GREAT write-up about the Safety at Sea seminar by our very own SVShearwater:

http://www.svshearwater.com/?p=1283


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> As for "suffering" such safety regulation - you're right. This appears to be a primary reason the SDR was started (from the above article)...
> 
> The SDR had 116 boats. The C1500 had 30. So the SDR's "seasoned mariners" (i.e. - "those who have completed at least one blue water passage") definitely seem to like less rigidity. It's just that the approach and outcome of both rallies is raising some valid questions.


Yes there are vaild questions, and perhaps in the fullness of time, what you suggest might be found true....to a degree or not.... it might just be coincidence and bad luck.

When I started offshore cruising I agreed with you wholeheartedly. 
Like I said I certify my boat (as part of a yacht club I have to in order to participate in club events, yes cruising events as well  ) I have I guess over time become more cynical in my approach.

Too much time is spent meeting the letter of law rather than the intent of the law.

BTW I have done 'Safety at sea' twice now, to look at a boat on the ocean now you need to do the course here. 
I need to go and do a revalidation course next year to continue to be 'safe'.

I love letting off flares, who doesn't it's a hoot, but does it need to cost me $400.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Of course not. But there are three undeniable factors in a rally such as this that increase risk:
> 
> 1. A schedule.


The Salty Dawg's had a "schedule"? Really? The 1500 has far more of a schedule, "strongly advising that participants set sail within a certain window", not to mention the parties and awards ceremonies planned upon the fleet's arrival in Tortola...



> Friday, November 8, 2013
> The Salty Dawg Rally got under way this week from Hampton, Va., Beaufort, NC and other ports with boats in the 116 strong fleet departing as each skipper saw fit beginning on November 2 and on through today. *November 4 had been set as the fleet departure date but the basic philosophy of the SDR is to have each skipper determine the schedule and course of their own vessels and to take responsibility accordingly.*





smackdaddy said:


> 2. A relatively low bar of experience/preparedness required.


Huh? How does their "low bar" compare with the experience "required" by what authority for anyone choosing to sail offshore on their own? Or, compared to the 1500, for example?



> The Salty Dawg Rally is a grassroots, non-profit organization, comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage.





smackdaddy said:


> 3. The perception of "safety in numbers".


Can you cite where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'? Who is fostering such a perception, precisely?


----------



## aeventyr60

Can you cite where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'? Who is fostering such a perception, precisely?[/QUOTE]

Some Nancy's want to believe this is the case in rally's....Group think gone wrong again. The sea wins again.


----------



## ScottUK

I don't understand the dismissive nature of some of the posts on this thread. It appears people aren't allowed to comment or discuss unless they meet certain metrics gained by experience. Who decides what these metrics are? Why can't a day sailor who only sails on Flat Calm Lake come up with an original point or idea relevant to the topic at hand. 

Then there is the 'you weren't there' types. It appears unless you were in those conditions, at that time, in that location in that type of boat you shouldn't discuss or comment on it. I don't think anybody can have total comprehension of any situation regardless of being there or not. People make decisions through their interpretation of the situation. People's interpretations differ so I don't understand why it can't be discussed.

Then there is the 'all the facts' camp. Until all the facts are known then comments or discussion should not occur. Putting the philosophical argument of what a fact is aside I don't think all the the facts will or can be known. So when can a proper discussion occur? Maybe after a report by the CG or possibly a book by one of the survivors? Will facts still not be open to intrepretation?

Lastly is the perjorative and vacuous 'armchair sailor' label. Aren't we all comfortably ensconed in some nook while posting on this forum.

So to sum up unless we are in the given situation as it is occuring, having prior experience of the same situation while having complete knowledge of the situation we are just 'armchair sailors' who should keep our mouthes shut. 

However, if we had this knowledge would we be in that situation in the first place?


----------



## Yorksailor

This post reminds me of my medical training; after the juniors had been up all night up to their asses in alligators, blood and guts a 9-5 academic lab doctor would explain to us exactly what we had done wrong while he was asleep! All invitations to join us at night were ignored.

It is very hard to criticize the guy who was at the sharp end while you were at home in bed.

We sail 4,000 miles per year and would never join a rally but our boat exceeds ISAF standards and we have never had a racer on board who's seamanship was better than my wife's.

Obviously call the USCG if you need them but it needs to be about personal responsibility and effort and not relying on the USCG to make up for your short comings.

And to Smack...how can a guy that looks like that write so well...obviously he has a ghost writer! The camera never lies!

Check our post for trans-Pacific, crew one or two needed Panama to New Zealand, or parts there of, starting February 2014.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/crew-wanted-available/105490-pacific-crossing.html

"Remember, experience only means that you screw-up less often."


----------



## chall03

ScottUK said:


> I don't understand the dismissive nature of some of the posts on this thread. It appears people aren't allowed to comment or discuss unless they meet certain metrics gained by experience. Who decides what these metrics are? Why can't a day sailor who only sails on Flat Calm Lake come up with an original point or idea relevant to the topic at hand.
> 
> Then there is the 'you weren't there' types. It appears unless you were in those conditions, at that time, in that location in that type of boat you shouldn't discuss or comment on it. I don't think anybody can have total comprehension of any situation regardless of being there or not. People make decisions through their interpretation of the situation. People's interpretations differ so I don't understand why it can't be discussed.
> 
> Then there is the 'all the facts' camp. Until all the facts are known then comments or discussion should not occur. Putting the philosophical argument of what a fact is aside I don't think all the the facts will or can be known. So when can a proper discussion occur? Maybe after a report by the CG or possibly a book by one of the survivors? Will facts still not be open to intrepretation?
> 
> Lastly is the perjorative and vacuous 'armchair sailor' label. Aren't we all comfortably ensconed in some nook while posting on this forum.
> 
> So to sum up unless we are in the given situation as it is occuring, having prior experience of the same situation while having complete knowledge of the situation we are just 'armchair sailors' who should keep our mouthes shut.
> 
> However, if we had this knowledge would we be in that situation in the first place?


Everyone has a right to an opinion sure. Robust debate and disagreement on here is a great thing, it gives us the chance to think about these issues and have our opinions challenged. Ultimately though I will listen and give more weight to those that do have the experience over the day sailor in threads like this.

I do also personally find it uncomfortable and awkward to be overly critical of sailors in situations like these without the facts or without showing some compassion for the experience they have gone through. I guess I figure he who has never made a mistake aboard a sailboat should throw the first stone and that won't be me.

I have come too close to be the subject of one of these threads at least a few times 



Yorksailor said:


> Obviously call the USCG of you need them but it needs to be about personal responsibility and effort and not relying on the USCG to make up for your short comings.
> 
> We sail 4,000 miles per year and would never join a rally but our boat exceeds ISAF standards and we have never had a racer on board who's seamanship was better than my wife's.
> 
> And to Smack...how can a guy that looks like that write so well...obviously he has a ghost writer! The camera never lies!
> 
> Check our post for trans-Pacific, crew one or two needed Panama to New Zealand, or parts there of, starting February 2014.


+1.

I actually wish I could come crew for you, but alas time does not allow me too. By the sound of it though it would be the opportunity of a lifetime for someone, on a well found and well sailed boat.


----------



## ScottUK

> Robust debate and disagreement on here is a great thing, it gives us the chance to think about these issues and have our opinions challenged.


I concur. I just prefer debate and discussion without it getting personal unless solicited. I like when these types of situations are discussed where details are still emerging. I try to look at the posts in the context in which they are described and compare them to posts when further details become available.



> Ultimately though I will listen and give more weight to those that do have the experience over the day sailor in threads like this.


I guess that is a point you and I differ as I will first give consideration to the merits of the argument.


----------



## chall03

ScottUK said:


> I guess that is a point you and I differ as I will first give consideration to the merits of the argument.


IMHO The merit of the argument is specifically related to the perspective of the person making it.

This is not philosophy. All that does matter (for me anyway) is becoming a better sailor. A well made argument is great, a discussion won is lovely, but it could still be wrong.


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> Smack I can't speak to the US CG specifically. You are obviously more informed than I on the detail there. In my part of the world though, interestingly the rescue response that is triggered for a Mayday and a Pan Pan is almost identical. ( I am NOT suggesting anyone incorrectly call a Mayday for a situation that is a PAN PAN).
> 
> .....


That is really odd. A pan pan is a communications to alert authorities and SAR that something is not working on your boat and that you have a serious problem. But that you or the boat are not at risk. SAR follows closely the situation that can turn in a Mayday or can be sorted out (like it was in this case) and the urgency situation is finished.

On a Mayday SAR deploys immediately all the safety measures that they can provide: They send airplanes to find the boat, helicopters for the rescue and they divert ships for the rescue.

It seems the same to you?



smackdaddy said:


> ...
> My point is that radio contact would have been established between the CG and the boat(s) if possible. From there a discussion would have occurred as to the nature of the emergency. I just wonder at what point in that discussion the Mayday became a Pan-Pan? No way to know of course - but it would be an interesting transcript.


Smack, a Mayday does not become a Pan Pan. A Pan Pan can become a Mayday.

Regarding communications on one of the cases were a mayday was issued we know that only when the airplanes were circling the boat on crew member said to them that they were not needed and that they could sail safely to port.

One of the advantages of a rally is communications. On many boats there are some with satellite phones or long range radio and the ones that doesn't have them are able to relay messages through VHF radio. It seems that they did not use these means to the best use.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chall03

PCP said:


> That is really odd. A pan pan is a communications to alert authorities and SAR that something is not working on your boat and that you have a serious problem. But that you or the boat are not at risk. SAR follows closely the situation that can turn in a Mayday or can be sorted out (like it was in this case) and the urgency situation is finished.
> 
> On a Mayday SAR deploys immediately all the safety measures that they can provide: They send airplanes to find the boat, helicopters for the rescue and they divert ships for the rescue.
> 
> It seems the same to you?


I didn't say it _seems_ the same to me. I am aware of the difference between the two. What I was explaining to you is that the actual response here in Australia by SAR in both cases will be to begin the process of a rescue, and to ask craft to divert and render assistance. The assumption being that any PAN PAN could be a MAYDAY until proved otherwise.


----------



## Tim Newman

PCP said:


> If you are from the UK you know for certain the outcome of that incident where a racing boat was rammed by a cargo ship on a race? The sailor was condemned to pay a HUGE fine.


Is that this incident?

Can hardly have been his fault, that tanker was hard to see and easy to miss.


----------



## ScottUK

> This is not philosophy.


Logical argumentation is the very basis of philosophy if it isn't I want some of my uni tuition back.



> A well made argument is great, a discussion won is lovely, but it could still be wrong.


A 'well made argument' would be true otherwise it would not be 'well made' so could not be wrong. In philosophical terms this is called 'the fallacy of denying the antecedent.'

Experience has no bearing as to whether an argument is true or untrue only the logic of the argument the premise is built on.


----------



## jameswilson29

Melrna said:


> Bottom line, is if any boats were in the Gulf Stream in that kind of weather, boats will break without good seamanship, crews will get sick and injuries will happen. I just hope those that are Monday Night Armchair Sailing have been out in these kinds of seas and winds... Let have a discussion based on facts not Armchair Sailing.


These unappreciative Monday Night Armchair Sailors make me sick!

Here on Sailnet, they simply don't appreciate the amazing opportunity to worship at the feet of these Ocean Giants, amazing geniuses who are capable of fantastic feats of superhuman gallantry by actually SAILING IN THE OCEAN AWAY FROM LAND!!!

Anyone who can SAIL IN THE OCEAN AWAY FROM LAND deserves our everlasting respect and admiration! It is such an amazing act - I can't believe any human can actually do it!

By the way, this was no mere gale that surprised a bunch of unprepared geriatric picnic sailors on boat-show boats that were too big for them to handle, IT WAS A FULL BLOWN HURRICANE, capable of smashing boats instantly in the Gulfstream, rendering genuine real sailors into quivering, blood-puking, EPIRB-activating survivalists, you damn Monday Night Armchair Sailors!

Now, take some expensive, Blue-Water Sailing courses, buy a boat-show 40-footer, and have some respect for your superiors!


----------



## smurphny

sailvayu said:


> I have read through this whole thread and in all the finger pointing and blaming weak/scared crews boats not ready for the voyage and all, not one person has gotten the facts right. I love how people are so quick the judge others when they do not have a clue as to the facts. I have listened to these boats everyday on the SSB. I have heard the distress calls as they came in. I have a good friend on one of the boats towed in. So I will summarize.
> 
> First boat down a Cartalina 54? catamaran, lost mast, made it back in under their own power. Distress call but refused help just wanted CG aware.
> 
> Second boat down Braveheart. Injury broken arm. Distress call but made it in under their own after they found it unsafe for injured crew transfer.
> 
> Third boat down Alden 54 ketch, lost rudder, was towed to Chesapeake after drifting for 2 days.
> 
> Fourth boat down, Morgen 41 Outisland, Taking on water (beyond what pumps could keep up with), Bulkheads coming apart, severely sick crew. Crew of 4 air lifted to Elizabeth City
> 
> Fifth boat down, Hans Christen 38, lost mast, vessel still underway under their own power to Norfolk, No assistance given. Reported in this evening all is well aboard.
> 
> Sixth boat down, Catalina 42, lost rudder, waited 3 days for tow should be back in this evening. (I personally spoke with this skipper while at sea and he simply was not equipped for makeshift repairs.)
> 
> Seventh boat down Catalina 38, lost steering and engine. tried to make Bermuda but had to give up with no help from private tow (their first choice) They were advised to abandon by USCG because of worsening weather condition and little hope of other help. 3 crew air lifted today to Elizabeth city. (so they tried for 3 days to make a go of it)
> 
> Lastly Aurora had a false alarm on their EPIRB, Capt. admitted mistake while checking gear. No assistance needed however a plane was sent to their location before the mistake was found.
> 
> So 2 boats had air rescues only 1 with sick crew and they were breaking up. Second air lift at the assistance of CG as there was little hope for anything else.
> 
> 2 boats towed back due to no steering.
> 
> *The fleet left knowing a cold front was to pass but it was supposed to* pass fast and then good conditions, Instead it stalled and the fleet was stuck in the stream with 20-25. The problems came in the squalls with 30-40 against the stream.
> 
> I do not think the skippers did that bad if anything maybe they were not fully prepared to do jury rigs and make emergency repairs.
> 
> At least now this thread can have some real facts to work with. For those that belittle those out there claiming they were just seasick you can see now there was more to it. Until you have been there maybe we should not be so quick to judge.


Nice analysis. The basic mistake highlighted above. The words, "supposed to," are not those I would bet my life on, knowing how difficult weather is to predict. Knowing a November cold front was imminent was the ONLY thing they needed to know. "...t'was the witch of November come stealin'...Lightfoot.


----------



## ScottUK

> These unappreciative Monday Night Armchair Sailors make me sick!
> 
> Here on Sailnet, they simply don't appreciate the amazing opportunity to worship at the feet of these Ocean Giants, amazing geniuses who are capable of fantastic feats of superhuman gallantry by actually SAILING IN THE OCEAN AWAY FROM LAND!!!
> 
> Anyone who can SAIL IN THE OCEAN AWAY FROM LAND deserves our everlasting respect and admiration!
> 
> By the way, this was no mere gale that surprised a bunch of unprepared geriatric picnic sailors on boats that were too big for them to handle, IT WAS A FULL BLOWN HURRICANE, capable of smashing boats instantly in the Gulfstream, rendering genuine real sailors into quivering, blood-puking, EPIRB-activating survivalists, you damn Monday Night Armchair Sailors!
> 
> Now, take some Blue Water Sailing courses and have some respect for your superiors!


Some here don't appear to appreciate your cheekiness James but I, for one, do.


----------



## sailvayu

Once again it would seem some are inserting their opinions as facts here. Paulo took what I said and assumed all the boats that called in sent maydays. I never said anyone sent a mayday. The facts as far as I know only 2 of the boats sent maydays and 2 sent a spot sos. In some cases the boats never called the CG and only called in to the SSb net coordinator who in turn made a phone call to the CG informing them of the situation, no mayday or Pan pan. For at least one that lost their mast they set off the EPIRB a natural thing to do when your rig is in the water pounding against your hull. Once they cleared things and got everything under control they canceled the emergency as they felt they could get by on their own. 

My point is lets not start a argument and condemn people based on speculation. If you do not know the facts take the time to learn them. This can be a good discussion that could help others thinking of making this passage in the future but it would help to keep the facts separate from opinion.


----------



## sailvayu

Another point completely over looked is that the reason all these boats leave when they do is because insurance companies will not let the boats further south than 30 before November 1. I think this is the main reason so many get in trouble with these late season frontal systems. They have to wait till after the first to leave and this is just the time of year you get all those cold fronts starting to come thru. Maybe we should bash the insurance companies instead of the skippers!


----------



## ScottUK

> The facts as far as I know


So you have qualified your statements of facts. Is this not then the speculation you are accusing and admonishing others of making?


----------



## Yorksailor

Wayne is right about insurance and Nov 1 and I suspect the conditions locally were worse that reported generally.

It is a fallacy that there is a magical weather window on Nov 1st between the last tropical storm and the first Nor'easter of winter. This fallacy is made even worse by Rallies having a fixed start window of the first week in November.

We have done the outside Hatteras trip twice in the November, because of our insurance, but we just sat on the Chesapeake until the weather was suitable.

" Never leave a warm pub to go out in a Gale!" my old British Navy Dad used to tell me!

So lets all just be constructive and learn from the errors of others.

"Remember experience only means that you screw up less often!"


----------



## sailvayu

When I say the facts as I know them it is based on my having listened to the radio conversations from the skippers on the boats in trouble to the net. No one other than those out there know the full facts. I feel the information I have presented is more accurate than what I have read by those who have only read a news report. I will let the reader here decide which information to use for discussion.


----------



## Ajax_MD

I've read most of this thread, and have formed some strong opinions.

After careful consideration, I've decided not to share most of them because:

1. I am still unsure of all the facts, despite what has been presented here from media and "live witnesses" so I won't opine on these participants' decision-making.

2. Although I have raced and cruised in some strong conditions, I have not yet left the Chesapeake Bay, and I don't want to offer misinformation on ocean sailing.

I guess I can safely offer one very general opinion on "regulation":

Recent trends in U.S. society indicate that when groups of people frequently engage in activities that result in injury, death, and a _perceived_ drain on public resources, these activites end up being heavily regulated or curtailed. Often, these negative events are extremely amplified by national and local media. (I won't opine on the reasons why, here.)

MANY activities share this common thread with sailing: 
Hiking
Rock climbing
Motorcycles
Sky-diving
Hot air ballooning
Recreational boating

It all boils down to "If you poop in your own bed, your parents will be along shortly to control you, to prevent future occurances".

Therefore, "self-regulation" is the safest, least intrusive option. Self-regulation, is simply taking responsibility for one's self.
So how do we do that?

Rallies could require participants to demonstrate a minimum level of seamanship. This could be demonstrated by producing proof of attending SAS seminars, or other educational processes. Failure to provide proof= non-participation.

Rallies could require (and offer) free, in-depth vessel inspections and specify minimum equipment requirements. Failure to pass= non-participation.

Rallies could offer refresher training seminars prior to departure (not to be counted as a replacement for SAS training, but as a supplement or refresher)

This doesn't infrigne upon anyone's freedom, because participation in rallies is not legally required, but rather it encourages good seamanship and leverages that feeling that sailing in a rally promotes safety.

In short: If rallies provide a false sense of safety, then let's turn this into a genuine source of safety and good seamanship.

I do NOT NOT NOT agree that rally organizers should be held in any degree responsible for what happens on a vessel at sea. This sets a dangerous, legal precedent. Eventually a line must be drawn in the sand, where the skipper is responsible.

We don't sue meteorologists when their forecasts are wrong, and a family minivan spins out in the snow because they opted to ignore real-world conditions and set out for a drive to the movie theater.

All the rally can do, is promote preparedness, good seamanship, and offer the best meteorlogical information and routing possible. The skipper is the actual "man on the scene" and must make decisions that sometimes contradict what a weather-router 900 miles away, is telling him.

In the spirit of self-regulation, responsibility, and keeping our sport free from government interference, we should each of us, strive to continually learn and improve our seamanship. We should encourage good seamanship within our community, especially among new sailors, be they old or young.

Offering a wide variety of *affordable*, comprehensive education and hands-on training, and selling good seamanship as "cool skills to have" instead of some kind of elitist thing, will encourage people to do the right thing.

I apologize for the length of my post.


----------



## ScottUK

> No one other than those out there know the full facts. I feel the information I have presented is more accurate than what I have read by those who have only read a news report.


As I said previously I don't believe anybody will know fully what has transpired. I think it is impossible.

It could be true what you have presented could more accurate then the news reports but I would think it likely at least some of the reports included information through direct contact with the CG so have information you likely would not have.

I don't mind the digression of the discourse in this thread. Regardless of the veracity of the information the discussion in this thread can be useful. I don't think anybody in their right mind would determine a final conclusion about this based on the information garnered here.


----------



## tomandchris

Yorksailor said:


> Wayne is right about insurance and Nov 1 and I suspect the conditions locally were worse that reported generally.
> 
> It is a fallacy that there is a magical weather window on Nov 1st between the last tropical storm and the first Nor'easter of winter. This fallacy is made even worse by Rallies having a fixed start window of the first week in November.
> 
> We have done the outside Hatteras trip twice in the November, because of our insurance, but we just sat on the Chesapeake until the weather was suitable.
> 
> " Never leave a warm pub to go out in a Gale!" my old British Navy Dad used to tell me!
> 
> So lets all just be constructive and learn from the errors of others.
> 
> "Remember experience only means that you screw up less often!"


Or in my case that you have screwed up lots of time so have more expeience


----------



## christian.hess

I hate to opine as I see as bad karma on such things as you never know, it can and will happen to us in the future but

there was a pic posted last page or 2 back of what seems to be an island packet 30 something or 40 something with no damage whatsoever other than a wrapped furler(which happens a lot if one is not careful) and part of the reason I ony use hank on sails.

can somebody explain to me if this boat issued a mayday or not? or was it just a pic from a passing plane?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> The Salty Dawg's had a "schedule"? Really? The 1500 has far more of a schedule, "strongly advising that participants set sail within a certain window", not to mention the parties and awards ceremonies planned upon the fleet's arrival in Tortola...


Is this not a schedule?


> *The Fall 2013 Salty Dawg Rally will depart on November 4 (weather permitting) from Bluewater Yachting Center, Hampton, VA (or other locations of your choice), to sail to the British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, or other various locations.*


Whether the 1500 has "far more of a schedule" than the SDR doesn't matter in this discussion. As I said, there is a schedule.



JonEisberg said:


> Huh? How does their "low bar" compare with the experience "required" by what authority for anyone choosing to sail offshore on their own? Or, compared to the 1500, for example?


Jon, focus, we're not talking about those who want to sail offshore on their own. We're talking about rallies.



JonEisberg said:


> Can you cite where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'? Who is fostering such a perception, precisely?


_"They"_ are Jon. It's _"them"_. Sigh.

It's not exactly exotic psychology here. And not much needs to be touted in this area. The perception already exists and it's a strong perception. Then when elements like this...



> Free weather routing from Chris Parker provided by Blue Water Sailing Magazine.


...a singular point of outside expert influence (i.e. - usually expensive) is added to this group equation, individual decision-making can easily be affected.

Again, I'm not addressing the above points to any particular rally. I'm arguing that _all_ rallies should hold to a higher level of safety standards such as ISAF - precisely because they introduce elements of risk that are unique and typically not similarly present in individual cruising. I actually didn't know before the above article that the C1500 did just that. I think that's great. But, judging by SDR founders' quote above, that approach was obviously too rigorous for them and another 116 sailors.

Now that there's been a problem, there are questions that should be explored.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yorksailor said:


> And to Smack...how can a guy that looks like that write so well...obviously he has a ghost writer! The camera never lies!


I have a face for literature.

Thanks dude.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Smack, a Mayday does not become a Pan Pan. A Pan Pan can become a Mayday.


You're right. It was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that after communications are established between the CG and the vessel following the distress call, the skipper of the vessel can cancel the Mayday if he feels he's not in imminent danger. This would essentially be moving the dial back to a Pan-Pan state (the dismasted cat is an example). Depending on the timing of this communication, the CG may not need to deploy assets. Again, it's their call.

Where this all gets especially muddy in my opinion are with things like the DSC distress and the Spot SOS. These are a little less "final option" as perceived by the sailor than a voiced Mayday or an EPIRB. But without further communication as to the nature of the emergency - these can easily cause some confusion on whether it's a Mayday or a Pan-Pan call. And as you know, such calls will always be treated as a Mayday by the CG until proven otherwise. So it puts more onus on the skipper of the vessel to communicate as quickly as possible.

Though I haven't dug down on it, it would be interesting to know the technologies used in each of the 7(?) distress calls - and which of those were intended as Pan-Pans, not Maydays (i.e. - which of those declined assistance and carried on).


----------



## ScottUK

> Is this not a schedule?
> 
> Quote:
> The Fall 2013 Salty Dawg Rally will depart on November 4 (weather permitting) from Bluewater Yachting Center, Hampton, VA (or other locations of your choice), to sail to the British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, or other various locations.


I don't see the difference here. The times I have gone off shore, with the exception of racing, a departure date was determined and we left when the weather permitted. Think that's fairly typical.


----------



## smackdaddy

BubbleheadMd said:


> I've read most of this thread, and have formed some strong opinions.
> 
> After careful consideration, I've decided not to share most of them because:
> 
> 1. I am still unsure of all the facts, despite what has been presented here from media and "live witnesses" so I won't opine on these participants' decision-making.
> 
> 2. Although I have raced and cruised in some strong conditions, I have not yet left the Chesapeake Bay, and I don't want to offer misinformation on ocean sailing.
> 
> I guess I can safely offer one very general opinion on "regulation":
> 
> Recent trends in U.S. society indicate that when groups of people frequently engage in activities that result in injury, death, and a _perceived_ drain on public resources, these activites end up being heavily regulated or curtailed. Often, these negative events are extremely amplified by national and local media. (I won't opine on the reasons why, here.)
> 
> MANY activities share this common thread with sailing:
> Hiking
> Rock climbing
> Motorcycles
> Sky-diving
> Hot air ballooning
> Recreational boating
> 
> It all boils down to "If you poop in your own bed, your parents will be along shortly to control you, to prevent future occurances".
> 
> Therefore, "self-regulation" is the safest, least intrusive option. Self-regulation, is simply taking responsibility for one's self.
> So how do we do that?
> 
> Rallies could require participants to demonstrate a minimum level of seamanship. This could be demonstrated by producing proof of attending SAS seminars, or other educational processes. Failure to provide proof= non-participation.
> 
> Rallies could require (and offer) free, in-depth vessel inspections and specify minimum equipment requirements. Failure to pass= non-participation.
> 
> Rallies could offer refresher training seminars prior to departure (not to be counted as a replacement for SAS training, but as a supplement or refresher)
> 
> This doesn't infrigne upon anyone's freedom, because participation in rallies is not legally required, but rather it encourages good seamanship and leverages that feeling that sailing in a rally promotes safety.
> 
> In short: If rallies provide a false sense of safety, then let's turn this into a genuine source of safety and good seamanship.
> 
> I do NOT NOT NOT agree that rally organizers should be held in any degree responsible for what happens on a vessel at sea. This sets a dangerous, legal precedent. Eventually a line must be drawn in the sand, where the skipper is responsible.
> 
> We don't sue meteorologists when their forecasts are wrong, and a family minivan spins out in the snow because they opted to ignore real-world conditions and set out for a drive to the movie theater.
> 
> All the rally can do, is promote preparedness, good seamanship, and offer the best meteorlogical information and routing possible. The skipper is the actual "man on the scene" and must make decisions that sometimes contradict what a weather-router 900 miles away, is telling him.
> 
> In the spirit of self-regulation, responsibility, and keeping our sport free from government interference, we should each of us, strive to continually learn and improve our seamanship. We should encourage good seamanship within our community, especially among new sailors, be they old or young.
> 
> Offering a wide variety of *affordable*, comprehensive education and hands-on training, and selling good seamanship as "cool skills to have" instead of some kind of elitist thing, will encourage people to do the right thing.
> 
> I apologize for the length of my post.


Nailed it.


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> I don't see the difference here. The times I have gone off shore, with the exception of racing, a departure date was determined and we left when the weather permitted. Think that's fairly typical.


You're right. There is always a schedule. But a schedule you set for yourself is very different than a schedule set by an organization you're looking to, backed by weather advice its providing, reinforced by another 115 boats you're supposed to sail with.


----------



## PCP

christian.hess said:


> I hate to opine as I see as bad karma on such things as you never know, it can and will happen to us in the future but
> 
> there was a pic posted last page or 2 back of what seems to be an island packet 30 something or 40 something with no damage whatsoever other than a wrapped furler(which happens a lot if one is not careful) and part of the reason I ony use hank on sails.
> 
> can somebody explain to me if this boat issued a mayday or not? or was it just a pic from a passing plane?


Yes.

The picture relates with what is immediately above on that post:

"*ST PETERSBURG, FL -
The Coast Guard rescued three stranded sailors who were trapped 80 miles west of Tampa.

On Monday afternoon, the sailing boat 'Grateful' was making its way from Louisiana to Cape Coral. The three-man crew was delivering it to its owner when things went horribly wrong.

"It was nerve wracking," said sailor Brian Burke. "By Monday morning, we had lost our engines, blown out a sail, and by that time we were adrift."

The crew sent out a distress signal.

"Within about an hour and 45 minutes we had a helicopter overhead, he was communicating with us," said sailor Craig Toomey.

Soon after, the Coast Guard Cutter 'Nantucket' was sent to the rescue.

"[The water] was pretty bad," Captain Ryan Waitt said. "The biggest issue was the seas were building, we saw about 6 to 8 feet."

"It was a little dicey, and a little uncomfortable and not something I wanna do again anytime soon," said Cleve Fair, another sailor on board....Currently, the 'Grateful' is still disabled and stranded at sea....Despite this obvious mishap, these men still plan to finish the job they started, and deliver the boat to Cape Coral. *



Coast Guard rescues 3 boaters 80 miles west of Tampa - WFLA News Channel 8"

However this happened at Nov 05, 2013 and not in this rally.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jorgenl

smackdaddy said:


> a singular point of outside expert influence (i.e. - usually expensive) is added to this group equation, individual decision-making can easily be affected.
> .


Actually, weather advise by Chris Parker is quite affordable, especially in the context of how much money one spends to prepare a boat for a passage to the Caribbean. And the amount of money spent once at the destination.


----------



## ScottUK

I guess I'm still misssing your point Smack. Cuisers often go in packs and hire the services of a weather guru. 

From what I understand only 2 of the boats were from the SDR out of 116. That's less than 2 percent. Those are numbers the last single handed round the would event would die for. Though the comparision is not exact these are elite sailors.


----------



## christian.hess

PCP said:


> Yes.
> 
> The picture relates with what is immediately above on that post:
> 
> "*ST PETERSBURG, FL -
> 
> "[The water] was pretty bad," Captain Ryan Waitt said. "The biggest issue was the seas were building, we saw about 6 to 8 feet."
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Coast Guard rescues 3 boaters 80 miles west of Tampa - WFLA News Channel 8"
> 
> However this happened at Nov 05, 2013 and not in this rally.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


wow, just wow

a delivery skipper, saw 6 to 8 feet, had crew and couldnt change sails...and his ENGINE(S)? were down

this is sad


----------



## PCP

sailvayu said:


> Once again it would seem some are inserting their opinions as facts here. Paulo took what I said and assumed all the boats that called in sent maydays......


You should at least read what others write before accusing them of having unsubstantiated opinions. It is not me that said that those boats sent maydays but the Coast guard. I also posted that two other boats asked for help trough satphone (according to the CG):

"*Here's a breakdown of each incident provided by the U.S. Coast Guard:*

*Rescue #1:

Crewmembers aboard the 41-foot sailboat, Ahimsa, sent out a distress signal via a satellite tracking device, stating that they were taking on water approximately 230 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance.
....

Rescue #2:

In a second case, crewmembers aboard the 38-foot sailboat Nyapa, sent out a distress signal via a satellite tracking device stating that they had lost their mast and were taking on water approximately 275 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance.

Rescue #3:

In a third case, 5th District watchstanders received an alert from an emergency position indicating radio beacon registered the sailboat Aurora....*

U.S. Coast Guard Comes to Rescue of ?Salty Dogs? Off Virginia Coast | gCaptain ? Maritime & Offshore News

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> I guess I'm still misssing your point Smack. Cuisers often go in packs and hire the services of a weather guru.
> 
> From what I understand only 2 of the boats were from the SDR out of 116. That's less than 2 percent. Those are numbers the last single handed round the would event would die for. Though the comparision is not exact these are elite sailors.


I don't know the exact numbers of SDR boats involved. The SDR site mentions 5...



> There were several incidents and emergencies among the fleet in the first 36 hours in which five boats had rudder and rig failures, seasickness and one broken arm.


Regardless of this number/ratio - I'm not in any way talking about what individual or loosely affiliated cruisers do. I'm talking about organized/sponsored rallies.


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> Actually, weather advise by Chris Parker is quite affordable, especially in the context of how much money one spends to prepare a boat for a passage to the Caribbean. And the amount of money spent once at the destination.


That's true. "Expensive" is a very relative term. $195/year, $95/month, $10/day is probably not a blip on many cruisers' ATM card. I'm just saying when it's offered for free by the rally organizer doesn't it likely become the de facto source for forecasting and routing decisions for the majority of the fleet - unlike in the case of individual cruisers?


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> I didn't say it _seems_ the same to me. I am aware of the difference between the two. What I was explaining to you is that the actual response here in Australia by SAR in both cases will be to begin the process of a rescue, and to ask craft to divert and render assistance. The assumption being that any PAN PAN could be a MAYDAY until proved otherwise.


That can't be true and makes no sense. Do you are saying that if I Issue a Pan Pan adverting the Australian CG for a serious problem and asking them to follow me for safety reasons (for instance contacting every 6 hours) because I have one of the following situations:

1 - I am making water but I have managed to stop the ingress to acceptable levels and I am trying to make it to port.

2. I have broken my mast, lost the engine, managed to jury rig and I am trying to make it to Port.

Are you saying that face to these circumstances the Australians will divert ships and launch aircrafts and helicopters just in case the Pan Pan turns in a mayday?

That does not makes sense.

As I have said an Epirb launch or a DSC emergency signal is a Mayday and cannot be used on a Pan Pan.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

sailvayu said:


> ....
> The fleet left knowing a cold front was to pass but it was supposed to pass fast and then good conditions, Instead it stalled and the fleet was stuck in the stream with 20-25. The problems came in the squalls with 30-40 against the stream.
> ...


Maybe I am not understanding what you say and please if it is the case correct me:

Do you mean that on that particularly difficult stretch of sea they sailed out knowing that they would get 20/25K winds, even if not for much time?

If so call me an armchair sailor even if I do between 2 to 3000nm a year but I don't sail out for a passage if the weather report gives 25K on my pass unless I have a very special boat. I have been surprised many times by F6 that turned in F8 and once by a F7 that turned in a F9/10 besides the winds reported by a weather service regards medium sustained winds, not gusts that normally blow 10k more and sometimes 15K more regarding a sustained 25K. Not that my boat cannot take it but it, or I cannot do it, but is not agreeable and it involves risks that I prefer not to take.

Sure with my friend's boat, an heavy Steel 60ft ketch we used to sail on f9 winds without any problem and I would have no doubt in sailing out with that weather report but those were not the average type of boats on the rally.

Rallies, precisely the ones that will not assume any responsibility regarding departure date or security conditions, can induce false safety feelings to less experienced sailors that can be very dangerous.

If someone not very experienced, that probably alone would not risk 25k winds, sees everybody sailing out in boats similar to the ones we own, will tend to think that so many cannot be mistaken and if it is safe for them, it will be safe for me. Nobody likes to be left behind.

On a side note, more two Catalina with rudder problems: one lost it and the other loss steering. Obviously Catalinas, or at least some vintage, have a problem with rudders. That does not mean that Catalinas cannot sail safely but that they have to do a lot more rudder maintenance than other boats. I would liked very much to know if those two Catalina had their rudder system conveniently checked before doing this passage and when was the systems completed dismounted for a thoroughly inspection.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ScottUK

What kind of boat do you have Paulo?


----------



## PCP

ScottUK said:


> What kind of boat do you have Paulo?


A 2007 Comet 41s, the one in my avatar.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey, what the hell? There's a Hunter 36 out there still afloat...and...apparently...sailing! That's not possible.

Heh-heh.


----------



## ScottUK

Looks to be more of a racer thab a cruiser. Do you race it?


----------



## ScottUK

> Hey, what the hell? There's a Hunter 36 out there still afloat...and...apparently...sailing! That's not possible.


Feeling vindicated?


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> Feeling vindicated?


Heh-heh. Not until they have their toes in the sand and booze in their cups.

It was just interesting to see them in the midst of all the other vaunted bluewater brands. Scrappy!


----------



## PCP

ScottUK said:


> Looks to be more of a racer thab a cruiser. Do you race it?


No, but some race it with good results. The boat is a performance cruiser and it has a good cruising interior.






Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

The C42 is a Gerry Douglas design from the 1990’s. C38 is a Sparkman Stephens IOR design built by Catalina and predates the C42 by between 10 and 20 years (depending upon the year purchased.) I have firsthand experience on both (raced the C38 and cruised the C42). Their rudders and steering gear are totally different and whatever problems these two boats encountered, it was not the result of a single root cause in either design or manufacture.


----------



## ScottUK

Looks like a nice ride Paulo.


----------



## Minnesail

smackdaddy said:


> Hey, what the hell? There's a Hunter 36 out there still afloat...and...apparently...sailing! That's not possible.
> 
> Heh-heh.


Hunters aren't safe, everybody knows that. This summer I sailed in a Hunter 340. We were 25nm offshore and got sustained 30 knot winds. The boat just broke apart and we all died. True story.


----------



## PCP

PCP said:


> ...
> On a side note, more two Catalina with rudder problems: one lost it and the other loss steering. Obviously Catalinas, or at least some vintage, have a problem with rudders. That does not mean that Catalinas cannot sail safely but that they have to do a lot more rudder maintenance than other boats. I would liked very much to know if those two Catalina had their rudder system conveniently checked before doing this passage and when was the systems completed dismounted for a thoroughly inspection.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Hum, It seems strange however it can be a coincidence.... and I have messed up, after all it is the Hunters that have known problems with the rudders, not Catalina, or at least till now


----------



## christian.hess

are you talking about the catalina 38?

the catalina 38 is a yankee 38 designed by sparkman and stephens and was bought by catalina after yankee went out of business...the catalina 38 used the same molds BUT changed the rudder design since the y38 was known for being finicky downwind.

catalina 38's were used for club racing in southern california and were made lighter and faster by catalina...I foget the name of the cup but they used them exclusively in the 80s and 90s...admirals cup or something.

the yankee 38 is still regarded as one of the best mid to big 30footers...too bad they only made 20 or so of them in costa mesa, ca. yankee could not keep up with its quality when the 70s oil crisis hit.

the yankee 30 its smaller brother was more prolific, same quality and designers.

cheers


----------



## chall03

PCP said:


> That can't be true and makes no sense. Do you are saying that if I Issue a Pan Pan adverting the Australian CG for a serious problem and asking them to follow me for safety reasons (for instance contacting every 6 hours) because I have one of the following situations:
> 
> 1 - I am making water but I have managed to stop the ingress to acceptable levels and I am trying to make it to port.
> 
> 2. I have broken my mast, lost the engine, managed to jury rig and I am trying to make it to Port.
> 
> Are you saying that face to these circumstances the Australians will divert ships and launch aircrafts and helicopters just in case the Pan Pan turns in a mayday?
> 
> That does not makes sense.
> 
> As I have said an Epirb launch or a DSC emergency signal is a Mayday and cannot be used on a Pan Pan.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


In the examples you give you have called a PAN PAN but confirmed that there is no need for external assistance.

In reality most PAN PAN's include a request for external assistance, or an uncertainty about the situation.

My belief is based on seeing/discussing local Marine Rescue response plans. I will seek clarification and let you know.


----------



## davidpm

Minnesail said:


> Hunters aren't safe, everybody knows that. This summer I sailed in a Hunter 340. We were 25nm offshore and got sustained 30 knot winds. The boat just broke apart and we all died. True story.


I was there too.
I don't think it was the the Hunters fault.
What really happened is that the two bull dogs we had for companions were deathly seasick. 
While you were cleaning your full automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds one of the dogs threw up on you.
That caused a series of events.
The gun went off spraying the cabin with bullets. Fortunately none of the rounds hit below the waterline. 
One round however ricocheted off the marble counter top and hit the switch on the new anchor windless releasing all 200 feet of line. 
Due to the the waves the boat twisted around and the rode fouled the prop causing the engine to break its mounts immediately destroying the stern tube.

This of course caused the boat to sink and subsequently our death.

So while the Hunter did fall apart, it was due to a bad anchor, bull-dogs, marble counter tops and firearms.

Get your story straight.


----------



## chall03

davidpm said:


> I was there too.
> I don't think it was the the Hunters fault.
> What really happened is that the two bull dogs we had for companions were deathly seasick.
> While you were cleaning your full automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds one of the dogs threw up on you.
> That caused a series of events.
> The gun went off spraying the cabin with bullets. Fortunately none of the rounds hit below the waterline.
> One round however ricocheted off the marble counter top and hit the switch on the new anchor windless releasing all 200 feet of line.
> Due to the the waves the boat twisted around and the rode fouled the prop causing the engine to break its mounts immediately destroying the stern tube.
> 
> This of course caused the boat to sink and subsequently our death.
> 
> So while the Hunter did fall apart, it was due to a bad anchor, bull-dogs, marble counter tops and firearms.
> 
> Get your story straight.


Wouldn't of happened in a steel boat with high lifelines.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. I love this place.


----------



## nolatom

Tempest said:


> Well, I guess, I've been told. Thanks for clearing that up.


Lost in all the 200 posts about sailing is that apparently you and I now need to burn our worthless Coast Guard licenses (post #95).

What do you think? Lighter, or match? ;-)


----------



## christian.hess

nolatom said:


> Lost in all the 200 posts about sailing is that apparently you and I now need to burn our worthless Coast Guard licenses (post #95).
> 
> What do you think? Lighter, or match? ;-)


either! I lost mine ajajajaajaja


----------



## xort

Lighters are a dangerous thing to have on a boat akin to a schedule or paper charts. Matches get wet. So the answer is a flint.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Further evidence, that East coast snowbirds just don't sail...


*grin* When sailors make disparaging comments about power cruisers I point out that the biggest difference between (most) sail cruisers and power cruisers is that (most) sail cruisers only motor 90% of the time. *grin*



ScottUK said:


> I don't understand the dismissive nature of some of the posts on this thread. It appears people aren't allowed to comment or discuss unless they meet certain metrics gained by experience. Who decides what these metrics are? Why can't a day sailor who only sails on Flat Calm Lake come up with an original point or idea relevant to the topic at hand.


I can't speak to all the comments you take exception to. One of your objections is likely to a comment of mine.

A day sailor on Flat Calm Lake can certainly come up with an original point or idea. Statistically there is a commentary based on cut and paste from magazines or book that the poster doesn't understand and isn't applicable to the case in hand. It's usually pretty easy for me to see through those posts, but I worry about those earlier on the learning curve that give credence to those posts. People can get hurt.



Yorksailor said:


> This post reminds me of my medical training; after the juniors had been up all night up to their asses in alligators, blood and guts a 9-5 academic lab doctor would explain to us exactly what we had done wrong while he was asleep! All invitations to join us at night were ignored.


Cut and paste doctors? *grin*



Yorksailor said:


> It is very hard to criticize the guy who was at the sharp end while you were at home in bed.


Agree. That doesn't mean the guy at the sharp end did everything right. It means that sometimes when you're at the sharp end the best you can isn't good enough.


----------



## scottbr

xort said:


> Lighters are a dangerous thing to have on a boat akin to a schedule or paper charts. Matches get wet. So the answer is a flint.


But, you forgot the BFS...... Big Friggin Shovel...... to get through this thread :laugher


----------



## ltgoshen

Crazy Thread.As for being new "4 years sailing" This Thread has a loght to teach a new guy like me. I do not cut corners on safety. I have been going more and More offshore. To gain my confidence up. I have been 15 miles out for the first time by my self. very humbling for me. I could envision all kind of bad stuff happening. I don't have all the off shore gear yet. It cost big money. Its going to take a while.I don't plan on leaving yet. I have a 5 year plan. I'am learning as I go. Day sailing and short jaunts overnight to learn how to anchor. I have a 30 Foot C&C MK1 I have ask a lot of folks on here if she is suitable for off shore and the vote is half and half.

5 foot draft 
LWL: 24.92' / 7.60m
LOA: 30.00' / 9.14m
Beam: 10.00' / 3.05m
Disp. 8000 lbs./ 3629 kgs
Ballast: 3450 lbs. / 1565 kgs.
2gm20F (15hp) Diesel
20 Gal Fuel Capacity. 240 mile range give or take.
40 Gal Water in 2 tanks 
15 Gal holding tank.
So much to learn great site to learn at. 
Hope these folks learned. Makes me not want to go. 
If it becomes over regulated only the rich will sail. 
I say let them pay the bill. if they don't follow standard safety sailing rules of safety.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> this this not a schedule?
> 
> 
> 
> The Fall 2013 Salty Dawg Rally will depart on November 4 *(weather permitting)* from Bluewater Yachting Center, Hampton, VA (or other locations of your choice), to sail to the British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, or other various locations.
Click to expand...

I suppose you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a "schedule". Pretty much every time I set foot on a boat, it's been pre-planned with a particular date in mind - a flight booked to the location of the boat, for example - with the departure subject to *weather permitting*, naturally... But, I really don't see how one coordinates the arrival of crew at a point of departure, etc, with at least a nod towards some sort of 'schedule'...



smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Can you cite where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'? Who is fostering such a perception, precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> _"They"_ are Jon. It's _"them"_. Sigh.
> 
> It's not exactly exotic psychology here. And not much needs to be touted in this area. The perception already exists and it's a strong perception. Then when elements like this...
Click to expand...

Again, I'd be interested in seeing where the Salty Dawg organizers have ever promoted the "safety in numbers" aspect of their rally... Their "basic philosophy' as stated in their website seems to promote quite the opposite, with the focus placed on Individual Responsibility, as a matter of fact...



smackdaddy said:


> Again, I'm not addressing the above points to any particular rally. I'm arguing that _all_ rallies should hold to a higher level of safety standards such as ISAF - precisely because they introduce elements of risk that are unique and typically not similarly present in individual cruising. I actually didn't know before the above article that the C1500 did just that. I think that's great. But, judging by SDR founders' quote above, that approach was obviously too rigorous for them and another 116 sailors.
> 
> Now that there's been a problem, there are questions that should be explored.


So, then - can you - or anyone else - provide examples of how a pre-rally inspection/certification to ISAF standards would have avoided or prevented whatever issues that arose with the particular boats/crews last week?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I suppose you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a "schedule". Pretty much every time I set foot on a boat, it's been pre-planned with a particular date in mind - a flight booked to the location of the boat, for example - with the departure subject to *weather permitting*, naturally... But, I really don't see how one coordinates the arrival of crew at a point of departure, etc, with at least a nod towards some sort of 'schedule'...


Cool. So now we're in agreement that the SDR had a schedule. It seemed earlier you were saying they didn't:



JonEisberg said:


> The Salty Dawg's had a "schedule"? Really?


++++++



JonEisberg said:


> Again, I'd be interested in seeing where the Salty Dawg organizers have ever promoted the "safety in numbers" aspect of their rally... Their "basic philosophy' as stated in their website seems to promote quite the opposite, with the focus placed on Individual Responsibility, as a matter of fact...


Yes. The rally organizers made it quite clear in the quote from that article I linked above that _everything_ rested squarely on the shoulders of the participants...not the rally organizers. She also insisted that only "seasoned mariners" were involved. And knowing you, I'm sure that you fully agree that having "completed one off-shore passage" qualifies one as such. Right?



JonEisberg said:


> So, then - can you - or anyone else - provide examples of how a pre-rally inspection/certification to ISAF standards would have avoided or prevented whatever issues that arose with the particular boats/crews last week?


Until more facts are in I don't suppose we can prove a negative.

You seem to like to argue in circles - saying things that it's really hard for me to believe you actually believe. But whatever. We'll see how things shake out.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Yes. The rally organizers made it quite clear in the quote from that article I linked above that _everything_ rested squarely on the shoulders of the participants...not the rally organizers. She also insisted that only "seasoned mariners" were involved. And knowing you, I'm sure that you fully agree that having "completed one off-shore passage" qualifies one as such. Right?


Is there anything wrong with having only done one offshore passage, and joining a rally to do your next??

There seems to be a bit of scoffing going on in this thread in direction of cruisers with less experience that the Pardeys entering and participating in rallies as a way of pushing their boundaries in company with other cruisers.
I actually think its a good thing. Understanding of course that the responsibility does lie with the skipper, and that the sea doesn't care how many boats are out there.

THE ARC unapologetically markets itself at people looking to do their first ocean crossing. (You could argue of course that the ARC then also insists and checks for a level of safety that EXCEEDS Cat 1  and conducts alot of pre departure safety briefings/training - but yeah I will let you argue that ).


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Is there anything wrong with having only done one offshore passage, and joining a rally to do your next??
> 
> There seems to be a bit of scoffing going on in this thread in direction of cruisers with less experience that the Pardeys entering and participating in rallies as a way of pushing their boundaries in company with other cruisers.
> I actually think its a good thing. Understanding of course that the responsibility does lie with the skipper, and that the sea doesn't care how many boats are out there.


Nothing wrong at all. But I do find it a little incongruous when the claim is made that everyone participating are "seasoned mariners" when the requirement to entry is a single "bluewater" (whatever that means) passage.

Look, put quite simply, unless there is a very high standard of safety for a rally (like Bubble pointed out earlier) I think there is a very fine line in providing the "incentives and benefits" a rally provides yet laying all liability on the shoulders of skippers that may be very new to the game.

As Bubble mentioned earlier - rallies can be a great learning opportunity if run like the ARC and the C1500 - which have high standards of safety. But a look at the numbers shows that the SDR pulled down far more boats than the C1500.

So what does that say? Which is the better model?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> So what does that say? Which is the better model?


I'm not sure what it says....maybe something.. maybe not.

The better model I believe probably lies somewhere in between and along the lines of what Bubble suggested. We intend on participating in the Louisiades Rally here in Oz next year. The following is from their rally briefing.....

http://www.louisiades.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2013-Rally-Briefing-v12.pdf



> "The rally is an event for seaworthy cruising yachts sailed by competent crew. The rally organisers will NOT undertake safety inspections nor certify a vessel is fit for participation in the rally. Those new to bluewater cruising may seek advice from rally organisers, who may choose to provide it without any implied liability or certification. We strongly recommend that yachts comply with the Yachting Australia's Safety Category One.
> The rally organiser went on his first overseas trip with the Darwin to Ambon yacht race almost twenty years ago and understands the need for guidance and advice for those new to overseas/offshore cruising, just ask!"
> 
> Having said the above we do reserve the right to refuse an entry up until the day of customs clearance (with full refunds of unexpended fees paid). Such a refusal would be on the grounds that the organisers have concerns regarding the safety of the vessel or competence of the crew (which could inconvenience or put at risk other participants).


They go on the list specific requirements. Of note in relation to the incidents in the SDR and subsequent communications issues raised, the one thing that we must do to enter the Louisiades Rally is get a licensed Radio Technician to inspect and certify our HF radio.


----------



## ScottUK

> Statistically there is a commentary based on cut and paste from magazines or book that the poster doesn't understand and isn't applicable to the case in hand. It's usually pretty easy for me to see through those posts


Not sure what you mean here or how it pretains to an original idea.


----------



## Argyle38

So Smack, 

Say you are the organizer of the BFS rally(TM), and you have all of the safety and inspection requirements that you propose should be required of all rally's, and some guy and his girlfriend arrive in a "worn out, but probably fine" 32' something or other but certainly doesn't meet all the ISAF requirements. 

So you tell the guy that he can't join your rally because he doesn't have the experience and his boat doesn't meet specs. He says that's too bad because he was looking forward to having the weather routing info and really liked the t-shirt design you had made rally participants. But, says he, joining the rally is independent of him sailing to the islands, so he's leaving in the morning and he'll buy you a beer on the other side. 

What do you do? The way I see it, your choice basically boils down to a couple of options.

1. Reinforce that he should not make this journey. Tell him that since you don't approve and he's not part of the rally, that he won't be getting your weather information, won't be getting your en-route broadcast channels of weather and recommenced route updates and most importantly, no t-shirt. 

2. Tell him that you don't think he should make the journey, but if he's going anyway, share with him your weather info, let him know how you will communicate updates, and since he seems like a swell guy and clearly has a keen eye for graphic design, throw in the t-shirt as well. 

I don't see how anyone would consider option one as the most safe option, if the guy is going to go anyway. If something happened to him out there, and you had information that would maybe have helped him, and withheld it leading to some sort of loss, you would probably feel pretty crappy about that. 

If you go with option two, or some variation thereof, then congratulations the BFS Rally (TM) now has the same (de facto) requirements as the SDR.


----------



## davidpm

Does anyone know what weather was predicted and how strong of a prediction it was and what weather was actually experienced?


----------



## Yorksailor

While we would not take part in a Rally, trust anyone else's interpretation of the weather or follow a 'herd instinct' to go to sea I think that Rallies are probably beneficial providing the crew and boat are capable of being caught out by a North Atlantic gale.

However, many sailors I meet in the Caribbean who successfully sailed from the US to the Caribbean really did not have the boat or the skills to handle the worst conditions they might have met.

Basically you "pays your money and you takes your chances" but it should be done on personal ability and not on what you are told!

This is in the November edition of UK sailing magazine Yachting Monthly

_* A sailor learns to trust herself and her boat*

My husband Phil and I were visiting New York on our Tayana 55, Moon Dancer, a moderately heavy blue water cruiser that we had sailed thousands of miles along the USA's Eastern seaboard.

As we departed, the weather report was benign, 15-20 knots of offshore wind from the west. The New Jersey coast is a dangerous, 100-mile lee shore, so we weren't taking any chances.

We left New York's 79th St marina after lunch, catching the ebb tide, under genoa and mainsail in 10 knots of wind. At dusk the wind was gusting 25 knots so we put in the second reef and changed from reefed genoa to staysail as we watched the lights of New York recede. We jogged along at 5-6 knots. As the evening progressed the wind continued to build and by 22:00 we were down to the third reef and staysail, with the washboards bolted in place, in 35-40 knots of wind and 10-15ft seas. The continuously broadcast US Weather Service told us we were in 20-25 knots and did so all night. I went to get some sleep, leaving Phil alone on deck. In my dreamlike state I was aware that the weather was worsening.

Phil woke me at 02:00 for my watch with the statement: 'I am running her out to sea with the wind on the starboard quarter and we need the fourth reef.' We'd specified a fourth reef with our new mainsail as it'd be easier to rig than a storm trisail.

The instruments were showing a solid 45 knots with gusts in the fifties. Once the fourth reef was in and the staysail reefed to the size of a T-shirt, we were still making six knots under autopilot. Phil went off to bed and I knew he would sleep soundly. Having spent 25 years in very high risk paediatric medicine, when it is his turn to sleep, he's able to drop off no matter what is happening!

The autopilot was easily holding our course and I realised that it was because we had a big boat, reefed correctly, with a long, eight-ton keel. Moon Dancer rose easily on the 20ft quartering waves and I alternated between watching the radar at the chart table and sticking my head out to look visually for traffic and checking the sails.

Slowly I realised that Moon Dancer would take care of me. Since the companionway is a prime spot from which to be washed overboard, I was tethered to an internal strong point and could move easily from cockpit to chart table without unclipping. And having read of previous tragic accidents at sea, we insist on using tethers with a quick release.

As I waited for dawn to break, the weather conditions worsened. Twice, while sitting at the chart table, I became airborne and landed on my bottom on the cabin sole, but not flying far because of my tether. I've spent a lot of time on the water but these were the worst conditions I'd seen in a yacht. Occasionally a big wave would break over the boat and I would look up and see green water above my head through the hatches. Phil, as usual, slept the sleep of the innocent. I did a longer watch than usual and finally woke Phil with coffee at 0700 as the storm was lessening. We hardened up and headed for the inlet at Cape May, our original destination.

I was elated! I had done a single-handed watch in a F9, gusting F10, alone and without incident. The only downside were the bruises, in places a lady really should not be bruised! I also realised that Moon Dancer and I were capable of handling far more than this.

<<biog>>

Nell Kellett is a 58 yr-old retired airline executive who cruises full-time with her husband Phil, a retired doctor, aboard their 1984 Tayana 55. Nell, of Florida, is also a US Coastguard Licensed Captain. She has been sailing for 30 years. In the last five years she and Phil have sailed 25,000 miles from Puerto Rico to Nova Scotia and back, and twice around the Caribbean. They plan to cross the Pacific in 2014
_

The bottom line is that you have to predict the worst and prepare for those conditions...Hoping for the best just does not work out in blue water.

Still need crew... http://www.sailnet.com/forums/crew-wanted-available/105490-pacific-crossing.html


----------



## smackdaddy

Argyle38 said:


> So Smack,
> 
> Say you are the organizer of the BFS rally(TM), and you have all of the safety and inspection requirements that you propose should be required of all rally's, and some guy and his girlfriend arrive in a "worn out, but probably fine" 32' something or other but certainly doesn't meet all the ISAF requirements.
> 
> So you tell the guy that he can't join your rally because he doesn't have the experience and his boat doesn't meet specs. He says that's too bad because he was looking forward to having the weather routing info and really liked the t-shirt design you had made rally participants. But, says he, joining the rally is independent of him sailing to the islands, so he's leaving in the morning and he'll buy you a beer on the other side.
> 
> What do you do? The way I see it, your choice basically boils down to a couple of options.
> 
> 1. Reinforce that he should not make this journey. Tell him that since you don't approve and he's not part of the rally, that he won't be getting your weather information, won't be getting your en-route broadcast channels of weather and recommenced route updates and most importantly, no t-shirt.
> 
> 2. Tell him that you don't think he should make the journey, but if he's going anyway, share with him your weather info, let him know how you will communicate updates, and since he seems like a swell guy and clearly has a keen eye for graphic design, throw in the t-shirt as well.
> 
> I don't see how anyone would consider option one as the most safe option, if the guy is going to go anyway. If something happened to him out there, and you had information that would maybe have helped him, and withheld it leading to some sort of loss, you would probably feel pretty crappy about that.
> 
> If you go with option two, or some variation thereof, then congratulations the BFS Rally (TM) now has the same (de facto) requirements as the SDR.


Option 1. No doubt.

Just the thought of not having a BFS Tee would make his girlfriend pressure him into attending a SAS seminar and upgrade the boat. Hell - she'd take the boat away from him and do it herself.


----------



## ltgoshen

Need to have a good auto pilot too a guess.

Local News


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> ....
> 
> THE ARC unapologetically markets itself at people looking to do their first ocean crossing. (You could argue of course that the ARC then also insists and checks for a level of safety that EXCEEDS Cat 1  and conducts alot of pre departure safety briefings/training - but yeah I will let you argue that ).


A Rally can promote safety on an Ocean passage. Not only help will be much more at hand as in what regards communications it has a great advantage. But only if the organizers did not dismiss any concern or responsibility regarding safety. On the ARC you don't leave when you want but when the organizers consider there are safety conditions to everybody.

ARC demands mandatory safety requirements regarding equipment and inspects everything. Some of the equipment needed : oceanic liferaft, Epirb, Long Range Communications Equipment, AIS, Clipping Points Attached to through bolted or welded deck plates, or similar, in positions close to the helm, and to enable crew to clip on before coming on deck, and unclip after going below, Emergency grab bag, A recognised secondary or alternative method of navigation, Jackstays/jacklines along port and starboard side decks, Bungs or softwood plugs - securely attached/stowed adjacent to each ﬁtting to enable any through hull ﬁtting (below and above waterline) to be closed off, Hacksaw and spare blades, bolt croppers or suitable method for cutting-away rigging.

Some of the equipment they strongly recommend: Storm jib, Storm trisail or 3rd reef in mainsail, Drogue or sea anchor. A drogue (for deployment over the stern), or alternatively a sea anchor, or parachute anchor (for deployment over the bow), is strongly recommended as a means to reduce the risk of capsize in heavy breaking seas.

http://www.worldcruising.com/CMS/CMS/Library/entry_packs/ARC2013_Regulations_ENG.pdf

Off course that is nany Europe...but wait a minute, the one that organizes this is a well known American, a guy that circumnavigated several times. I guess that he does not know what he is doing, I mean American and all acting like an European in safety matters?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Ajax_MD

Americans like safety, Paulo. We just don't like the government to force it down our throats. We prefer to police ourselves.


----------



## svHyLyte

davidpm said:


> Does anyone know what weather was predicted and how strong of a prediction it was and what weather was actually experienced?


See the information posted on Eye Candy's Blog


----------



## PCP

BubbleheadMd said:


> Americans like safety, Paulo. We just don't like the government to force it down our throats. We prefer to police ourselves.


I know that, but different concepts. It is not a question of Police but of choice.

If I understand the differences on America each one decides what it is important for the safety of the boat and crew and the organization is not responsible for anyone's safety.

In Europe each one decides what it is important as safety equipment but besides each one's opinion (that are different) there is a list of mandatory equipment you have to have, agreeing with it or not and that equipment will be verified by the organizers. That list represents what the organizers see indispensable for safety and as they are responsible for the safety of all, you have it or you will not participate.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound

Two sister ships of mine were in the rally. They both left a day early and kept in sight of each other for much of the time. Both had uneventful, safe passages.
As good as Chris is at the end of the day you are responsible for your decisions. If you are going to stay ahead of a front you need to be in a boat big enough and fast enough to make that happen. 
Boats delaminating speaks to the unsuitability of that vessel for this endeavor. One wonders about the details of the lost rudders/toe rails/steerage in a similar vein. ?Maybe just bad luck but ???


----------



## Cruisingdad

Like SV Auspicious and Jon E, I suspect the conditions were much worse than reported. I mean come on!!... how many of you have ever made a passage where the winds and waves were as reported??? If it was one boat losing its rudder or whatever, I might have a different opinion. But wasn't it two demastings and two lost rudders and everything else? Yikes. WHat a terrible start to a great trip. I have a friend who also followed it (he has a good friend in the rally) and they were reporting gusts in the 50s. We talked about this a bit a couple of days ago.

I actually agree with Dave that these rally's are a good thing (may have been Jon's position too). I also believe they can increase the safety. I don't buy into the 'herd mentality' thing that keeps getting thrown out. Instead, I think it is a group of sailors (of all levels of experience and boats) working out and talking out the best time to leave and weather windows. If it is anything like down here, the conversations drift into safety gear, what meds you take, drogues, reefs, etc. Lively discussions come from it over a beer or two. That is all good stuff and certainly outweighs any 'herd mentality' that might come from it and even more so, might invoke a few thought process that a single person has not come up with. We sailors are, by nature, a pretty independent bunch of people who also enjoy a bit of socializing. I love the rally idea, though I have never done one. I am simply too fickle in where I want to go and when. THat being said, my wife wants to do the ARC. I think that would be a blast, but I dont want to do it with the kids. One of us would kill each other... probably with me jumping overboard somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic!

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

BubbleheadMd said:


> Americans like safety, Paulo. We just don't like the government to force it down our throats. We prefer to police ourselves.


But don't we already have that? Life jackets, flares, etc?

Brian


----------



## outbound

Plan to do this rally. Just the net and weather updates make it worth while. The hell with the T shirt- no killer cotton on my boat. 
Paulo - unfortunately you can't fix stupid. Going out on a boat ill prepared will continue to happen. Even in NZ how can they hope to police their rules if folks leave to go cruising some night and don't expect to come back to NZ for time to come? Be curious as to what the penalties are?


----------



## Cruisingdad

outbound said:


> Plan to do this rally. Just the net and weather updates make it worth while. The hell with the T shirt- no killer cotton on my boat.
> Paulo - unfortunately you can't fix stupid. Going out on a boat ill prepared will continue to happen. Even in NZ how can they hope to police their rules if folks leave to go cruising some night and don't expect to come back to NZ for time to come? Be curious as to what the penalties are?


Absolutely! I think that rally is a great idea. 2014?

Brian


----------



## davidpm

svHyLyte said:


> See the information posted on Eye Candy's Blog


Wow
The weather routing really didn't work at all.


----------



## outbound

yup- Lord willing and the creek don't rise.


----------



## scottbr

davidpm said:


> Wow
> The weather routing really didn't work at all.


It's the first time the weather forecasters could not predict the future.....


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Option 1. No doubt.
> 
> Just the thought of not having a BFS Tee would make his girlfriend pressure him into attending a SAS seminar and upgrade the boat. Hell - she'd take the boat away from him and do it herself.


Ok, I hard that apparently the Pardeys also want to do the BFS Rally, they have heard there will be one hell of a Beach BBQ. They have also told Beth Leonard that Smack makes the rum punch to end all rum punches.....and she and Evan are keen to come along.

Despite having more than 4 circumnavigations under their belt between them under your requirments, that is the ISAF regs, they are apparently 'not safe' and will not be able to drink punch with us all becuase of ISAF Bob's clipboard 

This is because of specific educated decisions they have made in regards to what they believe is best for the safety of their vessel which differs to what the lawyers of yachting bodies and associations have decreed.

However Martin and Mary retired accountants on their brand new Hunter 50 ( Sorry couldn't resist ) from Suburbiaville have read all the regs and dropped thousands on gear they don't understand. They have let some flares off and sat in a Liferaft in the Suburniaville pool and done a qualifying passage with Jane and Doug on their Island Packet last summmer. Martin can't wait to get one on those tshirts knowing they are ' BFS safe'.

( By the way Mary said she saw ISAF Bob passed out under the Punch bowl...)


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Ok, I hard that apparently the Pardeys also want to do the BFS Rally, they have heard there will be one hell of a Beach BBQ. They have also told Beth Leonard that Smack makes the rum punch to end all rum punches.....and she and Evan are keen to come along.
> 
> Despite having more than 4 circumnavigations under their belt between them under your requirments, that is the ISAF regs, they are apparently 'not safe' and will not be able to drink punch with us all becuase of ISAF Bob's clipboard
> 
> This is because of specific educated decisions they have made in regards to what they believe is best for the safety of their vessel which differs to what the lawyers of yachting bodies and associations have decreed.
> 
> However Martin and Mary retired accountants on their brand new Hunter 50 ( Sorry couldn't resist ) from Suburbiaville have read all the regs and dropped thousands on gear they don't understand. They have let some flares off and sat in a Liferaft in the Suburniaville pool and done a qualifying passage with Jane and Doug on their Island Packet last summmer. Martin can't wait to get one on those tshirts knowing they are ' BFS safe'.
> 
> ( By the way Mary said she saw ISAF Bob passed out under the Punch bowl...)


Rules is rules. You want the punch you gotta drink the koolaid.


----------



## chall03

Ok let's say another multi-cirucmnavigator( I might stop using the Pardeys or Beth and Evan as specific examples here they both read forums  ) wants to join in the BFS cup.

They also have slightly different idea's in regards to liferafts than ISAF ( becuase they are seasoned doublehanded circumnavigators, not offshore racing crews) that technically means they don't meet regs.

BUT They would love to sponsor the BFS cup, run safety seminars, teach storm tactics as it applies to double handed cruising yachts to everyone, commit to spending 2 weeks walking around the dock helping everyone get the boats ready, show Martin and Mary how to Hove to in the floating carvan, Heck they are even going to bring the rum......

What then? Which Option is safest??


----------



## Maine Sail

I have no doubt these boats saw worse weather than was predicted. After all it is November on the EAST COAST..... I have been through this short steep, under-predicted BS more times than I care to..

Stuff breaks when it gets like this. Happens to the best of boats and much of it is not predictable. When was the last time a surveyor dropped a rudder?

In the late 80's I was involved in a delivery on a new / used boat that lost the rig in fall winds. The rig and entire boat had just undergone a complete rig, hull & systems survey and passed with flying colors..

Still we were left bobbing like a cork, you do not want to be on a boat in rough seas without a spar, very uncomfortable. Trust me it is one of the most uncomfortable moments at sea you'll encounter in terms of motion. We were forced to cut away the rig.

A couple of weeks ago I went out for a short solo sail. NOAA was predicting 10-15 knots from the NW.. Just my kind of day. Knowing how high pressure moves into Maine I prepared/reefed for 20-25 knots and headed out.

By the time I tacked to head back in it was blowing 25 steady and gusting to 32 (apparent was obviously reading higher). An hour later it was a fairly steady 28-30 with gusts to 38-40 and spray blowing off the crests on the bay. When I checked NOAA, and other weather sources, she was still saying 10-15 knots....

Just glad I was in the bay and well prepared for more then 10-15 knots..

:The beat back in was fun, & wet..










Love my dodger..


----------



## 34crealock

Maine, glad to hear it's not just me. Between the tidal bore and opposing winds and Venturi effect it seems to always be more than the forecast, except for when it is dramatically less. We used to get very intense weather briefings when I was an airplane driver but we went anyway. I am pleased that I elected not to do one of the Rally's this year, with my 34 foot tub I'd have been right in it for quite a while. I prefer the armchair.


----------



## Maine Sail

I was actually asked to crew on a delivery to the Bahama's last week and this week, but not in the rally. I was too busy to go. I have not heard from Richard but his boat is in good shape and he has good crew. Not worried about him but I am sure he will have good stories...


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Ok let's say another multi-cirucmnavigator( I might stop using the Pardeys or Beth and Evan as specific examples here they both read forums  ) wants to join in the BFS cup.
> 
> They also have slightly different idea's in regards to liferafts than ISAF ( becuase they are seasoned doublehanded circumnavigators, not offshore racing crews) that technically means they don't meet regs.
> 
> BUT They would love to sponsor the BFS cup, run safety seminars, teach storm tactics as it applies to double handed cruising yachts to everyone, commit to spending 2 weeks walking around the dock helping everyone get the boats ready, show Martin and Mary how to Hove to in the floating carvan, Heck they are even going to bring the rum......
> 
> What then? Which Option is safest??


Just like in a race, if the rally uses ISAF as the standard - that's the standard. If you don't wanna play by those rules - no soup for you.

It really doesn't need to be so hard.


----------



## GeorgeB

Why all the angst? Why do people naturally assume that somehow these skippers/crews were substandard and the boats somehow ill prepared even though they were all embarking on an extended cruise? Nothing I read suggested that these skippers didn’t attend a SAS course and what broke really didn’t imply ISAF non-compliance (I’m assuming Smack wants Cat1). You know, sometimes bad things happen to good people. In a macabre sort of way, I’m glad this happened in the Atlantic as I’m tired of reading about bad things happening to Pacific Ocean sailors.

I kind of like the rallies. People shouldn’t deride them by using derogatory phrases like “herd mentality”. What you do get in a rally is the ability to make friends and network. It is nice to know a friendly face when you are in a strange harbor sometime in the future (especially if you have a boat issue). When we went across the Atlantic, we joined up into an informal radio net. It was nice to chat and hear what everyone else was up to (“Fatty” Goodlander was the moderator). At one point, a South African couple notified the fleet that they had broken steering gear. They got a lot of good advice on how to jury rig but in the end, their speed was greatly reduced and they didn’t have sufficient water reserves to get to the Caribbean. The word was passed around the net of their plight and their predicted positions. Boats behind them diverted and passed water and food to them. The couple was able to make Barbados without having call Rescue or having to abandon their boat. If “herd mentality” is helping your fellow mariner, then I’m all for it.

The idea behind the 11/1 start date is when you no longer need a hurricane rider on your insurance. On this year’s Baja Ha Ha, they were sweating out a late season tropical depression off Mexico that couldn’t decide to head up to Baja or curl back out to sea. Stuff happens. All we can do is be prepare the best we can to deal with it. So deal with it.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Cool. So now we're in agreement that the SDR had a schedule. It seemed earlier you were saying they didn't:


Sorry, but we're not in agreement... Departures of the SDR fleet were stretched out over more than a week, boats like CELEBRATION and DISTANT STAR left around the time of the 1500, and some boats _still_ haven't left... Those sailors in the SDR rally are on no more of a 'schedule' than most anyone else making that trip on their own, independent of any affiliation with a rally...

Last time I made the trip was 2 years ago, on a Valiant 42 leaving from CT... The owner's insurance specified the boat could not be south of the Chesapeake prior to November 1... I ran the boat myself down to Norfolk, where I was going to meet my brother and nephew coming in from California...

At some point, you have to decide on a target date for departure... Flights need to be booked, and planes boarded... I had arrived in Hampton on the Monday the 1500 was slated to leave, but at the last minute they postponed, the first of a series of postponements thru the week... Whenever that happens, crews begin to drop out, as the "schedule" many are adhering to is to attempt to complete the passage in time for crews to return home by Thanksgiving... That was actually one of the reasons Bill Knowles dropped out of the 1500 3 years ago, he thought their planned departures at the end of the first week of November put too much pressure on those time constraints for so many of the crews...

So, I just don't see how the 'schedule' of the SDR rallyists differs in any significant way from the same considerations of any other sailors making this passage, or how being a participant in the SDR by definition adds "risk" to the timing of their departure, as you have argued... You should read Don Street's advice on this passage, it will give you a fuller appreciation of how narrow the recommended window for this trip really is, and how historically, this trip really needs to be attempted somewhere near the very beginning of November...



smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> So, then - can you - or anyone else - provide examples of how a pre-rally inspection/certification to ISAF standards would have avoided or prevented whatever issues that arose with the particular boats/crews last week?
> 
> 
> 
> Until more facts are in I don't suppose we can prove a negative.
> 
> You seem to like to argue in circles - saying things that it's really hard for me to believe you actually believe. But whatever. We'll see how things shake out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever... 

Look, for as long as I've been posting on sailing forums, I've been pretty critical of these Caribbean Cattle Drives... They're certainly not my style, I can't imagine ever _paying_ to participate in a rally to the Islands...

Based on what I observed hanging around with the 1500 fleet for a few days pre-departure, the vaunted "safety inspections" appeared to be somewhat cursory, and rather random... The 'flagship' of the fleet - the Hylas 70 ARCHANGEL - was apparently initially failed due to some issue with their lifejackets, pissant stuff...

Bigger picture stuff, however, seemed to get overlooked... I was astounded by the amount of crap many boats were carrying on deck, for example, and one would think a meaningful 'safety inspection' would have attempted to minimize that sort of thing. I've posted this pic before, but to me it's emblematic of how little a clue some skippers have about how to properly prepare their boats for what they might encounter on such a passage... If I were conducting a Safety Inspection of boats in preparation for a November passage to the islands, no way would this sort of stupidity pass muster:










Bottom line is, I simply think the Salty Dawg Rally has been unfairly targeted in the aftermath of these events... Chris Parker is as good as anyone in the business, even the best can miss now and then... As Dave has explained earlier in the thread, the weather has been pretty unusual lately, these fronts that have come thru lately have packed a serious punch... I'm in Wrightsville Beach at the moment, we just made it in here this evening before it started honking, and you couldn't pay me enough to be off Cape Fear tonight...


----------



## JonEisberg

davidpm said:


> Wow
> The weather routing really didn't work at all.


Really? Sounds like they got pretty much what was forecast, to me...



> Once we got through the Gulf Stream some 20 hours later, it was a further 100 mile sprint to stay ahead of the next cold front which forecast 50 knot squalls.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Really? Sounds like they got pretty much what was forecast, to me...


So, why they sailed out?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> As Bubble mentioned earlier - rallies can be a great learning opportunity if run like the ARC and the C1500 - which have high standards of safety. *But a look at the numbers shows that the SDR pulled down far more boats than the C1500.
> 
> So what does that say?* Which is the better model?


Uhh, you understand the difference between "FREE", and a $1500 'Entry Fee', I presume?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Uhh, you understand the difference between "FREE", and a $1500 'Entry Fee', I presume?


Yes. I think it comes out to exactly 5 SAR missions.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Really? Sounds like they got pretty much what was forecast, to me...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why they sailed out?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo
Click to expand...

Well, you'd have to ask them, I suppose...

but, I'm gonna guess it has to do with the fact that even the best weather forecasts in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras in November are not written in stone, and are sometimes subject to change 

Yeah, I know, what would an old sea dog like Don Street know...



> U.S. East Coast weather becomes so unstable in November that forecasts are good only up to 48 to 60 hours....
> 
> From Little Creek to St. Thomas, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the sailing distance is about 1,380 miles and will take eight to 11 days, depending on weather and boat. From Morehead and Beaufort, the trip should take about the same time. *The great advantage of setting off from Morehead is the fact that you're in the Gulf Stream and out the other side in 24 to 30 hours. You're also below the worst of the North Atlantic's gale area. *
> 
> Don Street's Sailing Routes to the Caribbean | Cruising World


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Uhh, you understand the difference between "FREE", and a $1500 'Entry Fee', I presume?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I think it comes out to exactly 5 SAR missions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right - nothing like that has ever occurred in the Caribbean 1500, of course...

Well, except for the loss of a crewmwmber aboard RULE 62 a couple of years ago, perhaps...

Or, the abandonment of a couple of boats in the 2006 edition...

Or, the fleet's encounter with the remnants of Hurricane Mitch in '98, and the abandonment of a couple of more boats...

Yeah, that $1500 virtually guarantees safety and success, alright...



> LATER--AFTER TWO BOATS HAD BEEN ABANDONED, after people had been hospitalized, after we finally (and gratefully) reached the safety of Virgin Gorda in the British Virgin Islands--Steve Black, who had organized the rally, held a "debriefing" session. This was attended by most of those who had tangled with the erratic, still destructive remnants of Hurricane Mitch. It was very heady stuff. A tent was erected on the marina lawn, and it quickly filled with sailors. Many had stories to tell. Stories of gale-force winds, broken gear, and enormous seas.
> 
> Just a few days earlier several of these same people had been neophytes with little or no offshore sailing experience. But now they were all, without doubt, bluewater veterans, and their pride in this--their sense of accomplishment--was very much a tangible thing.
> 
> But then one woman got up to tell her story, and for a moment the mood was broken. There was a bit of world weariness and also a trace of exasperation in her voice. *"To tell you the truth, we were worried about Mitch from the very beginning," she exclaimed. "If we hadn't been in the rally, we would have never left in the first place."*
> 
> There was laughter, but it was nervous laughter, for this was a not-so-subtle reminder. Somewhere back there someone made a decision. One man, Steve Black, had gathered all these people together and had ordained from where and when they should start sailing south. Steve was not deflecting any blame, nor was he embracing it. His attitude was clear: this was a risk you accepted when you pointed your bow toward open water, whether you joined his rally or not.
> 
> Heavy Weather Sailing: Remembering Hurricane Mitch | Sail Magazine


----------



## smackdaddy

Give it a similar timeframe and get back to me.

(The quote is quite telling about rallies in general. Kind of what we've been talking about.)


----------



## HeartsContent

Better stated:

How does taxing solve any problem in regards to the rally?

Will increasing the cost to make the sport more inaccessible make anyone safer?

Clearly taxation wouldn't stop those with Swans that had trouble. Does class matter in who is deemed worthy to be rescued without criticism?

It sort of sounds like it does.



PCP said:


> All are paying for you to have SAR and they pay it with tax.
> 
> You mean the spirit of the sea is that the ones that don't do sail have to pay for the rescue of the ones that sail, I mean in what regards recreational activity?
> 
> An insurance, if the boat is fit for what is insured for, it is not necessarily expensive and represents only a small part of what you pay for boat maintenance and eventually marina costs, not mention cruising costs.
> 
> I don't see what this is to be wealthy or not. Having a cruising boat does not come cheap but it is affordable not only by wealthy people, that are a minority if we take into consideration all cruising boats.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> (The quote is quite telling about rallies in general. Kind of what we've been talking about.)


Yeah cause people NOT in rallies never have a problem out there.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/47882-bfs-proponent-rescued-sea.html

Idiots are idiots. In rallies and out.

It's all anecdotal. I do wonder how the stats work out for people getting in trouble in a rally vs not in rally.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> (The quote is quite telling about rallies in general. Kind of what we've been talking about.)


Yes, kind of what I've been talking about, as well... A rally with a loosely defined and more flexible departure time, where participants are free to leave at the time of their own choosing, is a better concept which places more responsibility on the decision-making of each participant, and more in tune with the manner in which cruising sailors have traditionally made ocean passages, than one in which the departure is set by the organizers...

Unlike the 1500, there are no photos of the Salty Dawg fleet crossing the Starting Line, after all...


----------



## PCP

HeartsContent said:


> Better stated:
> 
> How does taxing solve any problem in regards to the rally?
> 
> Will increasing the cost to make the sport more inaccessible make anyone safer?
> 
> Clearly taxation wouldn't stop those with Swans that had trouble. Does class matter in who is deemed worthy to be rescued without criticism?
> 
> It sort of sounds like it does.


You misunderstood what I have said.

What I was talking about had nothing to do with big, small or expensive versus cheap boats. It has to do with knowing who should pay the rescues on recreational sailing : all the population or the only ones that benefice from them.

You can be sure that they are paid with tax. The issue is who should pay them?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SVAuspicious

Jon's photo well above makes a good point. Not to offend anyone, but you can't fix stupid.

If the rules some advocate are sufficiently definitive to stop the stupidity you will ultimately find that offshore sailing becomes a one-design effort with conformal solar panels, dinghy garages, enclosure exclusions, and mandated huge lockers to clear the decks. Old boats won't qualify. Mom and Pop boats won't qualify. Smaller boats won't qualify. The cost of "certification" will be substantial.

If asked to take the boat pictured offshore, the dinghy would be on the foredeck, the enclosure would be done, and I might move the solar panels inside. Of course that means restricted visibility (dinghy on the foredeck), a chillier ride until across the Gulf Stream (that boat looks like it has a hard bimini so sail visibility is a problem), and restrictions on sleeping space.

It comes down to judgment, and it is very hard to regulate judgment.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Yeah cause people NOT in rallies never have a problem out there.
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/47882-bfs-proponent-rescued-sea.html
> 
> Idiots are idiots. In rallies and out.
> 
> It's all anecdotal. I do wonder how the stats work out for people getting in trouble in a rally vs not in rally.





JonEisberg said:


> Yes, kind of what I've been talking about, as well... A rally with a loosely defined and more flexible departure time, where participants are free to leave at the time of their own choosing, is a better concept which places more responsibility on the decision-making of each participant, and more in tune with the manner in which cruising sailors have traditionally made ocean passages, than one in which the departure is set by the organizers...
> 
> Unlike the 1500, there are no photos of the Salty Dawg fleet crossing the Starting Line, after all...


I've never said this kind of approach would solve ALL problems, or even cure "idiots"*. But I absolutely stick by the argument that having a high standard of safety for rallies such as ISAF is a very, very good idea.

If you want to be loosey-goosey with it (i.e. - eschew responsibility as the organization) then at the very least you should up the entry requirements to a much higher threshold of experience than a _single off-shore passage_. This is the only way to ensure that the participating skippers actually have the experience required to make the kinds of decisions Jon is certain they'll make.

When it comes to safety, either one of these directions is basic common sense.

(*A rescue does not an idiot make. Ronnie certainly proved that.)


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> I've never said this kind of approach would solve ALL problems, or even cure idiots. But I absolutely stick by the argument that having a high standard of safety for rallies such as ISAF is a very, very good idea.
> 
> If you want to be loosey-goosey with it (i.e. - eschew responsibility as the organization) then at the very least you should up the entry requirements to a much higher threshold of experience than a _single off-shore passage_. This is the only way to ensure that the participating skippers actually have the experience required to make the kinds of decisions Jon is certain they'll make.
> 
> When it comes to safety, either one of these directions is basic common sense.


I'm pretty much with Jon and Dave on this one. I took a look at the SDR rally entrant list and I don't see any boats on there that look out of place based on age or builder alone. I think that says something -- lots of questionable boats make these runs but they are not doing so as part of the SDR.

I believe that the problems here have far more to do with the conditions in the N Atlantic in November than with anything the Rallys do or don't do. The nature of East Coast weather systems in the late fall / early winter is not something that gets a lot of attention (as Jon points out Don Street is the exception with his focus on the issue) but which really deserves it. The spacing of the cold fronts and the severity of local conditions are unknowns that can't be fully forecast (hell they're not even accurately reported afterward). In a certain respect, I think the rally format offers an opportunity to inform the participants of those risks and to give them an opportunity to prepare themselves and the boat.

Anyway, like everything else there is no black and white here. I am just glad that the only people who seem to spend much time talking about regulating offshore sailing are sailors themselves.


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> I'm pretty much with Jon and Dave on this one. I took a look at the SDR rally entrant list and I don't see any boats on there that look out of place based on age or builder alone. I think that says something -- lots of questionable boats make these runs but they are not doing so as part of the SDR.
> 
> I believe that the problems here have far more to do with the conditions in the N Atlantic in November than with anything the Rallys do or don't do. The nature of East Coast weather systems in the late fall / early winter is not something that gets a lot of attention (as Jon points out Don Street is the exception with his focus on the issue) but which really deserves it. The spacing of the cold fronts and the severity of local conditions are unknowns that can't be fully forecast (hell they're not even accurately reported afterward). In a certain respect, I think the rally format offers an opportunity to inform the participants of those risks and to give them an opportunity to prepare themselves and the boat.
> 
> Anyway, like everything else there is no black and white here. I am just glad that the only people who seem to spend much time talking about regulating offshore sailing are sailors themselves.


I'll make a couple of more clarifications on this - then I'll try to let it lie...

I'm not at all for "regulating offshore sailing". I'm for _holding rally organizers to a higher standard_ so that participants can benefit from that across the board. You're right that the SDR fleet is made up of a lot of very capable boats (I went through them too) - _but this was not by design_ according to the "rules" of that rally from what I've seen.

With a low entry threshold, the incentive to get as many boats as possible in the rally, and relatively low safety standards - ESPECIALLY IN THE CONDITIONS YOU'VE JUST POINTED OUT - things will likely not go well in the long term (I think we're already seeing this.)

Finally, on Chall's BFS angle...if I were to throw sponsor money at a rally, it would definitely be something like the Carib 1500, ARC, NARC, etc. That's because those rallies have a high standard of safety. I've always held that every up-and-coming sailor should want to "go big" - _but that they should also be as prepared as possible to do so_. Encouraging big without pushing preparedness is never a good idea in my opinion.

PS - Here's a story of an emergency/injury well-handled in the C1500:

http://www.worldcruising.com/Carib1...ArchiveID=4&CategoryID=186&ItemID=226464&src=


----------



## ccriders

Okay, so who wants to open a new discussion on the efficacy of safety equipment lists and SAS training? There are many issues to discuss before deciding whether rallies should require certain equipment, training and experience. 
Life raft drills in calm waters?
Fire drills in open parking lots?
Backup steering devices rigged while being tossed about on a raging ocean?
HF radio antennas integrated into the standing rigging?
Hull puncture remedies?
Etc., etc....
John


----------



## PCP

It seems to me that some clarification is in order regarding the two or three main issues that are been in discussion regarding Rallies.

It seems that some does not see any safety advantage in rallies. That seems to be not a dominant opinion so I will skip that one.

There are those that think that the rallies should be safer if a kind of a free association of sailors around a departing date but with freedom of choice in what regards the departure date. Everybody can depart when he wants and the organization has not any role in what regards safety. All are responsible to themselves and the organization has no responsibility whatsoever in what regards security. One example of this kind of Rally is the one that concerns this thread.

There are those that think that a rally is safer if organized by very experienced and competent sailors that assume a role in what regards safety and security. They not only demand a minimum of safety equipment that they find essential as they will inspect each bot equipment to see if they are up to the standards they demand. They put their experience to the advantage of the less experienced sailors and are they that determine when there are safety conditions for all to make a safe passage and chose the departure day. A type of rally like this is the ARC.

There are some advantages on the first model but the second one, assuming that the sailors responsible for it are really experienced ones, has incomparably more advantages. Not only the advantages to have other boats nearby on a passage but to the less experienced sailors is offered all the experience of very experienced sailors in what regards safety equipment and in what regards the choice of a date to start a passage.

Regarding the one that we are talking about I showed some surprise that all or most the boats sailed away to one of the most difficult passages with a forecast of 25K winds. To my surprise JonEisberg said that with the weather forecast that had been released those conditions were predictable.

I asked him then, why those sailors went out on that date? He said I had to ask them.

Clearly it seems it was not a good choice and it seems that if someone with the experience of Jon was responsible to set a day for sailing away on that rally he would have not allowed that some relatively inexperienced sailors (among other experienced crews) went out on that particular timing.

How can someone not understand the advantages of having a truly experienced sailor setting the departure date for a rally, in what regards safety on a passage?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I'll make a couple of more clarifications on this - then I'll try to let it lie...
> 
> I'm not at all for "regulating offshore sailing". I'm for _holding rally organizers to a higher standard_ so that participants can benefit from that across the board. You're right that the SDR fleet is made up of a lot of very capable boats (I went through them too) - _but this was not by design_ according to the "rules" of that rally from what I've seen.
> 
> With a low entry threshold, the incentive to get as many boats as possible in the rally, and relatively low safety standards - ESPECIALLY IN THE CONDITIONS YOU'VE JUST POINTED OUT - things will likely not go well in the long term (I think we're already seeing this.)
> 
> Finally, on Chall's BFS angle...if I were to throw sponsor money at a rally, it would definitely be something like the Carib 1500, ARC, NARC, etc. That's because those rallies have a high standard of safety. I've always held that every up-and-coming sailor should want to "go big" - _but that they should also be as prepared as possible to do so_. Encouraging big without pushing preparedness is never a good idea in my opinion.
> 
> PS - Here's a story of an emergency/injury well-handled in the C1500:
> 
> http://www.worldcruising.com/Carib1...ArchiveID=4&CategoryID=186&ItemID=226464&src=


Everyone wants a higher standard of safety. Thats a given.

In the examples above though I showed you how bluntly applying ISAF regs, would not necesarily lead to that inproved safety, but rather increased red tape, added expense and moves the focus away taking responsbility for one's own backside.

As an aside, please remember ISAF regs are racing regs. They were not conceived for doublehanded cruising boats. In several ways they do not take into account the differences between a full crew pushing a boat to it's limit, and Martin and Mary doublehanding their way to the Carribean.


----------



## chall03

ccriders said:


> Okay, so who wants to open a new discussion on the efficacy of safety equipment lists and SAS training? There are many issues to discuss before deciding whether rallies should require certain equipment, training and experience.
> Life raft drills in calm waters?
> Fire drills in open parking lots?
> Backup steering devices rigged while being tossed about on a raging ocean?
> HF radio antennas integrated into the standing rigging?
> Hull puncture remedies?
> Etc., etc....
> John


I think it would be a great discussion to have.


----------



## GeorgeB

So am I understanding this correctly? Smack will be conducting a damage control school on the Smacktanic so we can be certified to sail in a rally? If you are taking reservations, I’d like to be in the first class 'cause that boat is going to get real beat up. Just saying. 

The way I see it, Smack can either fork over the big bucks and do the Carib 1500, or plunk down little bucks and do the informal (and less stringent) SDR or he can pay no money and do it on his own. No point in making SDR the same thing as the C1500. Every skipper who slips the mooring lines is responsible for his crew, his boat and himself. Don’t abrogate your responsibility as a skipper by assigning it to a rally sponsor. Read those release forms before you sign them. 

Again, nothing has been offered in this discussion to suggest ISAF Cat1 or SAS certificates would have had any impact on the outcome for those five boats. Smack, you need to get more confident in your sailing skills so you make whatever passage you do as uneventful as possible and stop looking for others to make sure you are up to it.


----------



## 34crealock

We sure don't need more rules. Even if you are shut out of a rally because you are unskilled and your boat is a wreck you can still just head out. It is still sort of a free country. No one can tell you what the weather will be only what it might be.


----------



## ccriders

GeorgeB said:


> Again, nothing has been offered in this discussion to suggest ISAF Cat1 or SAS certificates would have had any impact on the outcome for those five boats.


I think this is a true and accurate statement. Anybody else?
John


----------



## JonEisberg

GeorgeB said:


> Again, nothing has been offered in this discussion to suggest ISAF Cat1 or SAS certificates would have had any impact on the outcome for those five boats.


Nah, c'mon George...

Surely, an ISAF pre-race inspection would have foretold the likely delamination of the bulkheads on a Morgan OI 41, the rig failure on a Hans Christian 38, and the rudder failure on that Catalina 42....


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> Everyone wants a higher standard of safety. Thats a given.
> 
> In the examples above though I showed you how bluntly applying ISAF regs, would not necesarily lead to that inproved safety, but rather increased red tape, added expense and moves the focus away taking responsbility for one's own backside.
> 
> As an aside, please remember ISAF regs are racing regs. They were not conceived for doublehanded cruising boats. In several ways they do not take into account the differences between a full crew pushing a boat to it's limit, and Martin and Mary doublehanding their way to the Carribean.


Chall, it seems you don't know ISAF safety regs. they have nothing to do with racing but with general safety. They assume that a race boat takes more risks than a cruising one and so they are more demanding on the needed equipment in what regards safety.

But safety is never too much and in some circumstances the risks taken by cruisers are bigger than the ones taken by racers (look at this rally). A double or solo crewed boat can be a lot more demanding facing bad weather then a racing boat with a much bigger crew.

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/OSR2012Parts1to605012012-[11791].pdf

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/OSR2012Mo1240112-[11793].pdf

But rallies like ARC provides much more in what regards safety than a mandatory list of equipment for the boats. Have a look:

http://www.worldcruising.com/arc/safety.aspx

Take a look of what this crew that is making the ARC+ on a 34ft says:

*Corona Aq our L32 started in the first ARC 1986, time to Barbados. Now, 27 years later, we signed up for ARC +....

We have had seminars, and safety training for nearly two weeks. He had practice of getting up in a life raft when the boat is sinking. We have also trained in firing flares. At the seminars, we have studied including rigging, sails in downwind sailing, route and weather conditions. we have learned some new things. Moreover, we have gained a lot of new safety equipment.*

http://www.corona-aq.blogspot.pt/

They are a prof that this kind of rally are not only for rich with big and new boats. Old and small boats like this one can make the rally....and they are doing a hell of a rally, sailing very well for old salty dogs.

http://www.worldcruising.com/arc/eventfleetviewer.aspx

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BentSailor

For people who have found PCP's links are not working, here are working versions
First one
Second one

--
Off Topic, but from fixing the links - what's with SailNet tracking the links we click on now? Is this a new thing or something that I've missed all along?


----------



## chall03

PCP said:


> Chall, it seems you don't know ISAF safety regs. they have nothing to do with racing but with general safety. They assume that a race boat takes more risks than a cruising one and so they are more demanding on the needed equipment in what regards safety.
> 
> But safety is never too much and in some circumstances the risks taken by cruisers are bigger than the ones taken by racers (look at this rally). A double or solo crewed boat can be a lot more demanding facing bad weather then a racing boat with a much bigger crew.
> 
> http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/OSR2012Parts1to605012012-[11791].pdf
> 
> http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/OSR2012Mo1240112-[11793].pdf
> 
> But ARC provides much more in what regards safety than a mandatory list of equipment for the boats. Have a look:
> 
> Safety
> 
> Paulo


A bit patronising perhaps Paulo???

I do know ISAF regs.

They are very much about racing, to say otherwise is naive. I standby my point - Which actually appears to be then same as yours, that is that it is far riskier being a double handed cruising boat in bad weather than a racing boat full of big guys. Also as a doublehanded cruising boat your approach to handling various situations needs to be quite different to that of a racing vessel. (EG. Thinking about thowing a large heavy liferafts over lifelines....).

You can argue the detail, and I am happy to, but cruising is different to ocean racing. Period.

All the documents you have googled and are madly linking too, I have printed out, binded, underlined, been to seminars about, sat on commitees for and advised others on for the past 10 years.

Have a look at how ISAF regs have been adapted and changed for cruising here. 
Green Book & Audit Forms - Yachting | Cruising | Learn to Sail | Waterfront Bar & Dining - The Royal Prince Alfred Yacht Club - Newport, New South Wales


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> So am I understanding this correctly? Smack will be conducting a damage control school on the Smacktanic so we can be certified to sail in a rally? If you are taking reservations, I'd like to be in the first class 'cause that boat is going to get real beat up. Just saying.
> 
> The way I see it, Smack can either fork over the big bucks and do the Carib 1500, or plunk down little bucks and do the informal (and less stringent) SDR or he can pay no money and do it on his own. No point in making SDR the same thing as the C1500. Every skipper who slips the mooring lines is responsible for his crew, his boat and himself. Don't abrogate your responsibility as a skipper by assigning it to a rally sponsor. Read those release forms before you sign them.
> 
> ...Smack, you need to get more confident in your sailing skills so you make whatever passage you do as uneventful as possible and stop looking for others to make sure you are up to it.


I'll be taking the SAS seminar this spring. And I'll use the ISAF regs to continue to equip our boat and ourselves for our upcoming trips. And I'll continue to do off-shore races and deliveries to continue to build my skillset. In other words I'll prepare us and our boat like an ocean racer would (even though we'll just be cruising for the most part) - and I'll learn from others while I continue to build my own confidence and skills as a skipper. I'll do this because I believe in these standards. They are good standards that make good sailors. Then I'll shove off and do it when I feel I'm ready.

That's pretty much the way learning is done. You might see it as "looking for others to make sure you are up to it". I don't. And you being a racer - you don't either.

Advocating higher safety standards for a rally doesn't mean ANY abrogation of personal responsibility at all on the part of the skipper. If you really believe that, you don't really race...because you know good and well that racers don't abrogate their responsibilities to the organizer. It simply sets a higher bar that you have to live up to as a skipper. And that's a good thing.



GeorgeB said:


> Again, nothing has been offered in this discussion to suggest ISAF Cat1 or SAS certificates would have had any impact on the outcome for those five boats.


I'm not sure how you would ever prove something like that in any situation. If that's the kind of "proof" you and Jon are looking for - you're going to be looking for a while.

It's like saying nothing has been offered in this discussion to suggest that Oracle 1 would not have capsized had they just put another $5M into her.

Wha...?

What you guys CAN "prove" if you want to force your squirelly logic is this (at least to this point...knock on wood):

2013 Carib 1500 = 0 SAR Missions
2013 SDR = 5 SAR Missions

Which of these is using ISAF-based standards?


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> A bit patronising perhaps Paulo???
> 
> I do know ISAF regs.
> 
> They are very much about racing, to say otherwise is naive. ....
> 
> You can argue the detail, and I am happy to, but cruising is different to ocean racing. Period.


I do not agree and I am not the only one. On most European countries to go offshore you have to have a Class A boat like it is demanded on the ISAF safety rules and have to equip it with about the same safety equipment that is demanded by ISAF.

That does not happen by accident but because safety for a crew offshore and the required equipment is not fundamentally different in a sailboat, racing or cruising offshore. Sailing is sailing, a storm is a storm and a crew is a crew be it racing or cruising. You can also race solo or in duo.



chall03 said:


> All the documents you have googled and are madly linking too, I have printed out, binded, underlined, been to seminars about, sat on commitees for and advised others on for the past 10 years.


I don't know what you mean, Bentsailor has kindly re-posted the ISAF links and I provided a translation of the relevant parts of what is in Swedish on that link regarding the safety exercises and seminars provided by the ARC.

You have taken that from the quote, I will post it again improving a bit the translation:

*"Corona Aq our L32 made the first ARC in 1986. Now, 27 years later, we signed up again for ARC +....

We have had seminars, and safety training for nearly two weeks. He had practicing getting up in a life raft when the boat is sinking. We have also trained firing flares. At the seminars, we have studied rigging, sails in downwind sailing, route and weather conditions. We have learned some new things. Moreover, we have gained a lot of new safety equipment."*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I'll be taking the SAS seminar this spring. And I'll use the ISAF regs to continue to equip our boat and ourselves for our upcoming trips. And I'll continue to do off-shore races and deliveries to continue to build my skillset. In other words I'll prepare us and our boat like an ocean racer would (even though we'll just be cruising for the most part) - and I'll learn from others while I continue to build my own confidence and skills as a skipper. I'll do this because I believe in these standards. They are good standards that make good sailors. Then I'll shove off and do it when I feel I'm ready.
> 
> That's pretty much the way learning is done. You might see it as "looking for others to make sure you are up to it". I don't. And you being a racer - you don't either.


Smack that is pretty much what I did. Nothing wrong with that at all and everything right with it.

Once you get a bit further down the track you might find though that you also end up adapting, adding( or even modifying ) the regs to what you believe is best for your boat...you might read a bit of Beth Leonard and Morgans Cloud and develop your own thoughts.


----------



## chall03

PCP said:


> I do not agree and I am not the only one. On most European countries to go offshore you have to have a Class A boat like it is demanded on the ISAF safety rules and have to equip it with about the same safety equipment that is demanded by ISAF.
> 
> That does not happen by accident but because safety for a crew offshore and the required equipment is not fundamentally different in a sailboat, racing or cruising offshore. Sailing is sailing, a storm is a storm and a crew is a crew be it racing or cruising. You can also race solo or in duo.
> 
> I don't know what you mean, Bentsailor has kindly re-posted the ISAF links and I provided a translation of the relevant parts of what is in Swedish on that link regarding the safety exercises and seminars provided by the ARC.
> 
> You have taken that from the quote, I will post it again improving a bit the translation:
> 
> *"Corona Aq our L32 made the first ARC in 1986. Now, 27 years later, we signed up again for ARC +....
> 
> We have had seminars, and safety training for nearly two weeks. He had practicing getting up in a life raft when the boat is sinking. We have also trained firing flares. At the seminars, we have studied rigging, sails in downwind sailing, route and weather conditions. We have learned some new things. Moreover, we have gained a lot of new safety equipment."*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Europe has a different ummm philosophy to sailing perhaps??? New Zealand also requires CAT 1 of all boats heading overseas.

I am not saying that the regs are irrelevent for cruising......just not perfect.

Hey I think what I think and you think what you think. That's ok.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Smack that is pretty much what I did. Nothing wrong with that at all and everything right with it.
> 
> Once you get a bit further down the track you might find though that you also end up adapting, adding( or even modifying ) the regs to what you believe is best for your boat...you might read a bit of Beth Leonard and Morgans Cloud and develop your own thoughts.


Thanks Chall. I've read a lot of Beth and Evans' stuff (they actually helped me with my article) - as well as Morgans Cloud blog, etc.

But this is precisely what I mean by the need for standards like this. You have to "develop your own thoughts", yes - but those thoughts have to _start with something_. At this point in my "sailing career" ISAF is just about the best "something" I've found. And it's widely accepted by the best sailors in the world as good stuff. That's good enough for me.

Look, the bottom line is this: I, Smackdaddy, currently technically meet the requirements to do the SDR. I now have almost 1,500 miles of off-shore racing and delivery experience. BUT, I'm absolutely NOT ready for a passage like that - ESPECIALLY in November. Yet I could do it if I wanted to.

Personally, I'd much rather do something like the Carib 1500. And this is precisely because I'd have to learn and equip a lot more before I could even qualify. That's okay with me. It's all GREAT STUFF to learn. And I'm not just rolling the dice like I would be in the SDR.

As you say, maybe down the road I'll roll my eyes a bit at the ISAF regs. But I'm definitely not there yet. I respect them - and want to learn them.

That any sailor would NOT want to learn as much as he/she can about safety, and work up to that standard, is way beyond me.


----------



## capta

I'm sorry gentlemen and ladies, I really tried to stay out of this, but I just can't.
I've made a dozen or so voyages from the NE to the Caribbean, even one around early February on a 50 footer (there was 2' of snow on the boat when we arrived in Glen Cove, NY to pick up the boat), and I've never had the kind of problems that seem to be popping up with an uncomfortable regularity these days.
Leaving from the mid-Atlantic states is supposed to circumvent the gulfstream/north Atlantic run to Bermuda that has always been a very difficult and frankly, horrible weather trip, at times. Six hours of 40 to 50 knots from the SE followed soon after by a short 4 hour blow of 70 knots from the west; unforecast and unnoticed by any weather service, is not all that unusual when crossing the gulfstream, up there. I've never had an easy, pleasant cake walk to Bermuda from the NE.
Long before gps, satellite weather and offshore rescue, sailors have been making these crossings to the Caribbean without all this drama.
Anyone leaving the mid Atlantic has to know that they will be beating in tradewind conditions (or worse) for about a 1000 miles. Maybe they don't understand what that means, maybe they think they are capable of it because they've made a down wind crossing, I don't know.
I have NEVER had an injury aboard any vessel I was operating, worse than broken fingers, toes or a cracked rib or two and those usually happened in mild weather when everybody was perhaps a bit too relaxed. We've never had to turn around, or call for help, were it available. When it's rough, we do not put ourselves in a position to be injured. We take care. We sleep on the floor, rather than chance being thrown out of a bunk, for instance.
If we were taking on more water than the pumps could handle, then we slowed the ingress; we had no choice; there was nobody to call for help, there weren't even liferafts, early on.
Maybe I've just been lucky, if you can call being capsized three times in a hurricane on a 65 year old wooden boat lucky. In 2010, it was pretty frightening to be standing on the bow, wrestling down a jib in 50 knots of wind, running ddw, peering at the hole below you that seemed to be the entrance to Hades. But when the sail was below on the salon floor, and we'd hove to under the stay sail, that sail was a pretty comfortable bed for an exhausted crew.
I'm sorry, but in this world, we must all be responsible for our own actions and I don't think rally organizers should bear the responsibility for these sailors. If they chose to sail offshore, then they should be capable and able to take anything the weather might dish out. It doesn't make any difference at all what the forecast is, if a front is moving at 15 knots, when you are on a 6 knot boat, offshore. Once you are out there, there you are. Chris Parker probably isn't going to be able to forecast that squall with 60+ knots of wind on the leading edge. But if you are on watch, on the darkest night and you know what to look for, you'll get your all gear down, immediately, before it hits you!
It's called seamanship and it can't be gotten from books, or you tube. It's gotten by going out there in a well found boat and taking your licks and learning lessons. Safety equipment is not a good trade for common sense or experience. Rules and regulations are not the answer, I don't think, or this sport might once again become only for the rich.


----------



## chall03

capta said:


> I'm sorry gentlemen and ladies, I really tried to stay out of this, but I just can't.
> I've made a dozen or so voyages from the NE to the Caribbean, even one around early February on a 50 footer (there was 2' of snow on the boat when we arrived in Glen Cove, NY to pick up the boat), and I've never had the kind of problems that seem to be popping up with an uncomfortable regularity these days.
> Leaving from the mid-Atlantic states is supposed to circumvent the gulfstream/north Atlantic run to Bermuda that has always been a very difficult and frankly, horrible weather trip, at times. Six hours of 40 to 50 knots from the SE followed soon after by a short 4 hour blow of 70 knots from the west; unforecast and unnoticed by any weather service, is not all that unusual when crossing the gulfstream, up there. I've never had an easy, pleasant cake walk to Bermuda from the NE.
> Long before gps, satellite weather and offshore rescue, sailors have been making these crossings to the Caribbean without all this drama.
> Anyone leaving the mid Atlantic has to know that they will be beating in tradewind conditions (or worse) for about a 1000 miles. Maybe they don't understand what that means, maybe they think they are capable of it because they've made a down wind crossing, I don't know.
> I have NEVER had an injury aboard any vessel I was operating, worse than broken fingers, toes or a cracked rib or two and those usually happened in mild weather when everybody was perhaps a bit too relaxed. We've never had to turn around, or call for help, were it available. When it's rough, we do not put ourselves in a position to be injured. We take care. We sleep on the floor, rather than chance being thrown out of a bunk, for instance.
> If we were taking on more water than the pumps could handle, then we slowed the ingress; we had no choice; there was nobody to call for help, there weren't even liferafts, early on.
> Maybe I've just been lucky, if you can call being capsized three times in a hurricane on a 65 year old wooden boat lucky. In 2010, it was pretty frightening to be standing on the bow, wrestling down a jib in 50 knots of wind, running ddw, peering at the hole below you that seemed to be the entrance to Hades. But when the sail was below on the salon floor, and we'd hove to under the stay sail, that sail was a pretty comfortable bed for an exhausted crew.
> I'm sorry, but in this world, we must all be responsible for our own actions and I don't think rally organizers should bear the responsibility for these sailors. If they chose to sail offshore, then they should be capable and able to take anything the weather might dish out. It doesn't make any difference at all what the forecast is, if a front is moving at 15 knots, when you are on a 6 knot boat, offshore. Once you are out there, there you are. Chris Parker probably isn't going to be able to forecast that squall with 60+ knots of wind on the leading edge. But if you are on watch, on the darkest night and you know what to look for, you'll get your all gear down, immediately, before it hits you!
> It's called seamanship and it can't be gotten from books, or you tube. It's gotten by going out there in a well found boat and taking your licks and learning lessons. Safety equipment is not a good trade for common sense or experience. Rules and regulations are not the answer, I don't think, or this sport might once again become only for the rich.


Thanks Capta. Having guys like you around reminds guys like me that we don't know crap. Thanks for sharing your experience and perspective.

Given the choice I think I would be on your boat for a crossing regardless of whether you had the required amount of spare torch batteries for CAT 1


----------



## smackdaddy

What's interesting to me about this thread is that, for the most part, it is the _most experienced _sailors who don't want more "regulation" in rallies such as the SDR (though I doubt they'd ever do this rally - it's more the principal of it - which is fine). The point being that the skipper has the ultimate responsibility and shouldn't need - or doesn't need - anyone telling him/her how to run the ship. He knows his boat - he knows what he's doing.

This is absolutely right and makes absolute sense - _especially for those skippers with the level of experience these guys have_. Where it falls down a bit is with those skippers who don't.



capta said:


> If they chose to sail offshore, then they should be capable and able to take anything the weather might dish out.


You're right. They _should_ be. But completing a "single bluewater passage" is a very low bar of experience for what you're talking about capta. Rally aside - I think you'd agree with that.

A simple fix for this would be at least raising the entry bar so that sailors like you are out there making good decisions. Otherwise, you can't really bemoan the "less experienced" guys who are making distress calls for water ingress, dismasting etc. (things you might never make a call for). Aren't they just doing what their level of experience directs them to do?

You can't have it both ways.



capta said:


> It's called seamanship and it can't be gotten from books, or you tube. It's gotten by going out there in a well found boat and taking your licks and learning lessons. Safety equipment is not a good trade for common sense or experience.


I agree with you to a large extent. But if I were to say this - I'd get hammered. This "just go out there" approach works for you guys who already have a great deal of experience. You guys get a pass if things go pear-shaped. For those who don't, if/when they get in trouble they are "idiots" because they weren't prepared...not sailors who are just out there "taking licks and learning lessons". There are plenty of threads on SN where this is in full display.

So, unfortunately, what you lay out just doesn't work in reality for those who don't have your level of experience. For _those_ sailors, safety equipment and knowledge is not a "trade off" - it IS "common sense".


----------



## ScottUK

> New Zealand also requires CAT 1 of all boats heading overseas.


Ah... no just the NZ flagged boats though they have had a few problems with departing foriegn registered boats.

A guy I know converted his boat to Cat. 1 in NZ. He said it cost him about 100,000NZD to do it. That's not a typo and, prior to converting, the boat was being actively raced so was not a work in progress.


----------



## capta

I agree with you to a large extent. But if I were to say this - I'd get hammered. This "just go out there" approach works for you guys who already have a great deal of experience. You guys get a pass if things go pear-shaped. For those who don't, if/when they get in trouble they are "idiots" because they weren't prepared...not sailors who are just out there "taking licks and learning lessons". There are plenty of threads on SN where this is in full display.
So, unfortunately, what you lay out just doesn't work in reality for those who don't have your level of experience. For _those_ sailors, safety equipment and knowledge is not a "trade off" - it IS "common sense".[/QUOTE]
Smack,
I wasn't born with the knowledge and experience.
I was raised on the west coast and believe me, it's a lot tougher coast to gain experience on than the right one, with very few safe places to find shelter and many of those with bars.
Every one of us had to go out there in a well found boat and take our licks, without the benefit of the of the "get out of jail, free" card so many are relying on today.
Our boats were heavy, ponderous vessels that could take pretty much whatever Neptune decided to throw at us, though being wooden, they did tended to leak considerably more than the glass boats of today.
But we learned, and after a bunch of coastal trips, often in horrendous conditions, we set off on the adventure of a lifetime and slid across to Hawaii, a trip, as I've said many times, an old lady in a bath tub could make. But getting back is a whole other story!
Perhaps that is the biggest difference; what is considered a "well found" boat today, wasn't even dreamed of in those days. Spade rudders, fractional rigs, alloy spars and glued together hull/deck joints were not the kind of boats available to sailors before the seventies.
I'm not a "world class sailor" I don't think, but I am comfortable in any weather, out there. I sail quite conservatively, preferring not to break things or risk the lives of those sailing with me, for a few extra miles a day. When I was young and learning to sail, I was fortunate enough to have a few real "Cape Horners" (see my signature) to listen to and learn from. People like Miles Smeeton ("Once is Enough") wrote books that were not sea stories, but primers on how to survive a catastrophe at sea.
We all learn at our own pace, but the sea couldn't care less about us, our boats or whether we can handle what she is dishing out; it's nothing personal. If you might get seasick, why would you attempt a thousand miles of windward sailing in the ocean? If you are not comfortable in winds over 40 knots and seas of 12 feet or more, why would you want to almost certainly have to experience it?
This thing we all love, sailing, is not rocket science; folks have been doing it for something like 4000 years. And without a cat 1 rating, life rafts and even boats that could go to windward at all. Most survived; some didn't. If we want to do this, then it is in our best interests to gain all the experience we can, choose a boat suitable for our plans and meet every challenge as a learning experience and reap the rewards of conquering our fears and getting through the difficult parts on our own, not asking others to risk their lives to save us from a completely survivable situation.
Perhaps I am too cocky, with too many years of sailing, to remember the early days of learning through making mistakes, and a bit too critical of others less experienced than I, but I truly think many people are purchasing the wrong boats and relying on safety equipment and rescue, to compensate for their lack of knowledge and preparedness. It is supposed to be fun, a joyous experience of men and women on the sea, alone out there and at peace with nature. The good times should vastly outnumber the bad.


----------



## christian.hess

the more I learned to sail better and be seamanlike the less I became attached to modern safety equipment...except for a few things that aid navigation ive become a simplicity and KISS advocate...

I also like redundancy but redundancy is often confused with quantity...nowadays you are considered unsafe if you dont have ais, ssb, 2 liferafts 2 dinghies 2 outboards, satelite phone, the works...

yet people forget that ones boat is ones liferaft...very few people nowadays look at the boat in question, they look at the "gear"

times have changed...and Im young but do know this...


----------



## PCP

capta said:


> ...
> Maybe I've just been lucky, if you can call being capsized three times in a hurricane on a 65 year old wooden boat lucky. ....


No, I would not call luck to be capsized three times in an hurricane on a 65 year old boat. I call luck to have got away with it

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound

By 1995 I had done multiple Marion/Bermuda and a Newport Bermuda race as well as several passages to Caribbean. But then in 2002 stopped sailing for 8yrs. The world has changed in those 8yrs. Before no one would contemplate heading offshore except in a fully found boat with all available safety equipment and appropriate crew knowing even the crew with the highest skill set and best weather routing runs a risk of possible gear failure and untoward weather. Resuming offshore sailing these realities remain in spite of recent advances. In my circle of passagemakers I known of no one who does not accept these past and current realities. Once my current boat is fully outfitted and my ( wife's) physical and intellectual skill set brought to appropriate current levels my wife and I will resume not just offshore passages but ocean passages.
To make judgment on either the weather router, the vessel prep or the crew/captain without detailed knowledge of a preventable deficit speaks to the accuser's ignorance of the realities of ocean sailing even with the advances of the last ten years. 
As they say "SH-t happens".


----------



## outbound

AIS- foolish to go any where near shipping lanes without it
liferaft with in date inspection- boats sink surprisingly fast- foolish to not have one even if just offshore let alone ocean
sat phone +/or SSB- weather routing progressively less accurate as days go by- usually near worthless after 96h and not even generated for the sailor in meaningful way past 5d. Nice to know- may save your life. Also maybe needed for rescue. Yes I have a recording barometer and my eyes on the clouds but these are rentable and very useful. Cost is not prohibitive.
Radar- tells you local weather and many fish boats don't show up on AIS. Guess what 1/2 your sailing is at night.
The racing requirements make sense. We use them even though we are very conservative, modestly ambitious cruisers. Want to prevent your reading my name in the paper.


----------



## chall03

ScottUK said:


> Ah... no just the NZ flagged boats though they have had a few problems with departing foriegn registered boats.
> 
> A guy I know converted his boat to Cat. 1 in NZ. He said it cost him about 100,000NZD to do it. That's not a typo and, prior to converting, the boat was being actively raced so was not a work in progress.


Yes your absoluetely right.

Sorry that's what I mean't, just not what I said


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> yet people forget that ones boat is ones liferaft...very few people nowadays look at the boat in question, they look at the "gear"..


Well said.


----------



## outbound

Wholeheartedly agree leaving your boat is the last thing you want to do. I have my life earnings in my boat. I love my boat. My chances for survival decrease dramatically if I leave my boat. But having AIS, radar, SSB/satphone etc. means it much less likely I'm going to be hit by weather I could have avoided or at least prepared for or that freighter will sink me. Yes truly foolish to head out to sea in a boat not prepared and built for it. But still think the safety gear decreases risk you will lose the boat or your life.
Lynn/Larry said "you can't buy safety" and they are right. But you can improve your odds with a prepped strong boat, good skill set, and equipment.


----------



## christian.hess

you cant argue against the above...that is how I think too, having said that MANY many new sailors or novices tend to think equipment saves them and it simply doesnt...

for example as a counterpoint to all the equipment listed before here is my take:

liferaft= to me that means a flotational dinghy that serves both as a liferaft and as a dinghy for normal use, prefferably with a sail kit that would enable more chances if survival by being able to sail somewhere

A liferaft is almost useless once deployed(you cant sail it, and if you havent been able to send a mayday or a correct epirb signal youre as bad as in any uncommunicated vessel) and the amount of people who dont service them correctly is id say around 50%...and even those inspected have been known to NOT deploy, JUST SAYIN.

ais=good watches by skilled crew, if solo I would think about it if going through torres straight or the red sea, etc...or just get their receiver...

radar? the number of boats Ive been on who say its been useful to them in a circumnav is close to zero...fog and HEAVY shipping lanes its ok, having said that on the boat I completed close to a circumnavigation we used it twice...

ssb= great for keeping your spirits up when lonely...good for boat to boat communication long range and ok for sending out urgent info and or calls for help I say ok cause there is always the chance that it will get wet and fail at the worst time, LIKE ANY electrical equipment.

satphone= I still like the idea...and would probably rent one if I raced an ocean race or something, but I wouldnt say leaving port without one as being unsafe.

epirb= yeah, they are cheap now compared to 20 years ago...honestly depending on where id cruise now I think spot messengers are a better deal...but thats just my opinion!

lastly id think more about having potable water, food...redundant systems like a gps, batteries, flares and liferaft equipment ready to go in a ditchbag in a dinghy than having your boat become the next nasa space shuttle...BUT again thats just my opinion.

cheers


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, I keep forgetting about your actual experience level. What is telling is you refer to things like SAS attendance and ISAF compliance in the future tense. You even gone so far as offer curriculum changes (how to abandon your boat and be rescued) without having actually attended a seminar or have any practical experience. SAS is merely a seminar meant to augment an already established knowledge/ experience base and the ISAF Special Regulations is a pamphlet and check sheet. They by themselves, will not magically keep you from harm.

Your statement that you could join the SDR with your admitted lack of experience, but you will wait until you can qualify for the C1500 still indicates that you expect others to tell you (through their requirements) that you a ready for such a trip. Remember and learn from Regatta Dog's unfortunate voyage - The Transpac has both the SAS and ISAF requirements and a lot more - actual inspections, resumes, drills etc. - And look what happened to them. Grasshopper, I will let you know when it is time for you to voyage on your own. But first, you must snatch this pebble from my hand&#8230;










The ISAF requirement for a successful rally is a spurious one. Nowhere has it been stated that the boats that had problems were not Cat 1 compliant. If you want to draw any wild conclusions, it should be that it is better to adhere to a strict schedule than let skippers decide themselves on the appropriate time to leave within an open ended window. Remember the C1500 had a single departure date and the SDR a suggested "window". What is more important here is the fact that out of six vessels declaring emergencies including four boats with rudder problems and two dismasting's, only two boats were ultimately abandoned. The sailors who were able to jury rig ought to be commended for their superior seamanship and not denigrated for having bad luck.


----------



## outbound

Christian- Your comments are greatly appreciated and clearly grounded in experienced good judgment. For present I'm not circumnavigating and expect I never will. I plain to do ocean passages in the context of a cruising lifestyle. For present have been doing 3-6d passages that involve multiple crossings of shipping lanes and dealing with fish boats, barges/tows, folks on charter boats and all the head aches of marine traffic. This clearly skews my thinking and suggests the need for radar/AIS etc. 
The spot is a good idea. We have a 48h EPIRB on a bracket next to the ditchbag, a spot on my harness and a personal 24h epirb on the admiral's harness. Our thinking is the vast majorities of rescues occur within a day or two in the waters we travel -sometimes hours.
We have a raft in a built in box by the sugarscoop. It's light so she can deploy it. Our thinking is to only deploy it in case of uncontrolled fire or rapid sinking. We have beyond the supplies in the raft food/water/first aid supplies in the ditchbag.
But the boat is the thing. It has a watertight bulkhead forward and true set up for storm sails/Jordan series drogue. Its a strong well built boat that's comfortable in a seaway. We are learning in increments about our boat and ourselves. This year have done three 450m+ passages. Next year have two 750-1300m passages planed. We cruise with 2-4 people on board. We hope to ultimately to be able to do our passages with just two.
Problem I have is with folks not willing to accept the needed work on themselves and their boats and their equipment with the expectation- nothing will break, it will always be 10-20 on the aft quarter and if things get bad they can just call for help and bail out.
I don't see how any of the boats in the salty dawg fit that description.


----------



## christian.hess

youve done more than most ever will regarding their boat...my first big cruise was on my leaky wooden h28...no such thing as watertight anything on that boat! jajaaj did that stop me? no

(we only took epirb for example because it was a requirement for the baja ha ha rally from california to mexico)

95% cruisers dont ever add watertight bulkheads, most never add dedicated storm sails...etc..etc...

I cant tell you the amount of people that take 100 cases of toilet paper, and half of costcos supllies in food etc...instead of focusing on other stuff
honestly you cant learn to cruise coastal or offshore unless you start doing it, you do learn A LOT along the way...racing the learning curve is exponentially higher as you are taking everything to the limit and then some...

anyways...I like it when skippers and crew put more responsibilty on themselves than on gear and in some cases the boat

we used to run into A lot if cruisers who had the autopilot on LEAVING port for example...I mean seconds after hauling anchor...they had it all planned out to the T...that mentality is damaging and negligent...crusiing and even racing offshore is a delicate balancing act of COMPROMISE


cheers

sorry for the thread derail btw


----------



## smackdaddy

Lots here that's not quite right.



GeorgeB said:


> Smack, I keep forgetting about your actual experience level. What is telling is you refer to things like SAS attendance and ISAF compliance in the future tense. You even gone so far as offer curriculum changes (how to abandon your boat and be rescued) without having actually attended a seminar or have any practical experience. SAS is merely a seminar meant to augment an already established knowledge/ experience base and the ISAF Special Regulations is pamphlet and check sheet. They by themselves, will not magically keep you from harm.


It's true I've not yet personally attended an SAS seminar. But I had conversations with Sheila McCurdy and Ron Trossbach about the SAS curriculum. Those conversations were not about "changing the curriculum" - but potentially _adding_ the AMVER info to it. Those conversations are continuing. So I understand what SAS (and ISAF) is and what it isn't.

Furthermore, the information I provided in the article is directly from the experts - not me. As a writer, I don't have to personally experience climbing from a sailboat onto a freighter in the middle of the Pacific to pull together accurate information about the process. I just have to talk to the right people. And I did (e.g. - USCG AMVER Director and SAR controller, three ship captains, and others).

Bottom line: I'm not trying to be something I'm not, George. This is just information that I find very valuable as an avid sailor learning to be a better sailor. I think other sailors find it valuable as well.

The fundamental problem is that the number of U.S. sailors seeking out voluntary safety training is very, very low. If you value safety and the knowledge surrounding it - and understand the impact it has on how sailors deal with emergencies (and the implications of _that_) - then you understand that this is a problem. My position is that any organization that promotes big passages like this is a great place to expand that training and knowledge. Nothing more than that.

As for ISAF and SAS "magically keeping you from harm" - I don't think anyone but you has floated that ridiculous notion.



GeorgeB said:


> Your statement that you could join the SDR with your admitted lack of experience, but you will wait until you can qualify for the C1500 still indicates that you expect others to tell you (through their requirements) that you a ready for such a trip.
> 
> Grasshopper, I will let you know when it is time for you to voyage on your own. But first, you must snatch this pebble from my hand&#8230;


Those aren't pebbles dude. And you're really not getting it.

My statement about not joining the SDR because of my lack of experience is fully _my own assessment_ of where I currently stand in terms of offshore knowledge and experience. I don't need anyone, including you, to tell me whether or not I'm ready for a passage. I know for myself. I'm just being honest about my own assessment. I'm not blowing smoke.

I'll attend an SAS seminar and I'll use the ISAF regs as educational/preparation tools because I see value in them - and I'll continue to sail offshore to build experience. If you think that equates to "asking permission to go", you really are blind, Master Po.

My point on this regarding the SDR is that I currently meet the requirements to go...as does someone with even far fewer offshore miles than I have (a "single bluewater passage"). Going back to what capta said above - I think that would be a very bad idea for that level of experience.

So, I'm left to assume that you're saying a single bluewater passage is plenty of experience for a November Gulfstream passage from the Chessie to the BVIs...and that safety training and standards are for wusses who need permission.

Well, I don't buy that. Period.



GeorgeB said:


> The ISAF requirement for a successful rally is a spurious one. Nowhere has it been stated that the boats that had problems were not Cat 1 compliant.


ISAF's not at all "spurious" unless you want to assume it "magically protects" sailors. And what exactly are your definitions of a "successful" rally?

Again, ISAF is simply a safety/preparation standard. And if you're one who believes in high safety standards, utilizing the ISAF standard AND/OR upping the experience-level/qualifications for entry would be a very good thing.

It's weird. You really seem threatened by this. I've not seen you this aggro about something in all the years I've been posting here. And it's especially weird that you are an ocean racer and operate under these regs - but don't seem to see the value in them for cruisers.

Whatever. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.



GeorgeB said:


> If you want to draw any wild conclusions, it should be that it is better to adhere to a strict schedule than let skippers decide themselves on the appropriate time to leave within an open ended window. Remember the C1500 had a single departure date and the SDR a suggested "window". What is more important here is the fact that out of six vessels declaring emergencies including four boats with rudder problems and two dismasting's, only two boats were ultimately abandoned. The sailors who were able to jury rig ought to be commended for their superior seamanship and not denigrated for having bad luck.


I'll let you fight the schedule thing out with Jon - because he was saying the exact opposite regarding a strict departure date.

Finally, I don't recall ever denigrating these sailors. My constant focus has been on the organizational side of things. Those sailors that did the jury rigging should indeed be commended. But I don't yet understand from the info thus far whether Maydays were sent _first_ - which _would_ be a potential issue (back to how sailors deal with emergencies).


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Regarding the one that we are talking about I showed some surprise that all or most the boats sailed away to one of the most difficult passages with a forecast of 25K winds. To my surprise JonEisberg said that with the weather forecast that had been released those conditions were predictable.
> 
> I asked him then, why those sailors went out on that date? He said I had to ask them.
> 
> Clearly it seems it was not a good choice and it seems that if someone with the experience of Jon was responsible to set a day for sailing away on that rally he would have not allowed that some relatively inexperienced sailors (among other experienced crews) went out on that particular timing.
> 
> How can someone not understand the advantages of having a truly experienced sailor setting the departure date for a rally, in what regards safety on a passage?


Paulo, we're talking about setting out from a point north of Cape Hatteras, in November... 25 knots of breeze is about the MINIMUM of what one can reasonably expect to encounter at some point on that passage, and if 30 knots is the most you ever see on that run, you're been very fortunate, indeed... Many of the best weather windows for that trip will often include such weather early on, and any sailor who expects they will somehow manage to avoid such conditions during the course of that voyage is delusional 

Not to mention, anyone not prepared to encounter considerably more on this trip has no business making it to begin with... To me, this photo clearly indicates this particular skipper hasn't a freakin' _CLUE_ what he is likely to encounter sailing from the Chesapeake to Tortola in November, and yet he is apparently considered 'Good to Go' by the safety inspectors of the Caribbean 1500...












smackdaddy said:


> What you guys CAN "prove" if you want to force your squirelly logic is this (at least to this point...knock on wood):
> 
> 2013 Carib 1500 = 0 SAR Missions
> 2013 SDR = 5 SAR Missions
> 
> Which of these is using ISAF-based standards?


Well, you choose to dismiss the fact that the 1500 and most of the Salty Dawgs sailed in entirely different weather systems from the outset, but carry on 

So, what does ISAF have to say about departure dates, weather windows for this particular passage, or the choice of weather routers? For, IMHO, that was the distinguishing feature that applies to any comparison, here...

Andy Schell claims the 1500 never would have left when most of the SD fleet did, but that's pretty easy to say, in hindsight... I've seen firshand how ill-prepared a rally like the 1500 is, to deal with a weather postponement of more than a week... Make no mistake, they made the right call leaving when they did, I've stated that from the outset. Perhaps Chris Parker missed this one, but he's still the best in the business, and to place blame on the weather routing this year, is just as unseemly as the attempts by some last year to lay the blame for the NARC debacle on Herb Hilgenberg...

Sometimes, the SHTF on this passage, there's not much anyone can do about it, it's really that simple


----------



## christian.hess

the amount of windage on that boat makes me cry...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JonEisberg

christian.hess said:


> the amount of windage on that boat makes me cry...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Pound for pound, this Catalina 387 down the dock from me tonight in SC might have that Hylas beat 

Gotta love how neatly that Honda 2000 nestles in that stern perch seat, it's like the two were made for each other


----------



## aeventyr60

What's with all the oxygen tents?


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> What's with all the oxygen tents?


Folks are already prepping their boats for the next year's inaugural Rally Down the ICW, where I believe full enclosures will likely be required equipment 

SAIL's 2014 Snowbird Rally down the ICW | Sail Magazine


----------



## ScottUK

> Folks are already prepping their boats for the next year's inaugural Rally Down the ICW, where I believe full enclosures will likely be required equipment
> 
> SAIL's 2014 Snowbird Rally down the ICW | Sail Magazine


I see a start, midpoint and finish date listed ... oh the inhumanity of it all!


----------



## jameswilson29

At least the Maydays can be issued on the VHF radio, instead of using the EPIRB...


----------



## christian.hess

its a new class of BOY IN THE BUBBLE sailboat design...a design that enables you to NOT enjoy all the pleasures of normal sailing while letting you enjoy the inside space of a small tent...

jajaja


----------



## smackdaddy

I don't see anything inherently wrong with the enclosures. Maybe more of it depends on the sailor than the setup.

Remember, Michael had a full enclosure (and dinghy on davits) on his Hunter 45 as they weathered the F10-11 off Cape Horn:

Sequitur
















































> After breakfast on Wednesday morning we started with cleaning-up from the heavy weather. Down below, we had sustained a broken bowl and a chipped candle holder. Up top the Hydrovane suffered a bent retaining pin and a sheared one. I hadn't removed the sail from the unit, and the hurricane-force gusts were a tad much for the pins.
> 
> The only other damage I could find was that our foghorn speaker had been blown off its mount on the mast and had disappeared overboard.


So maybe it's not the boat.


----------



## christian.hess

again depends where you cruise...

one thing is for sure, high davits and a dinghy for a longa passage is disaster waiting to happen on medium size boats...especially if they are made of thin stainless and not through bolted below the deck

the number of davits that crack from a simple wave hitting the dinghy a certain way has been extensively reported many times...especially on smaller boats where its more possible

not to mention again windage

youd be surprised how much that affects downwind sailing or trying to to sail tight...the stern constantly wants to constanty slip under you effectively making you have too much weather helm


----------



## PCP

jameswilson29 said:


> At least the Maydays can be issued on the VHF radio, instead of using the EPIRB...


If you have a Mayday you should use all means to your disposal to alert SAR. On a Pan Pan you cannot use an Epirp or an automatic emergency VHS signal.

The question with some boats in this Rally is not that but to know if they had a Pan Pan situation or a Mayday, even if they started a Mayday.

These has been discarded at some as not important but on the courses I have taken for getting the different licences this as all safety issues are regarded as fundamental.

On the examination test you can fail a percentage of questions but you cannot fail any safety question.

I am sure that nobody walks out with a licence, even an intermediate one without knowing what is the difference between a Pan Pan and a Mayday or in what situations one can start a Mayday.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

christian.hess said:


> again depends where you cruise...
> 
> one thing is for sure, high davits and a dinghy for a longa passage is disaster waiting to happen on medium size boats...especially if they are made of thin stainless and not through bolted below the deck
> 
> the number of davits that crack from a simple wave hitting the dinghy a certain way has been extensively reported many times...especially on smaller boats where its more possible
> 
> not to mention again windage
> 
> youd be surprised how much that affects downwind sailing or trying to to sail tight...the stern constantly wants to constanty slip under you effectively making you have too much weather helm


Good point on how things are set up. Having followed Michael's adventures - it's clear he does nothing half-assed. So I'm sure everything on that boat was bombproof.

The guy is an impressive sailor all the way through.


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> If you have a Mayday you should use all means to your disposal to alert SAR. On a Pan Pan you cannot use an Epirp or an automatic emergency VHS signal.
> 
> The question with some boats in this Rally is not that but to know if they had a Pan Pan situation or a Mayday, even if they started a Mayday.


I agree with you. I think this is a critical distinction that should be studied/discussed in these SDR cases. Were Maydays correctly called? Again, I haven't seen enough first-hand info to know one way or the other - but on the surface of it, it seems 5 Maydays were called when some of them maybe should not have been (back to the point of how sailors handle emergencies).

Compare that to the story of the injured crew in the C1500 (linked above) - and how that was handled by the skipper/race-coordinator/USCG - and you see a clear difference.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Paulo, we're talking about setting out from a point north of Cape Hatteras, in November... 25 knots of breeze is about the MINIMUM of what one can reasonably expect to encounter at some point on that passage, and if 30 knots is the most you ever see on that run, you're been very fortunate, indeed... Many of the best weather windows for that trip will often include such weather early on, and any sailor who expects they will somehow manage to avoid such conditions during the course of that voyage is delusional
> 
> ....)


I understand and agree with what you say but are you not exaggerating a bit?

They left knowing that the prevision over the gulf stream was 25K and with that prevision I would say that gusts of 40K were to be expected.

If they had departed today at 6.0AM they would have passed all the Stream Golf area with a prevision 15/20K with the wind on the right direction. I know it is a difficult area but I don't think that they had a lot more problems this year than than in other years just by accident but because they set sail with a forecast worse than in other years. As I have saying they could have waited for a better window or someone could have chosen a better window for them even if that means waiting a lot.

This has been a bad year and some offshore races in Europe had been postponed for 15 days waiting for a better window and those were racing sailors, many professionals, not cruisers.

Gusting 40K is a lot different than gusting 30K, at least where I sail

sailing america north atlantic usa-northeast coast wind (gfs) + 3 utc

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I don't see anything inherently wrong with the enclosures. Maybe more of it depends on the sailor than the setup.
> 
> Remember, Michael had a full enclosure (and dinghy on davits) on his Hunter 45 as they weathered the F10-11 off Cape Horn:
> 
> Sequitur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe it's not the boat.


Smack, obviously a big enclosure like the one on the boat posted by Jon or on the boat you have post has not any inconvenient only at the marina and even so if the wind is not very strong.

I know that Michael circumnavigate with one even if I **** improbable that he did not take it down with a F11. If he did not he should have to maximize his changes of coming out of it without problems.

It has to do with physics and boat design:

A big enclosure makes for a much bigger windage with all inconvenient windage has and in what regards a breaking wave it offers a much bigger and higher surface to the wave giving it a much bigger potential to roll the boat.

In practical terms and considering sailing with one on it is has if the boat has that shape and surface in solid materials. That would make for a very ugly sailboat but it is not for that reason that you don't see sailboats with hugely high cabins covering all the boat but with many other reasons that have to do with boat performance, safety and efficiency.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, yes, I haven’t been caught up in one of your fur balls since the time you tried to lecture me on the use of sea anchors, drogues and heavy air tactics. If you do some basic research first, then we might have a useful dialog over the efficacy of Cat1 regs for cruisers. First and foremost, the special regs is a racing document. It stated as such on the title page. Yes, I have to follow Cat1 for all races past Bonita Point. Do I like that? Not really insomuch that no non-racing boats have to be covered for sailing the same waters. Read the regs, fill out the checklist, then we can have an intelligent conversation about them. Did you know that from the photos you posted from Sequester, that it is not Cat1 compliant? Should they not have been allowed to go offshore let alone around the Cape?


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, yes, I haven't been caught up in one of your fur balls since the time you tried to lecture me on the use of sea anchors, drogues and heavy air tactics. If you do some basic research first, then we might have a useful dialog over the efficacy of Cat1 regs for cruisers. First and foremost, the special regs is a racing document. It stated as such on the title page. Yes, I have to follow Cat1 for all races past Bonita Point. Do I like that? Not really insomuch that no non-racing boats have to be covered for sailing the same waters. Read the regs, fill out the checklist, then we can have an intelligent conversation about them. Did you know that from the photos you posted from Sequester, that it is not Cat1 compliant? Should they not have been allowed to go offshore let alone around the Cape?


George, I know full well that the ISAF Cat1 Regs are for racers. I have a copy on my desk of the 2010-2011 issue, along with the USS' "Safety Recommendations for Cruising Sailboats" both of which were generously sent to me by Ron Trossbach when I was talking with him. And I've read them both - and continue to do so ("basic research" you know).

The C1500's regs are ISAF-_based_ - from their website:



> Our requirements are based on the ISAF standards, and include: an offshore liferaft with a more than 24 hour pack, 406MHz EPIRB, a means of sending and receiving email at sea (satellite phone or SSB/pactor), AIS receiver and man-overboard equipment. We also require every person onboard to have an inflatable combined lifejacket-harness (PFD) with a spray hood, crotch strap and safety line.


ISAF is used in these cruising rallies _for cruisers_. It's modified for their use, of course, but it's still ISAF. That's a good approach and is all I've been advocating since the beginning.

So, if you can get past the personal digs, then, yes, we can have a useful dialog on this. It's not like I'm making this stuff up.

As for Sequitur, he wasn't participating in a rally. He can make his own calls...and has done very, very well doing so - precisely because he has the experience to do so (not just a single bluewater passage). You keep conflating what I'm talking about in terms of rally organizations with individual cruisers. Enforcing regs on individual cruisers has never been my point. Personally I don't care what individual cruisers choose to do (though I think it would be a great idea for us cruisers as a whole to get more safety training). I do care what rally organizers choose to do...especially when things go pear-shaped.

(PS - I don't remember lecturing you on that stuff. Where was it?)


----------



## outbound

Smack- Chris and George have been trying to point out simple stuff that makes life easier and safer. We did race in the past. We don't race now. But it's the same ocean with the same risks even for us cruisers. Abstracting wisdom from the racers seems like a real good idea. Just like other stuff not in the rules such as keeping weight off the ends of the boat. Lashing down the dinghy of the fore deck and doing everything possible to decrease windage. Getting rid of anything possible that may hurt you in a pooping or knock down. Smack I think you are a smart guy. ?Why are we arguing about this? When I leave the boat is set up for all foreseen possibilities contingencies. I sailed during the no name storm. There was a missing buoy report. We left Rockport Maine for Duxbury Mass and caught holy hell. Like Ronnie said "trust but verify" and the kids say sh-t happens- deal with it.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack- Chris and George have been trying to point out simple stuff that makes life easier and safer. We did race in the past. We don't race now. But it's the same ocean with the same risks even for us cruisers. *Abstracting wisdom from the racers seems like a real good idea.* Just like other stuff not in the rules such as keeping weight off the ends of the boat. Lashing down the dinghy of the fore deck and doing everything possible to decrease windage. Getting rid of anything possible that may hurt you in a pooping or knock down. Smack I think you are a smart guy. ?Why are we arguing about this?


Out, I agree with everything you just wrote; especially the bolded part - and especially in the context of a cruising rally.

So I don't know why there's so much argument against it. I think you're asking the wrong guy on that one.


----------



## outbound

my bad smackie


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So maybe it's not the boat.


And sometimes, maybe it is...

From JAMMIN', the Catalina 42 that lost its rudder...



> Sorry for the delay in getting more out about our experience. The insurance company sent the surveyor within 24 hours of our arrival. So now we wait and see. Ten loads of wash were done to get rid of the salt water soaked items. Dehumidifiers are removing the moisture within the boat and the floor boards. We have had a few days of sleep and are more coherent. Our plan is get fixed, get back in the water, and head south&#8230;see you when we get there. A rum drink sounds great but I don't think I'll be drinking any Dark and Stormy's in the near future.
> 
> So what happened?
> 
> Thursday was one of the foulest days we have ever encounter. We came out of the Gulf Stream, things were calm enough to think about cooking. Dave was having trouble with the auto pilot-it kept beeping off so he had to reset it-that lasted about 20 minutes. Then we heard two noises, one off the stern and one above our head. The latter was the traveler and boom swinging to port, and the former was the buzzer for the auto pilot. Dave went first to the wheel and found it unresponsive, next he inspected the connection between the wheel and auto pilot and it was not the problem. Which meant&#8230;that's when the boom took off and the connection between the traveler and the main sheet pulley system broke. He went forward and with rope was able to connect the two parts. Now back to figuring out why we have no steerage, it seemed obvious that we were rudderless. To confirm that would mean putting Dave in the water and night had fallen as well. We called into the DoDah net and let them know we had some damage. That's when we heard other boats were in trouble and in worse shape than us.
> 
> We were never in danger of sinking but we lacked the ability to set a course and get anywhere. We also lacked the conditions to build a rudder out of cabin doors and get the whisker pole due to the state of the seas. The seas were anywhere from 2 to 6 feet for an hour or less, and as much as 10 to 15 feet the rest of the time. The winds were an issue as well. But it was the confused waves breaking over all sides of the boat, tossing us back and forth, pitching us forward and backwards, and swaying us on a diagonal every now and then. Water, water, everywhere. I counted how often they were occurring and occasionally I reached 55 seconds but most of the time it was every 5 to 12 seconds.
> 
> Friday morning we tried the bucket and anchor method but the confused seas would send the bucket airborne and it would entangle itself to the anchor rode. That is when we contacted Dick and together decided a call to the towing company should be made. They declined to come out that far even though we had bought their "unlimited" 200 mile plan. That left the Coast Guard. We were told we were third or fourth in line for assistance.
> 
> For two days my husband and I drifted further south and east out to sea. Help was coming but we had to wait our turn, many boats were caught by the weather stalling and developing into something nasty. On November 9th the Coast Guard cutter USCGC Forward arrived mid afternoon. They first established that we were not injured and not taking on water, then they wanted to know if our engine was in good working condition and it was, next they had to check if we had two points to tow from and that they were reinforced metal plates with strong bolts. After assessing us and our equipment, they were able to install a tow line. That began a 44 hour tow job with quite a few more exciting moments. Jib unfurled and Dave retrieved it, tow line chaffed, inverter stopped working, boarding a zodiac rescue boat and climbing up the side of a 200+ cutter&#8230;but we made it back bruised but not broken to Cobb's Marina, Little Creek, Virginia.
> 
> About 2 hours after the marina hauled us, Zulu was pulled out at Cobb's Marina. We talked to him the next day and guess what? He had the same auto pilot story as us before his rudder broke off in a similar place.
> 
> We are now making up for lost sleep and working with our insurance company on repairing Jammin', our home of 7 years. We are the fortunate ones, but the USCG crews are the true heroes. They managed to get all sailors to shore and out of the danger that unpredictable weather can create. They are truly our Coast Guardian Angels.
> 
> The crew of USCGC Forward were amazing. Their story is much more interesting than ours. Here is a link to the article and photos of the rescue they performed. Feature: Coast Guard crew answers the call
> 
> 2013 Fall Rally Yacht Logs | Salty Dawg Rally


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> And sometimes, maybe it is...
> 
> From JAMMIN', the Catalina 42 that lost its rudder...


It seems they did not hit anything but I could not understand what was the problem with the ruder. Do you have understood?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## christian.hess

I didnt read the whole report...BUT I read the first paragraph regarding again AUTOPILOTS

it is possible you know to break a tiller or wheel or any part of of the steering system by IMPROPER use of an autopilot

we once cracked the tilller easily by simply not paying attention to what our basic little tiller pilot was telling us

if it was beeping it can be a number of errors, sever weather helm or being overpowered is one of them
again JUST SAYIN


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks for the additional first-hand info, Jon. It's good to see how the distress call went. So there's one off the "Mayday first" list.

Do you (or anyone else) know of any other rudder failures like this on the C42? I assume this is pretty rare?

BTW - on our recent off-shore in the 10'-12'ers, the linear-drive AP broke off its mounts (on a Pearson 365 Ketch). We thought we'd lost steerage for while (helm was stuck hard over) until I jumped into the lazarette and figured out the problem.


----------



## smackdaddy

This is a good step. From the SDR site:



> In summary, of the 116 boats that started the SDR last week, seven had serious gear failures and had to return to the U.S. for repairs or in two cases were abandoned. These emergencies are a cause of concern for all of the Salty Dawgs and will be addressed by the board of the SDR in the aftermath.


The CG listed the 5 calls as follows (http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/4007...d-rescues-4-assists-others-off-Va-NC-coasts):

*"Ahimsa":* Distress signal via a satellite tracking device, stating that they were taking on water approximately 230 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance. (Abandoned and presumed sunk)

*"Nyapa":* Distress signal via a satellite tracking device stating that they had lost their mast and were taking on water approximately 275 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance. (Cancelled call after CG arrived and continued on.)

*"Aurora":* Emergency position indicating radio beacon registered the sailboat Aurora. The alert positioned the Aurora 230 miles east of Elizabeth City, N.C. (CG unable to find them - another boat radioed that Aurora was fine.)

*"Brave Heart":* Contacted Sector North Carolina watchstanders, reporting a 67-year-old man aboard had a arm injury. (Cancelled call after CG attempt at medevac.)

*"Zulu":* Contacted Sector North Carolina watchstanders via satellite phone, reporting that they were disabled and adrift. (Towed back to shore.)

Then these from the SDR site:

*"Wings" :* Unknown distress call method. (CG rescued crew - boat abandoned.)

*"Jammin'" :* Call to CG after jury-rig attempt and other avenues exhausted. (CG towed back to shore.)

*"Like Dolphins" :* Unknown if CG called. Boat was dismasted and made it back to port.

They also mention other boats having serious damage (e.g. - Pixie Dust, etc.). It's unclear whether CG calls were made in these cases. And it's unclear which are the 7 (there seem to be more - unless some of the boats listed by the CG weren't in the SDR - such as "Aurora"?.)

This tracks relatively well with this earlier report:



sailvayu said:


> I have read through this whole thread and in all the finger pointing and blaming weak/scared crews boats not ready for the voyage and all, not one person has gotten the facts right. I love how people are so quick the judge others when they do not have a clue as to the facts. I have listened to these boats everyday on the SSB. I have heard the distress calls as they came in. I have a good friend on one of the boats towed in. So I will summarize.
> 
> First boat down a Cartalina 54? catamaran, lost mast, made it back in under their own power. Distress call but refused help just wanted CG aware.
> 
> Second boat down Braveheart. Injury broken arm. Distress call but made it in under their own after they found it unsafe for injured crew transfer.
> 
> Third boat down Alden 54 ketch, lost rudder, was towed to Chesapeake after drifting for 2 days.
> 
> Fourth boat down, Morgen 41 Outisland, Taking on water (beyond what pumps could keep up with), Bulkheads coming apart, severely sick crew. Crew of 4 air lifted to Elizabeth City
> 
> Fifth boat down, Hans Christen 38, lost mast, vessel still underway under their own power to Norfolk, No assistance given. Reported in this evening all is well aboard.
> 
> Sixth boat down, Catalina 42, lost rudder, waited 3 days for tow should be back in this evening. (I personally spoke with this skipper while at sea and he simply was not equipped for makeshift repairs.)
> 
> Seventh boat down Catalina 38, lost steering and engine. tried to make Bermuda but had to give up with no help from private tow (their first choice) They were advised to abandon by USCG because of worsening weather condition and little hope of other help. 3 crew air lifted today to Elizabeth city. (so they tried for 3 days to make a go of it)
> 
> Lastly Aurora had a false alarm on their EPIRB, Capt. admitted mistake while checking gear. No assistance needed however a plane was sent to their location before the mistake was found.
> 
> So 2 boats had air rescues only 1 with sick crew and they were breaking up. Second air lift at the assistance of CG as there was little hope for anything else.
> 
> 2 boats towed back due to no steering.
> 
> The fleet left knowing a cold front was to pass but it was supposed to pass fast and then good conditions, Instead it stalled and the fleet was stuck in the stream with 20-25. The problems came in the squalls with 30-40 against the stream.
> 
> I do not think the skippers did that bad if anything maybe they were not fully prepared to do jury rigs and make emergency repairs.
> 
> At least now this thread can have some real facts to work with. For those that belittle those out there claiming they were just seasick you can see now there was more to it. Until you have been there maybe we should not be so quick to judge.


----------



## GeorgeB

Interesting note on the autohelm issues. Were they running in a confused following or quartering sea? I wonder if the two Cat boats had the Raymarine ST7000 or 7000+? Even with the fast heading sensor and computer “brain”, my experience is they are a little slow to react even with the sensitivity, and response times set all the way to the max. They never really anticipate a wave especially in a really confused sea and they do more reactive than proactive steering. The boat then tends to yaw more than my liking. Also, were they set to a wind angle or course heading? My guess is the autohelm put the rudder all the way over to hard stop on a stalled rudder and the resulting water pressure from the next wave snapped the blade. Sometimes it is better to momentarily steer into the round up (or round down) to reestablish water flow over the rudder before you make your correction. A good helmsman can do it but I’m not always sure that a computer can.


----------



## christian.hess

*over reliance on autohelms* is such a common issue this is almost 100 percent likely what caused this damage, twice!

I know we all now the answers in hindsight but Ive seen it happen in real life in mild conditions...Ive snapped tillers and seen quadrants snap cables and or bust pins etc...

george said something abolsutely 100 percent true too

no autopilot, especially electric will ever foresee a wave or sequence of waves, rogue wave, etc...so its very very pausible that a stalled rudder, with autopilot hard over and slow to react will not move fast enough...back to center or more over...when THAT NEXT WAVE HITS!

in a sense that is why windvanes always win over autopilots on small to mid size boats(they loose efficiency at 60feet or so) because they can react ever so slightly more to conditions in the water because almost all have input by either a pendulum, trim tab or rudder...

I cant count how many times when sailing hard on a windvane that when a special wave hit from a certain angle I would have to help the windvane(aries) by helping it react faster...if I wouldnt of a nice broach would of happened...not catastrophic BUT could pop a vang or preventer easily, especially sailing in 20knot trades true...

cheers


----------



## smackdaddy

Agreed, George/Chris. On our trip, after the AP broke*, I noticed that the motion of the boat calmed down a good bit when we went to hand-steering. We could steer down the backside of the waves as opposed to slamming off of them like you see early in the video while on AP. It really seemed to help calm the seasickness in the boys.

So, at this point, I'm a fan of hand-steering in rough seas if possible (unless is lasts for days). If it gets too crazy for hand-steering and we need to be below - I would likely rather rely on a drogue than the AP (though I don't know this for sure yet, just my thinking at this point).

*I now understand more why the mount broke.


----------



## luv4sailin

I don't really see the connection of free v. paying $1,500 and the SAR missions. Now, I'd rather have a needle stuck in my eye than enter my boat in either SDR or C1500, but for some folks it works. In the end, we are individually responsible for both the condition our vessels and the decisions on departure.


----------



## smackdaddy

luv4sailin said:


> I don't really see the connection of free v. paying $1,500 and the SAR missions. Now, I'd rather have a needle stuck in my eye than enter my boat in either SDR or C1500, but for some folks it works. In the end, we are individually responsible for both the condition our vessels and the decisions on departure.


I've not put it out there that there _is_ a connection (someone else posted that number). I don't know what the justification for that reported $1,500 entry fee for the Carib1500 is. Maybe someone else does.

Regardless - as least in my book - the entry fee has no bearing on whether the rally uses a safety standard like ISAF. Separate issues.

My point on this that you might be talking about is that the rally that _does not_ use the ISAF standard, _and_ has a relatively low bar for entry, _and_ leaves all that to the skippers, is the one that had a lot of problems on this run.


----------



## outbound

Chris /George explain this to me.the single handed round the world racers now all use autopilots in stuff that makes this sdr look like a day sail on a calm lake. These boats are 60' and under. 
I thought once you get really moving wind vanes just don't work. So they all switched a decade ago. Had a Fleming on a prior boat and have sailed with a monitor and a hydro vane in the past. Now have the long linear arm raymarine . Have used the ray in 30+ without troubles. Boats 32000 fully laden ? I'm I pushing it and just lucky so far. Is this more function of rudder construction then mode of steering? Are you better on course or wind function ?


----------



## JonEisberg

christian.hess said:


> I didnt read the whole report...BUT I read the first paragraph regarding again AUTOPILOTS
> 
> it is possible you know to break a tiller or wheel or any part of of the steering system by IMPROPER use of an autopilot
> 
> we once cracked the tilller easily by simply not paying attention to what our basic little tiller pilot was telling us
> 
> if it was beeping it can be a number of errors, sever weather helm or being overpowered is one of them
> again JUST SAYIN


Sometimes, the choice just comes down to heaving-to, fore-reaching, streaming a drogue, or simply steering the damn boat...

My friend Glenn at the helm of a Trintella 50, in the Stream about 60 miles E of Hatteras in early December, NW breeze @ 25-35, the Raymarine autopilot did OK for about 90% of the time... It's what might happen that remaining 10% of the time, is the reason for steering 100% of the time...

If you can't accept that tradeoff, stick to the ICW


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Agreed, George/Chris. On our trip, after the AP broke*, I noticed that the motion of the boat calmed down a good bit when we went to hand-steering. We could steer down the backside of the waves as opposed to slamming off of them like you see early in the video while on AP. It really seemed to help calm the seasickness in the boys.
> 
> So, at this point, I'm a fan of hand-steering in rough seas if possible (unless is lasts for days). If it gets too crazy for hand-steering and we need to be below - I would likely rather rely on a drogue than the AP (though I don't know this for sure yet, just my thinking at this point).
> 
> *I now understand more why the mount broke.


Put learning how to heave too at the top of your list. Long before a drogue or before you get exhausted...heaving too so basic, yet ignored by most. don't see where this technique is ever discussed in all the ISAF stuff you cite. Think it would have prevented most of the issues in the SDR.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Chris /George explain this to me.the single handed round the world racers now all use autopilots in stuff that makes this sdr look like a day sail on a calm lake. These boats are 60' and under.


Virtually all the RTW guys are using very sophisticated NKE systems, that bear very little resemblance to the APs most recreational sailors rely on...

NKE Autopilot Packages


----------



## christian.hess

aeventyr60 said:


> Put learning how to heave too at the top of your list. Long before a drogue or before you get exhausted...heaving too so basic, yet ignored by most. don't see where this technique is ever discussed in all the ISAF stuff you cite. Think it would have prevented most of the issues in the SDR.


amen brother!

cant understand why so many people say my boat is fin and spade so it wont heave to...utter bullcrap...any boat will heave to with combinations of helm in the middle, or full over, main in middle to leward or whatver, or any combo of backed jib, foresail etc...the fact is people dont test what works for their boat 95% of the time...

(I clearly remember doing this in the middle of san francisco bay with my crew before setting sail on my first ever cruise on my boat...the thing was my boat was a piece of cake to heave to...so we had lunch and set off for sausalito before heading out the gate...end of story)

...so they buy a drogue at westmarine and say this will work



btw drogues are for big passages, heavy trade sailing or high latitudes often used when bare poles is no longer effective...

drogues can be disastrous when you cant un deploy them and many simply cut them away
Id much prefer a very strong and supported trisail or storm sail setup paired with bernard motissiers aft quarter to the breaking waves combo...

again trade sailing not stormy bash to weather scenarios

i should also mention that in rallies MANY cruisersare very reluctant to change course to save their boat or make the passage safer...this was a huge issue i had with my crew on my first cruise...one must always have safety first, even if that means losing valuable cmg...


----------



## christian.hess

JonEisberg said:


> Virtually all the RTW guys are using very sophisticated NKE systems, that bear very little resemblance to the APs most recreational sailors rely on...
> 
> NKE Autopilot Packages


exactly, cant compare 25 knot surfing open 60´s rounding capehorn autopilots to st4000´s and such

btw they do 15-30 minutes max at helm(crewmembers on those type of races) and switch as the amount of physical and mental power it takes to helm at such a level completely exhausts them in such short order...they use autohelm for certain jobs and situations...slow sailing before reaching port etc...

couple of youtube vids will show you this...no comparison whatsoever to any production or fast cruiser...


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> Put learning how to heave too at the top of your list. Long before a drogue or before you get exhausted...heaving too so basic, yet ignored by most. don't see where this technique is ever discussed in all the ISAF stuff you cite. Think it would have prevented most of the issues in the SDR.


I hear you aev. I'm a big fan of heaving-to. Though I've never done it in big stuff, we use it a lot.


----------



## PCP

christian.hess said:


> ...
> 
> no autopilot, especially electric will ever foresee a wave or sequence of waves, rogue wave, etc...so its very very pausible that a stalled rudder, with autopilot hard over and slow to react will not move fast enough...back to center or more over...when THAT NEXT WAVE HITS!
> 
> in a sense that is why windvanes always win over autopilots on small to mid size boats(they loose efficiency at 60feet or so) because they can react ever so slightly more to conditions in the water because almost all have input by either a pendulum, trim tab or rudder...
> 
> ....


That makes no sense at all and certainly it is not true, I mean regarding a windvane to be more efficient than an electronic auto-pilot.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Virtually all the RTW guys are using very sophisticated NKE systems, that bear very little resemblance to the APs most recreational sailors rely on...
> 
> NKE Autopilot Packages


Autopilots have suffered in the last 10 years an huge evolution due to what was learned on solo races. You can pretty much mount in your cruising boat what they use on the 40class racers (NKE). It is more expensive but it is well spent money. Eric had done so on his new boat and Steve also and while Eric has a performance boat Steve has a voyage boat.

Anyway even if we talk about mainstream market in what regards autopilots a 10 year old autopilot is hugely less efficient than one from the same brand now. Between my boat and the previous one there is a 5 year difference on the electronics and where I can feel the bigger difference is on autopilot performance.

The ones that have old autopilots should consider the investment in a new one if they sail a lot solo. The improvement is very neat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound

This thread has set me back on my heels thinking I've been unsafe. Just this last summer have spent 2+ d on autopilot in 30+ with frequent surfing in low teens on far reach as well as several occasions in t storms/ line squalls in 20 s with gust to 40 s bearing off to 60 degrees to improve ride. We do this on AUTPILOT as usually have only one on watch. Do keep with in hands reach of the standby button. .? Are we in a fools paradise just waiting for disaster.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Are we in a fools paradise just waiting for disaster.


Hey, it's sailing! Aren't we all? Heh-heh.


----------



## luv4sailin

If were starting again, I'd likely use the NKE unit assuming $ were no object, but I must say my Alpha 3000 has seen me through thousands of single handed miles in thick and thin and never missed a beat. It is fast, fast, fast and draws very little juice. I wish it had a degree to wind capability, but it does not. It only sails a compass course. I have many open ocean miles with a Raymarine 6000+ on a friends boat, and the Alpha 3000, in my judgement, is a much better unit. (I have no connection to Alpha Marine, just am very happy with the product.)


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> This thread has set me back on my heels thinking I've been unsafe. Just this last summer have spent 2+ d on autopilot in 30+ with frequent surfing in low teens on far reach as well as several occasions in t storms/ line squalls in 20 s with gust to 40 s bearing off to 60 degrees to improve ride. We do this on AUTPILOT as usually have only one on watch. Do keep with in hands reach of the standby button. .? Are we in a fools paradise just waiting for disaster.


What have you as autopilot?

I have not yet found any conditions my autopilot could not take. The difference is that in some conditions I can sail the boat with a lot more sail (and speed) that the one that the autopilot can handle and sometimes I have to go on a slightly different course, specially downwind (when sailing at higher angles, closer to 180º).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, c'mon George...
> 
> Surely, an ISAF pre-race *inspection would have foretold the likely delamination of the bulkheads on a Morgan OI 41, the rig failure on a Hans Christian 38, and the rudder failure on that Catalina 42.... *





JonEisberg said:


> Paulo, we're talking about setting out from a point north of Cape Hatteras, in November... 25 knots of breeze is about the MINIMUM of what one can reasonably expect to encounter at some point on that passage, and if 30 knots is the most you ever see on that run, you're been very fortunate, indeed... Many of the best weather windows for that trip will often include such weather early on, and any sailor who expects they will somehow manage to avoid such conditions during the course of that voyage is delusional
> 
> *Not to mention, anyone not prepared to encounter considerably more on this trip has no business making it to begin with... *





JonEisberg said:


> *Well, you choose to dismiss the fact that the 1500 and most of the Salty Dawgs sailed in entirely different weather systems from the outset, but carry on *
> 
> So, what does ISAF have to say about departure dates, weather windows for this particular passage, or the choice of weather routers? For, IMHO, that was the distinguishing feature that applies to any comparison, here...
> 
> Andy Schell claims the 1500 never would have left when most of the SD fleet did, but that's pretty easy to say, in hindsight... I've seen firshand how ill-prepared a rally like the 1500 is, to deal with a weather postponement of more than a week... Make no mistake, they made the right call leaving when they did, I've stated that from the outset. Perhaps Chris Parker missed this one, but he's still the best in the business, and to place blame on the weather routing this year, is just as unseemly as the attempts by some last year to lay the blame for the NARC debacle on Herb Hilgenberg...
> 
> *Sometimes, the SHTF on this passage, there's not much anyone can do about it, it's really that simple *


Jon, I really don't get your arguments here. I've been reading your posts for a long time. And you're not one to go easy on sailors who go out "underprepared", then run into problems. In fact, you're typically pretty harsh.

Yet, when it comes to this rally incident where 8 out of 116 boats had serious gear failures and/or became SAR cases, you're willing to give a pass to the organization that encouraged/facilitated this group of boats to be out there in the very conditions you cite above.

So, on the one hand, you're saying that the organization's low-experience threshold for entry and low standard of safety preparedness for the rally is perfectly fine. Yet, on the other hand, you're saying that no _sailor_ should undertake a trip like this unless they have a high level of experience and a high level of safety preparedness.

Can't you see the conflict in this line of reasoning? You can't have it both ways. Would you, on a sailing forum, personally encourage a cruiser with a single bluewater passage to do this trip at this time of year - not knowing anything more about him or the condition of his boat? I seriously doubt it.

And if things went bad for him on this trip and he had to call for rescue, would you then come back on the forum and say "Sometimes, the SHTF on this passage, there's not much anyone can do about it, it's really that simple ". Again, I seriously doubt it.

When you and others hold individual skippers to such a high standard and continually critique their perceived flaws (Snowbirds don't sail they motor, judging by this pic they're not prepared, they should have never been out there in the first place, they call this safe?, they rely on electronics too much, etc.) - then you should hold everyone, including rally organizations, to that same standard. If you don't, then you're allowing the rally organization to essentially say this "seamanship stuff" is not really that important as they undercut it. Do you really believe it is not that important?

The only way I can reconcile so much resistance to this notion of rally organizers having ISAF (or equivalent) as the safety standard, or at least upping the entry requirements to ensure adequate experience - is that you guys, as experienced skippers, just can't stand the thought of ANY form of outside regulation (though you personally hold the skipper to very high "regulations" yourself). I guess I understand that from a political perspective. But it sure does twist your logic.

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Salty-Dawg-Rally:-aftermath-of-Gulf-Stream-storm-havoc/116550



> In any rally there is no doubt that each skipper is required to make his or her own call as to their departure and all other decisions during a rally.
> 
> However, some of the stories coming back from the US Coast Guard accounts and even from the sailors themselves makes one wonder whether some sailors were less than well prepared for the conditions, with several sounding a distress and then withdrawing their call.
> 
> Two of the survivors, Bruce Grieshaber and Becky Meinking, who had sold all their worldly possessions to purchase a boat and sail away to the Caribbean, *told media outlets that they had 'they trained extensively with the Salty Dawg Rally organizers before setting sail', implying that they were inexperienced sailors and hence ill-prepared for such a first journey. *
> 
> They, with two other crew, were aboard the 41ft sailboat, Ahimsa. They sent out a distress signal via a satellite tracking device, stating they were taking on water 230 miles east of Virginia Beach and were in need of assistance. At approximately 0130, all four crewmembers were rescued by a Jayhawk helicopter and taken to Air Station Elizabeth City.
> 
> The skipper Grieshaber later told Wavy.com how the boat was 'taking on too much water' and seemed to have a 'structural problem', caused by the waves. They radioed the rally network and then called the Coast Guard for help.
> 
> They were seasick. They were tired.


----------



## outbound

Paulo last years raymarine long arm.it's just before the new control head update


----------



## christian.hess

PCP said:


> That makes no sense at all and certainly it is not true, I mean regarding a windvane to be more efficient than an electronic auto-pilot.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


what?

what electric autopilot has input from the water?

notice I mentioned on small to medium sized boats...and not in a racing application

succesful windvanes like the monitor are maxed out for boats around 60feet...

an electric autopilot will be more efficient for certain applications...but Im not just talking about straight line sailing...either...efficiency can be having a windvane that sails a circumnav without more than simple lubing the gears and stuff...just sayin

in the end people are stubborn, want to beleive what ever they want and never try to see another point of view...

Im only posting my own personal experience...nobody has to agree with me, its not my point or agenda

good day


----------



## smurphny

It's not the efficiency of an electronic autopilot that is in question. I have installed and used autopilots that work very well and very efficiently. On a cruising sailboat, however, there is simply not enough spare amperage available to use one on most 30-50'cruising boats. I have a Norvane and see absolutely no problems with it. It operates with ZERO draw on batteries, and does the job. It even works when motor-sailing. Without going to all kinds of whirlybirds and dragged gizmos, to power another electronic gadjet to burn out, a windvane is a perfect example of simple efficiency.


----------



## christian.hess

exactly...all we did on our aries was lube and lube the rivets to aluminum parts...

we actually had a boat bang it from behind when he anchored way to close at night in galapagos...

it was a tilt up model

even then it worked fine all the way french polynesia...we ground the round gear since it got bent...

KISS


----------



## chall03

outbound said:


> This thread has set me back on my heels thinking I've been unsafe. Just this last summer have spent 2+ d on autopilot in 30+ with frequent surfing in low teens on far reach as well as several occasions in t storms/ line squalls in 20 s with gust to 40 s bearing off to 60 degrees to improve ride. We do this on AUTPILOT as usually have only one on watch. Do keep with in hands reach of the standby button. .? Are we in a fools paradise just waiting for disaster.


I am also pretty unsafe.

My aging wheelpilot has regualrly steered us for multiple day passages in 25kt + although I do always try and do stints at the wheel for both my own enjoyment and benefit.

We would love a Hydrovane one day when we win the lottery.

Until then I have the required amount of ISAF approved buckets and a drogue to save my ass when we are next in a rally on autopilot.


----------



## outbound

Having both mywould be ideal but after using both find the auto pilot is fine. With two d400s and panels juice a non issue. Mounting a vane would be harder with a sugar scoop.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> This thread has set me back on my heels thinking I've been unsafe. Just this last summer have spent 2+ d on autopilot in 30+ with frequent surfing in low teens on far reach as well as several occasions in t storms/ line squalls in 20 s with gust to 40 s bearing off to 60 degrees to improve ride. We do this on AUTPILOT as usually have only one on watch. Do keep with in hands reach of the standby button. .? Are we in a fools paradise just waiting for disaster.


Well, every boat is different, of course, there is no One Size Fits All application which will equally apply in every situation...

In the situation I pictured above, as I mentioned, the Raymarine 7000 was doing OK for maybe 95% of the time. Given the conditions, and potential damage that might result from something like an accidental jibe, that was not good enough...

We were a bit over-canvassed, pressing hard to exit the Stream before nightfall. Sailing deeply downwind on a boat with a huge main, and deeply swept spreaders, preventing the boom from being eased as much as one might like while attempting to maintain such a course... One of the main reasons I detest deeply swept spreaders on a cruising boat, the line between broaching/rounding up, or an accidental jibe, can be razor thin if you need to be sailing DDW in big and confused seas...

I wasn't on any of those boats last week, of course, so I can only hazard a guess... But, mine would be that at least some of them encountered conditions where the most prudent seamanship might have dictated having a skilled helmsman on the wheel for a time, rather than leaving the driving to Raymarine...

My friends Justin and Chris have an NKE autopilot on their J-120 SHEARWATER, and yet there are still times when they've chosen to hand steer:

Shearwater - What 30-40 knots looks like, Porto to Gibraltar - YouTube

And, as their recent passage from FL to Texas illustrated, there can be times when one has no choice - even with one of the world's finest and most expensive autopilots 



> Our second day handed us the challenge of the trip, as our autopilot stopped functioning correctly. It turned out that our dinghy foot pump hose slipped between the steering cables and quadrant making it impossible to turn the wheel one direction. * The autopilot, not knowing any better, just kept continuing to push, until eventually the high current draw blew an internal fuse in the autopilot computer - a fuse that can only be replaced at the factory. * Damn. On reflection, why isn't there a breaker in the wiring between the computer and ram that is smaller than the internal fuse? We've never seen this mentioned, but it seems like an obvious addition now. As it was, we would be hand-steering for the remainder of the trip - 96 more hours. We chose to do 2-hour shifts, round the clock. The good part - we're better drivers now than we were before. The bad part - hand-steering kind of stinks.
> 
> Florida to Texas ? 96 hours of wheel time


----------



## PCP

christian.hess said:


> in a sense that is why windvanes always win over autopilots on small to mid size boats(they loose efficiency at 60feet or so) because they can react ever so slightly more to conditions in the water because almost all have input by either a pendulum, trim tab or rudder...
> ...
> 
> notice I mentioned on small to medium sized boats...and not in a racing application
> 
> ....
> in the end people are stubborn, want to beleive what ever they want and never try to see another point of view...
> 
> Im only posting my own personal experience...nobody has to agree with me, its not my point or agenda
> 
> good day


A racing application of an autopilot in what regards solo racing is the same as in what regards cruising only that hugely more demanding. In this case clearly what is good for racing is good for cruising.

I don't need to have experience with the two types to know that a good electronic autopilot is much more effective than a wind-vane even in boats smaller than 60ft and for a good reason:

If they were more effective all or at least some solo racing boats, from 31ft to 40ft would use a wind-vane to better their performance. I follow a lot of solo races and never heard about a *SINGLE* boat using a wind-vane.

have a good night,

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> .. On a cruising sailboat, however, there is simply not enough spare amperage available to use one on most 30-50'cruising boats. ....


That's why most cruising boats between 30/50ft don't use autopilots but wind-Vanes

Regards

Paulo


----------



## luv4sailin

I have my Alpha 3000 and a Monitor as a back up if needed, which I have not needed ever. A friend did a circumnavigation on a Nordic 40 with the same set up. The Monitor's paddle was never in the water...not even once. But there is nothing wrong with both a belt and suspenders. One sleeps better, believe me.


----------



## JonEisberg

Damn, this was a tough go for the Catalina brand, sounds like 3 out of the 4 in the SDR had major rudder failures...

Copied from CSBB, re the Catalina 470:



> These were gleaned from FaceBook. I'm still waiting to hear the full story. One other thing I wonder about is how well are some of today's boats prepared for this kind of weather. Thinking about "condo style living space", in-mast furling, oversize roller gennys, deep spade rudders and shallow under water bodies with "danforth" keels. Once they get properly settled in and sedated with Dark and Stormys I hope they give me some real info.
> 
> "It has been a harrowing ride. Being alive is a good thing. Landing on Bermuda has its simple benefits but it cost us $6000.00 dollars to be towed in."
> 
> "Abour 25 miles. We had been floundering around with no steering for nearly 3 days. NO ONE would come to tow us in. I was ready to call the American Consolate. I was going out of my mind. Being tossed around in 20 ft seas and the wind was 45 with gusts to 55."
> 
> "The first storm was worse."


And this... Wow, it sure pays to choose your crew carefully 

UFB...



> *We picked up a forth crew member in Hampton who said she was free until Thanksgiving and had no health issues that would cause any problems. After the 2 day delay leaving Hampton and the slow progress through the bad weather in the Gulf Stream, she informed us that she had a heart condition, was due for surgery on the 18th and wanted to be drooped off in Bermuda. That little detour would cost us 3 days and threatened to screw up our other crews schedule but I had little choice. So off to Bermuda we went. *Cost me $300 in fuel and $180 in entry fees. After dropping her off we did a through top to bottom inspection of the boat and deemed her fit for sea duty. Unfortunately my X-Ray vision was not working and I missed the broken rudder post tangs inside the rudder. 1 1/2 days out we hit more rough weather (clocked 62 knot gusts) and suddenly lost steerage about 60 miles south of the island.
> 
> The rudder wanted to stay hard over on one side and go in circles to the right. I managed to get her going in the right direction for about 6 hours and came within 12 miles of the island. But then it gave up again and nothing I did would get her back on course. We tried towing buckets and other heavy objects on the port side hoping to correct the turn but it had no effect. Whats worse is that because of the turning and the strong current, one of the lines got under the boat and caught in the prop. Luckily the shaft line cutter worked and we were able to retrieve some of the items we were towing and not loose propulsion too. So the best I could do was influence (not control) the direction of drift by adjusting speed and heading relative to the wind and wave direction. I managed to drift SW instead of due S and I can tell you that it was really disconcerting to watch Bermuda slowly fade from sight. We lost several miles that we had earlier gained. The look on the crews faces was so bad that I decided to try one last desperate measure. I launched the dink and tried to steer the boat from numerous locations. That did not work either and it was really a bad idea to start with.
> 
> On a side note, I have to give credit to the gentleman at Bermuda Radio that we were in contact with for two days. He hunted down the local fishermen that were willing to come get us after the two commercial companies declined to help. The satphone is what really saved our butts. My SSB was simi-uselss. We could only make contact once a day on the Doo-Dah net and that was sketchy. We used the phone to call the Coast Guard in Norfolk who handed us off to the chaps at Bermuda Radio who ultimately orchestrated our recovery. God save the Queen!
> 
> So after a 15 hour tow @ $380/hr we are tied up in St. Georges with a busted rudder waiting for Monday and all the yards to open up. Towing the boat was another story. We had to drag both anchor chains off the stern to stabilize the boat (250' on each stern cleat). Do you know how much 250' of chain weight when to try to retrieve it? I managed to get one length back on board with the windless but I injured my hand in the process so the other length was donated to Davy Jones locker. On the bright side everyone here has been super helpfull. The Bermudian people are extremely friendly and kind.


----------



## Argyle38

PCP said:


> That's why most cruising boats between 30/50ft don't use autopilots but wind-Vanes
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I would say that this is exactly the case among long distance cruisers. I don't understand the vitriol against using a steering system that does not require electrical power.


----------



## PCP

Argyle38 said:


> I would say that this is exactly the case among long distance cruisers. I don't understand the vitriol against using a steering system that does not require electrical power.


No, I have nothing against the use of windvanes just against misleading statements regarding its superior performance regarding electronic systems or that boats between 30 and 50ft have or cannot generate the electrical energy to power them.

Regarding what you say regarding long distance cruisers using more windvanes then electronic systems, only the ones that have old boats and have already the systems installed. The vast majority of the ones that voyage in new or recent boats use electronic auto-pilots. They prefer to take advantage of its superior performance even at the cost of having a energy source to power them.

regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

My windvane works well but it does require monitoring. Whereas an autopilot will follow a compass heading, a windvane follows wind direction. Wind direction changes so you have to keep a constant eye on a windvane. They are also not that great on a run, especially in light wind. An electronic pilot is much more convenient to use, no adjusting, no changing vane size, etc. but they are highly inefficient when the FUSE BLOWS


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> ... Whereas an autopilot will follow a compass heading, a windvane follows wind direction. Wind direction changes so you have to keep a constant eye on a windvane. ..


A autopilot will follow the wind if you want it too. When you beat upwind you use it always on that position, also downwind at big angles. If the wind changes direction the autopilot sounds an alarm to advert you.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Regarding what you say regarding long distance cruisers using more windvanes then electronic systems, only the ones that have old boats and have already the systems installed. The vast majority of the ones that voyage in new or recent boats use electronic auto-pilots. They prefer to take advantage of its superior performance even at the cost of having a energy source to power them.
> 
> regards
> 
> Paulo


I would certainly agree with that, I'm seeing fewer and fewer vanes in my travels with each passing year, particularly on American boats... Other than a H-R 43 I brought north back in June (owned by a European currently residing in Canada), I can't recall the last time I delivered a boat equipped with a vane...










At least up and down the East coast and into the Islands, it's not hard to see why


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> I would certainly agree with that, I'm seeing fewer and fewer vanes in my travels with each passing year, particularly on American boats... Other than a H-R 43 I brought north back in June (owned by a European currently residing in Canada), I can't recall the last time I delivered a boat equipped with a vane...
> 
> At least up and down the East coast and into the Islands, it's not hard to see why


That is not bad as a joke and certainly applies also to those cases but not to all modern voyage boats that don't use windvane and the reason why they don't use it it has not to do with bad seamanship but with good seamanship: A autopilot is a lot more efficient than a windvane.

There are plenty voyage boats been made in Europe and delivered to sailors that will voyage in them and none is equipped with an windvane neither their manufacturers recommend the use of one.

Blog chamade 2013 » Chamade






Regards

Paulo


----------



## aeventyr60

PCP said:


> No, I have nothing against the use of windvanes just against misleading statements regarding its superior performance regarding electronic systems or that boats between 30 and 50ft have or cannot generate the electrical energy to power them.
> 
> Regarding what you say regarding long distance cruisers using more windvanes then electronic systems, only the ones that have old boats and have already the systems installed. The vast majority of the ones that voyage in new or recent boats use electronic auto-pilots. They prefer to take advantage of its superior performance even at the cost of having a energy source to power them.
> 
> regards
> 
> Paulo


Can't agree with you Paulo. Too many of your Euro buddies have windvanes on modern boats here in SE Asia. Are you sure your looking at long distance cruising boats where you are? Seems most of what your seeing are local boats. Anchored around me are several modern, fin keel production boats with windvanes...all sporting European flags. maybe you need to get a little further from home?


----------



## luv4sailin

The Vendee Globe guys all use their "sail to wind angle" setting on their electric auto plots when they have a shoot up and then they just go to sleep. Wish I had such a setting on my Alpha 3000.


----------



## PCP

luv4sailin said:


> The Vendee Globe guys all use their "sail to wind angle" setting on their electric auto plots when they have a shoot up and then they just go to sleep. Wish I had such a setting on my Alpha 3000.


Most if not all autopilots have that feature today. The Raymarine that I had on my 2002 Boat had already that. Yes it is a great feature and most of the time I sail that way. The course is not a problem because when the wind changes an alarm tells you that you need to change the trim on the sails and set a new wind value.

regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> That is not bad as a joke and certainly applies also to those cases but not to all modern voyage boats that don't use windvane and the reason why they don't use it it has not to do with bad seamanship but with good seamanship: *A autopilot is a lot more efficient than a windvane.*
> 
> There are plenty voyage boats been made in Europe and delivered to sailors that will voyage in them and none is equipped with an windvane neither their manufacturers recommend the use of one.


Paulo, realizing that English is not your first language, I'll cut you some slack here  I'm not sure "efficient" is the best choice of words to describe what I understand to be your meaning... Tough to beat the "efficiency" of a system of self-steering which requires _no power whatsoever_ beyond the wind and movement of the boat thru the water to steer the boat 

As always, all boats are different, and vanes can become less suitable on many of the types of boats you are primarily interested in... However, on many boats out there - my own, for instance - I think a vane is a far more effective and reliable method of self-steering for extended passagemaking...

Make no mistake, I would never be without an autopilot, and if I could only have one option, it would be an AP... But for the sort of sailing I do, much of it singlehanded, I'd never want to do an extended passage without a vane... Especially as winds and seas increase, my Sailomat only becomes more powerful and responsive, while my tillerpilot becomes less effective...

As usual, Evans Starzinger and Beth Leonard sum it up best, for me:



> 21. Do you use your windvane much?
> 
> On Silk we used our vane about 90% of the time. On Hawk it has been much less, somewhere in the 33%-50% range. We believe that a vane is one of the most important pieces of gear on a cruising boat under about 45'. It will steer offshore 24x7 reliably, quietly, using no energy and teach you to sail better by forcing you to balance your sails. There is nothing else you can buy that will do all that. For coastal sailing they are much less satisfactory as the wind direction is often less stable and the boat will be in danger of hitting something if it wanders off course.
> 
> On boats bigger than about 45' and especially high performance ones, a windvane will be less satisfactory - it will be less reliable because of the higher loads and steer less well. However, it is still essential that these boats have complete self-steering backup - either an entire spare autopilot and spare battery charging system (powerful enough to keep up with the autopilot), or a windvane. Backup to our autopilot is the primary role the vane has played on Hawk, along with saving fuel (less battery charging) on our longer passages.
> 
> Systems.


----------



## PCP

aeventyr60 said:


> Can't agree with you Paulo. Too many of your Euro buddies have windvanes on modern boats here in SE Asia. Are you sure your looking at long distance cruising boats where you are? Seems most of what your seeing are local boats. Anchored around me are several modern, fin keel production boats with windvanes...all sporting European flags. maybe you need to get a little further from home?


I guess that what we call modern is not the same

The use of the windvane on voyage boats has been decreasing till today where European manufacturers of voyage boats don't recommend them face to the diminished performance face to a modern autopilot. In the last 10 years was a huge improving on autopilots while windvanes remained the same.

Of course they will mount whatever you want if you really insist but would consider you a fool and almost no voyage boat today mounts a winvane, I mean new boats coming out of the shipyard.

Recently Steve bought a Boreal 44 (a voyage boat) in Europe to continue to cruise and voyage extensively, as he had done for many years. He had used a windvane on his Mason 44 but had the good sense in believing on superior knowledge of the boat manufacturer in what was concerned that subject. He has a NKE top autopilot on his boat. Why don't you ask him if he regret to have trusted in the boat manufacturer on this?

Is avatar here is hannah2.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> Can't agree with you Paulo. Too many of your Euro buddies have windvanes on modern boats here in SE Asia. Are you sure your looking at long distance cruising boats where you are? Seems most of what your seeing are local boats. Anchored around me are several modern, fin keel production boats with windvanes...all sporting European flags. maybe you need to get a little further from home?


Perhaps we need to start distinguishing between "Cruisers', and 'Rallyists'... 

Of the 233 boats in the 2010 ARC Rally, only 32 were sporting windvanes...

http://windpilot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ARC-survey-pt-1.pdf


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps we need to start distinguishing between "Cruisers', and 'Rallyists'...
> 
> Of the 233 boats in the 2010 ARC Rally, only 32 were sporting windvanes...
> 
> http://windpilot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ARC-survey-pt-1.pdf


Funny thing, those boats with windvanes don't have oxygen tents either. Seems they have also been out for several years, have made several major ocean passages and are not rally folks. All are at anchor too.....guess I'd have to dinghy over to a marina to see all the AP only folks. Funny how that works.


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> Funny thing, those boats with windvanes don't have oxygen tents either. Seems they have also been out for several years, have made several major ocean passages and are not rally folks. All are at anchor too.....guess I'd have to dinghy over to a marina to see all the AP only folks. Funny how that works.


Wish I could find it, but a year or two ago I read a blog account from someone prepping their Atlantic crossing from Las Palmas at the same time as the ARC...

They described a cluster of 'Independents' anchored outside of the harbor, and one of the distinguishing features from them and all the Rally boats moored in the marina, was how many of them were equipped with vanes, and how few of the ARC boats had them...


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps we need to start distinguishing between "Cruisers', and 'Rallyists'...
> 
> Of the 233 boats in the 2010 ARC Rally, only 32 were sporting windvanes...
> 
> http://windpilot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ARC-survey-pt-1.pdf


Funny, I take another conclusion: old boats use windvanes, new boats use auto pilot. As on the ARC most boats have less than 12 years the vast majority don't use wind vane.

Do you really believe that on the ARC there are a relation between the use of windvane and the experience of the sailors in what regards sailing? I bet that there are a direct relation with the age of the boat

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Wish I could find it, but a year or two ago I read a blog account from someone prepping their Atlantic crossing from Las Palmas at the same time as the ARC...
> 
> They described a cluster of 'Independents' anchored outside of the harbor, and one of the distinguishing features from them and all the Rally boats moored in the marina, was how many of them were equipped with vanes, and how few of the ARC boats had them...


In fact that is quite logically, the ARC is a pretty expensive rally and it seems to me that the main reason that they are independents is because they don't have the money to go on the rally since they are sailing at the same time to take the advantages the rally provide in safety.

Not having money is related with old boat and old boat related with windvane

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Funny, I take another conclusion: old boats use windvanes, new boats use auto pilot. As on the ARC most boats have less than 12 years the vast majority don't use wind vane.
> 
> Do you really believe that on the ARC there are a relation between the use of windvane and the experience of the sailors in what regards sailing? I bet that there are a direct relation with the age of the boat
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


No, I'm not suggesting that there is any necessary correlation between a sailor's 'experience', and the choice of a windvane... Certainly, with so many newer, larger boats in an event like the ARC, it's no surprise that the popularity of vanes is on the decline...

However, one other tidbit from the survey I cited is worth noting... Almost half of that ARC fleet had on board diesel generators... Average run time of those with generators was *almost 4 hours per 24 hour period*...

Another 99 boats used their main engines for battery charging, averaging *between 2 and 3 hours of running per day*...

Different strokes, for different folks...


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> In fact that is quite logically, the ARC is a pretty expensive rally and *it seems to me that the main reason that they are independents is because they don't have the money to go on the rally since they are sailing at the same time to take the advantages the rally provide in safety.*
> 
> Not having money is related with old boat and old boat related with windvane
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Actually, they were not doing that at all...

If my recollection is correct, some were planning to head for the Cape Verdes first, and some others were going to make an effort to wait until after the ARC fleet left, so as not to be sailing amongst such a large group of boats...

Similarly, I just happened to leave Hampton on the same day as the Caribbean 1500 2 years ago, but it certainly wasn't to avail myself of the 'safety' of sailing in company... In fact, we were very relieved to see them all head towards Hatteras, while we initially headed almost due east from the Bay Entrance, thus separating ourselves from the herd as quickly as possible


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> No, I'm not suggesting that there is any necessary correlation between a sailor's 'experience', and the choice of a windvane... Certainly, with so many newer, larger boats in an event like the ARC, it's no surprise that the popularity of vanes is on the decline...
> 
> However, one other tidbit from the survey I cited is worth noting... Almost half of that ARC fleet had on board diesel generators... Average run time of those with generators was *almost 4 hours per 24 hour period*...
> 
> Another 99 boats used their main engines for battery charging, averaging *between 2 and 3 hours of running per day*...
> 
> Different strokes, for different folks...


Yes, different strokes for different folk I agree but that does not mean that those 32 boats using windvane are not also using a generator or are not using the batteries to charge their systems.

Fact is that the consumption of an electric autopilot is very small when compared to running a refrigerator not to mention a fridge and even smaller if compared with a A.C. system. Most people that voyage today like to do it with comfort, with a big freezer with frozen food and staying out of the cold and rain (or the hot blazing sun) in a comfortable interior with controlled temperature.

That is one of the reasons most modern voyage boats are bigger to be able to be able to provide all this type of comforts.

I am pretty sure that you know that for running a modern autopilot 24 hours a day you don't need a generator or running the engine 4 hours a day. In fact all that voyage and use them can say to you you only need to have an auxiliary source of energy like a wind electric generator, solar panels or just one of the modern hydro generators that is the best solution and the one that is used on circumnavigation race boats.



JonEisberg said:


> ....
> Make no mistake, I would never be without an autopilot, and if I could only have one option, it would be an AP... But for the sort of sailing I do, much of it singlehanded, I'd never want to do an extended passage without a vane... Especially as winds and seas increase, my Sailomat only becomes more powerful and responsive, while my tillerpilot becomes less effective...
> ...


I agree with you than on an extended passage someone should have a back up in case you have a malfunction on a autopilot even if many circumnavigate with an autopilot without any problem.

But instead of having mounted an autopilot plus a windvane, (that is very expensive, takes a lot of useful space and it is much less efficient in what regard the ability to drive the boat in all conditions) it is much more logical and better to have a set of spars for the autopilot: an electrical engine, the electronic components and fuses would be far less expensive than a windvane. That is what those that voyage extensively in modern boats do.

Older voyage boats have already installed for many years a windvane and probably their autopilot is also an old less effective one so it makes sense that they keep both systems even if at the cost of a lesser performance in what regards to leave the boat on autopilot or windvane, if compared with a modern system.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

For comparison, most popular autopilots use approx. 50-70 amps/24 hours. My Isotherm SP refrig. unit uses approx. 17 amps in 24 hours. With 200 w. of solar input, a maximum of approx. 1600 watts in an 8hr day(if the sun shines), or 130 amps/day, an autopilot would be considerably outside the overall energy budget. Without some other form of electric production, an autopilot would be impossible. I suspect that is why you see so many other power producing gadgets on sailboats. I can't understand why most cruising boats have not been designed with a molded-in turbine of some sort so that water power could be available for a multitude of uses.


----------



## outbound

Have done the budget and so far in actual practice seems to work out. Get by with two panels and two wind generators. Have nothing but leds for lighting. So can run frig/freezer, electronics, lights, pressure water and AP. Can't run entertainment systems and definitely not AC. Keep folks on energy aware budget just like fresh water. Use radar only when necessary. Think having the biggest battery bank you can stick in helps. Some days the sun shines and some days the wind blows. Sticking in a small 4k generator but more for being able to make water and run AC when on the hook. Think the average cruiser can get by when sailing on the AP without using a generator with just a little forethought.


----------



## luv4sailin

QUOTE:
"But instead of having mounted an autopilot plus a windvane, (that is very expensive, takes a lot of useful space and it is much less efficient in what regard the ability to drive the boat in all conditions) it is much more logical and better to have a set of spars for the autopilot" 

My Monitor takes up no space that I can use. It hangs off the stern. 

With regard to power consumption, on a 5 day trip using my Alder Barbour frig, my Alpha 3000 24 hours per day, AIS, VHF and the normal lights & gauges and some SSB, I ran my engine 45-60 minutes every 12 hours and had no energy issues at all. I consume less than 2/3 gallons per hour at 1300 RPM, so my fuel consumption for the 5 days for energy recharging was less than 7 gallons. 

While carrying spars for ones autopilot certainly makes sense, one can buy a used Monitor for $2K. it is hard to imagine why a serious cruiser would not have one. Clearly $ would not be the reason.


----------



## TQA

If anyone is interested in reading about a boat that survived the weather the Salty Dog Rally encountered and has just made it into Virgon Gorda read Serafina's story here.

Sailing travel log |Rob Bell | Sarah Bell |

It is a pretty harrowing story of a couple in a Najad 460 who encounter survival conditions. At the height of the weather there is a heart felt comment.

" BEAM US UP SCOTTY "


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks TQA. Great write ups. I'm going through them now.

For those of you who poo-poo the notion of "group think" influencing decisions in a rally - decisions that would likely play out otherwise in the case of an individual skipper on his own, this is a telling quote from this blog:



> Well at long last there has been a decisive gap in the weather and *the fleet has largely chosen to head off south on Wednesday*, but along with a few other 'old heads' we have opted for a Tuesday morning start as this gets us clear across the Gulf Stream ahead of a big cold front that will bring us 30 to 40 knot winds.


A rally creates a strong psychological influence on individual decisions. And that in itself can elevate risk. No way around it.

*"This was definately not in the brochure....."*


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Yes, different strokes for different folk I agree but that does not mean that those 32 boats using windvane are not also using a generator or are not using the batteries to charge their systems.


I never suggested they weren't... However, I think it is likely that most who have chosen to go with a windvane, perhaps partially due to the fact they require no 'juice', are more likely to be somewhat more conservative/minimalist in their choices re outfitting their boats in other respects...



PCP said:


> I agree with you than on an extended passage someone should have a back up in case you have a malfunction on a autopilot even if many circumnavigate with an autopilot without any problem.
> 
> *But instead of having mounted an autopilot plus a windvane, (that is very expensive, takes a lot of useful space and it is much less efficient in what regard the ability to drive the boat in all conditions)* it is much more logical and better to have a set of spars for the autopilot: an electrical engine, the electronic components and fuses would be far less expensive than a windvane. That is what those that voyage extensively in modern boats do.


We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that one... Certainly, vanes have their limitations, and are far less effective in light air than an autopilot... Perhaps my own boat is unique in all the world, but when conditions become a bit sportier - particularly in a quartering sea - my vane handles them far better than my autopilot does... That is simply a fact, one that I suspect is true for many others of us out there who have neither the resources, nor the desire, to trade in our outmoded older boats for something like a Pogo 



PCP said:


> Older voyage boats have already installed for many years a windvane and probably their autopilot is also an old less effective one so it makes sense that they keep both systems even if at the cost of a lesser performance in what regards to leave the boat on autopilot or windvane, if compared with a modern system.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Again, that is not the case on my boat... My tillerpilot is the latest generation Raymarine 6002 with the SPX-5 gyro, with the "GP" pushrod/motor, sized for boats up to 16,500 lbs displacement... Still, in anything above about F5, my vane simply steers my boat better...

And, as of now, I'm not inclined to invest over $8K for a NKE unit with an internal fuse that can only be replaced by the factory...


----------



## ScottUK

> A rally creates a strong psychological influence on individual decisions. And that in itself can elevate risk. No way around it.


Conversely they can ameliorate decisions too.


----------



## outbound

Still these folks deserve a round of applause. They both got sick but sailed their boat and remain with a great attitude. The blog speaks well for being on a strong good boat of decent size. The Najad took good care of them. 
Friend on sistership of mine just sent email. They did it in 7 1/2d. He had the gall to send a snap of a bevey of honeys in string bikinis on the beach by his boat. (did cheer me up) Here I am talking to the yard about shrinkwrap doors in the rain.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> For comparison, most popular autopilots use approx. 50-70 amps/24 hours. My Isotherm SP refrig. unit uses approx. 17 amps in 24 hours. ....


 If your autopilot wastes more energy than your refrigerator, or your refrigerator is really tiny or your autopilot is not working correctly.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

luv4sailin said:


> QUOTE:
> ...
> 
> My Monitor takes up no space that I can use. It hangs off the stern.
> 
> ....


Perhaps I has not clear, I do not mean storage space but space to enjoy a bath or to sit there or for not making difficult coming from the dinghy to the boat, that kind of space

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Thanks TQA. Great write ups. I'm going through them now.
> 
> For those of you who poo-poo the notion of "group think" influencing decisions in a rally - decisions that would likely play out otherwise in the case of an individual skipper on his own, this is a telling quote from this blog:
> 
> A rally creates a strong psychological influence on individual decisions. And that in itself can elevate risk. No way around it.
> 
> *"This was definately not in the brochure....."*


That, or the opposite.

If we leave to the free will the day of departure it will happen as you mention.

If someone from the organization is responsible for the safety of the rally it will be also responsible for choosing the weather window and departure day.

If that sailor is very knowledgeable and knows exceptionally well the area then his decision can have influence on the safety of the ones that are less experienced than him and that should be practically all otherwise it would not make sense.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Good point Paulo.


----------



## capta

I am still terribly confused by all the discussion on this thread.
If one is contemplating a thousand mile ocean sail and neither the boat nor her crew can safely weather 40 to 50 knots of wind and seas to 20 feet or so, then neither the boat, nor the crew, has any business attempting the crossing.
Front or no front, Gulfstream or not, those are not conditions unimaginable on any thousand mile crossing.


----------



## blowinstink

Have we yet learned how / why the 2 masts were lost? How about the rudder failures?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I really don't get your arguments here. I've been reading your posts for a long time. And you're not one to go easy on sailors who go out "underprepared", then run into problems. In fact, you're typically pretty harsh.
> 
> Yet, when it comes to this rally incident where 8 out of 116 boats had serious gear failures and/or became SAR cases, you're willing to give a pass to the organization that encouraged/facilitated this group of boats to be out there in the very conditions you cite above.


No, perhaps I've been unclear, but you certainly seem to have misunderstood much of my perspective on this...

My problem with this thread from the get-go, has been the assignment of responsibility on the part of some to the organizers of the SDR that either does not exist, or is no greater than that of the organizers of the 1500... The SDR most certainly did not "encourage or facilitate" these people to sail to the Caribbean, any more so than the 1500 does... Certainly, the long-standing profit motive of a commercial venture like the 1500 has a FAR greater reason to "encourage" people to undertake this passage, it clearly shows in their advertising and solicitation of participants for over 20 years...



smackdaddy said:


> So, on the one hand, you're saying that the organization's low-experience threshold for entry and low standard of safety preparedness for the rally is perfectly fine.


Again, I'm not saying that at all...

The "threshold for entry" in both rallies is very vague, to the point of being essentially meaningless... But the 1500 only requires one to have made a passage of at least 250 miles. I sure don't see that as being particularly stringent, either... From what I've observed prior to the start of a couple of 1500s in recent years, it's obvious to me some of the participants were unprepared for the sort of heavy weather one can easily experience on that passage, and I've always been astounded by the number of crew who had apparently never sailed at night, on the ocean, before... Boggles the mind than anyone would begin such a trip with such untested crew, and the number of boats each year that turn back or bail out due to extreme seasickness of one or more crew is testimony to how many underestimate the rigors of such a passage...

But again, I simply don't see how the 1500's reliance on ISAF safety standards had anything to do with the choice of departure times, or the failures that have resulted... On the other hand, I can't fault the SDR for placing the onus of proper preparation where it belongs, on the owner/skipper of each vessel... They make that VERY clear from the beginning...



smackdaddy said:


> Yet, on the other hand, you're saying that no _sailor_ should undertake a trip like this unless they have a high level of experience and a high level of safety preparedness.


Well, I might amend that to suggest that one should have a _'sufficient'_ level of experience... Very hard to define, of course, and will vary from one sailor to the next. But again, from what I've seen over the years, GPS has 'enabled' way too many people to be making this trip that they wouldn't even contemplate doing if they had to find Tortola on their own...



smackdaddy said:


> Can't you see the conflict in this line of reasoning? You can't have it both ways. Would you, on a sailing forum, personally encourage a cruiser with a single bluewater passage to do this trip at this time of year - not knowing anything more about him or the condition of his boat? I seriously doubt it.


I don't know how I can make it any clearer than I have been attempting to do for years: I am NOT a fan of these Caribbean Cattle Drives, and I would NEVER enter the 1500 myself... Hell, the question I dread hearing most when I'm on a delivery, and someone learns I'm familiar with a particular route, inlet, whatever - is, "Do you mind if we follow you?"  If one is not prepared to attempt any passage on their own, they are not ready to attempt it, _PERIOD_... I'm mystified why anyone finds such a simple notion so difficult to understand...



smackdaddy said:


> And if things went bad for him on this trip and he had to call for rescue, would you then come back on the forum and say "Sometimes, the SHTF on this passage, there's not much anyone can do about it, it's really that simple ". Again, I seriously doubt it.


My comment in that regard was related to the weather routing/forecasting... Sometimes even the best - such as Chris Parker - can get it wrong. And, the best one can do is prepare your boat and crew as best you can for that eventuality...

2 years ago, I arrived in Hampton on the scheduled day of departure for the 1500... Many of the participants were in a panic, because Chris Parker and Herb Hilgenberg seemed to be the only routers really concerned about the system right on the rhumbline which would eventually develop into Tropical Storm Sean... The service that the 1500 was using, and the one being used by the NARC Rally out of Newport, seemed to be downplaying its significance... From what I heard after I arrived, It wasn't until many of the 1500 skippers staged what almost amounted to a mini-'revolt' that morning at the final skipper's meeting, that the organizers relented to the wishes of many, and decided to postpone... That year, Chris nailed it... This year, perhaps not so much, and it turned out the 1500 made the better call...



smackdaddy said:


> When you and others hold individual skippers to such a high standard and continually critique their perceived flaws (Snowbirds don't sail they motor, judging by this pic they're not prepared, they should have never been out there in the first place, they call this safe?, they rely on electronics too much, etc.) - then you should hold everyone, including rally organizations, to that same standard. If you don't, then you're allowing the rally organization to essentially say this "seamanship stuff" is not really that important as they undercut it. Do you really believe it is not that important?
> 
> The only way I can reconcile so much resistance to this notion of rally organizers having ISAF (or equivalent) as the safety standard, or at least upping the entry requirements to ensure adequate experience - is that you guys, as experienced skippers, just can't stand the thought of ANY form of outside regulation (though you personally hold the skipper to very high "regulations" yourself). I guess I understand that from a political perspective. But it sure does twist your logic.


Sorry, but I don't get how you think that is what I'm saying, at all...

Please, show me what the 1500 does to "ensure adequate experience" of the skippers whose $1500 or more they accept. Do you think they were successful in their vetting of the experience of the skipper of RULE 62, to name one?


----------



## ccriders

Sarafina's blog is articulate and entertaining. What a writer, and so few typos in rather boisterous conditions. In his 3 Nov entry, before departure he made this observation

"The Salty Dawg Rally gathering has been huge fun and we are very much amongst friends old and new. There are various seminars and social events running and it has all been very entertaining, but probably not the perfect way to prepare for 10 or so days of ocean sailing."

This experienced, capable sailor recognized this peril and apparently did not fall victim to the risk. But what about other less experienced sailors? Is this not part of what Smackdaddy is arguing? 
John


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> For those of you who poo-poo the notion of "group think" influencing decisions in a rally - decisions that would likely play out otherwise in the case of an individual skipper on his own, this is a telling quote from this blog:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at long last there has been a decisive gap in the weather and the fleet has largely chosen to head off south on Wednesday, but along with a few other 'old heads' we have opted for a Tuesday morning start as this gets us clear across the Gulf Stream ahead of a big cold front that will bring us 30 to 40 knot winds.
> 
> 
> 
> A rally creates a strong psychological influence on individual decisions. And that in itself can elevate risk. No way around it.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, and that is the primary basis for my objection to the inherent nature of these rallies... However, you're dreaming if you don't think this sort of 'herd mentality' never existed prior to the existence of an event like the 1500...

25 years ago, before Steve Black founded the Caribbean 1500, Morehead City/Beaufort was the most popular jumping off spot for the islands... But, the 1500 had their eyes on the prize of attracting the bigger boats, ones too large to run down the ICW behind Hatteras, and thus Hampton Roads became the 'New' starting point for the trip... As the years passed, and boats kept getting bigger and bigger, it's become accepted that starting from the Chesapeake Entrance is the way to go. But, as Don Street has been explaining for years, there remain some very compelling reasons why a departure S of Hatteras is still often a far better way to go... I would suggest that much of the carnage that occurred this year, might have been avoided, if boats had run down the Ditch behind Hatteras, and awaited a window to depart from Beaufort, instead...

Today, it's probably hard for many to imagine what the scene ws like in a place like Beaufort, where cruisers gathered and awaited their window for departure. Remember, this was a time before The Weather Channel existed, where it was almost impossible to obtain much in the way of 'Big Picture' information about systems moving across the continent, or up from the tropics. If I had a boat to bring back from Florida, for example, pretty much the only means I had to plan on a departure date would be to call a friend who lived down there, and ask him to listen to the marine forecast on a VHF... There were no weather routing services, pretty much the sole source of weather information for most was simply awaiting latest offshore/high seas forecast for the next 3 days... Even SSB was a luxury that many of the boats making the trip didn't possess...

Every day, the various crews gathered on the docks, the weather the neverending topic of conversation... The herd instinct at its most elemental, virtually every greeting was along the lines of "I don't know, what do _You_ think?"

Seriously, not all that much has changed...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I don't necessarily disagree, and that is the primary basis for my objection to the inherent nature of these rallies... However, you're dreaming if you don't think this sort of 'herd mentality' never existed prior to the existence of an event like the 1500...


I've never said it didn't exist before these rallies, Jon. I've simply said it _exists_ - and creates a unique set of problems. Again, you keep jumping to these strange, extreme conclusions.

This quote of yours makes a bit more sense:



JonEisberg said:


> My problem with this thread from the get-go, has been the assignment of responsibility on the part of some to the organizers of the SDR that either does not exist, or is no greater than that of the organizers of the 1500... The SDR most certainly did not "encourage or facilitate" these people to sail to the Caribbean, any more so than the 1500 does...


_BOTH_ of these rallies "encourage or facilitate" these people to sail to the Caribbean...in groups. YES, THEY ARE THE SAME IN THIS REGARD. Now, I'm not trying to prove that the C1500 is somehow the perfect rally. I'm simply saying that, due to all the kinds of issues you've just chronicled above, having ISAF-based safety standards and safety inspections to ensure at least some level of preparedness IS BETTER THAN HAVING NO STANDARDS/INSPECTIONS. In fact the latter seems pretty irresponsible if you're organizing a rally. So - again, BOTH rallies should have the same high standards of safety. That's been my point all along.

ccriders nailed it above. It's really not that complicated.


----------



## 34crealock

As to " herd" mentality, I have seen that with very experienced airline crews who don't want to launch into a wall of thunderstorms on their radar, so one guy says, it doesn't look that bad and moves to the head of the line and takes off and suddenly they all start requesting clearance to depart. No one wants to appear wimpy.
The thing about experience at sea( previous passages of X miles)how do you verify this stuff, is it all pencil whipped like some GC licenses, or do you need to be "signed off" by some captain with credentials.


----------



## smackdaddy

34crealock said:


> The thing about experience at sea( previous passages of X miles)how do you verify this stuff, is it all pencil whipped like some GC licenses, or do you need to be "signed off" by some captain with credentials.


I think that's a great question. And I think it's yet another reason that the NARC safety standards approach is a sensible one. Much harder to fake that stuff.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by 34crealock
> The thing about experience at sea( previous passages of X miles)how do you verify this stuff, is it all pencil whipped like some GC licenses, or do you need to be "signed off" by some captain with credentials.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a great question. And I think it's yet another reason that the NARC safety standards approach is a sensible one. Much harder to fake that stuff.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the NARC's "Safety Standards"?

Other than limiting participation to larger, "Professionally Crewed" boats that can make it to Bermuda in 4 days?

Whatever 'safety standards' they were going with 2 years ago sure didn't keep them from getting clobbered...


----------



## tempest

I think the following excerpts below from the 2011 Narc Rally sums it up nicely:

Namaste had a very quick three-and-a-half day passage that was “actually easier than I expected and faster than I had hoped for,” said skipper Bill Fraser-Harris. 

“I learned from other boats’ experiences that it is vital to depart in a weather window that is appropriate to your boat speed. While a group/fleet departure has its benefits, they should never outweigh your individual decision process.”


This point was the reason why Bob and Sharon Heckman decided not to head directly to Bermuda aboard their Hylas 46, Shazza, with the rest of the NARC fleet, but instead sail down the coast to Virginia and plan a crossing from there. 

“Each skipper must evaluate the weather data as it relates to his own capabilities, speed, and comfort level,” remarked Heckman. “These are very unlikely the same as the rally leader. 

Think about what the decision would be if there were no commitments, not even the destination. Resist making any commitments to deadlines.”


Lessons Learned
Weather between New England and Bermuda is reliably unstable in October and November, as strong cold fronts drive cold air from the U.S. into warm sub-tropical Atlantic waters, explains weather router Chris Parker: “The combination of cold air and warm water can support explosive convection and severe squalls. Cold fronts often stall and fester, with warm waters supporting ample evaporation, which feeds convection, and can lead to tropical low-pressure system formation.”
Nine-time Newport-Bermuda Race veteran John Rousmaniere advises that you should “anticipate that the route to and from Bermuda will always be rough, if not stormy, and prepare your boat for that.”


----------



## aeventyr60

He who hath the most time hath the best weather. Schedules? Geez, imminent disaster in the making.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Do you have a link to the NARC's "Safety Standards"?
> 
> Other than limiting participation to larger, "Professionally Crewed" boats that can make it to Bermuda in 4 days?
> 
> Whatever 'safety standards' they were going with 2 years ago sure didn't keep them from getting clobbered...


My bad. I typed NARC when I meant C1500 (i.e. - WCC ARC rallies).


----------



## flyingjib

We were on our way to Bermuda and crossed golfstream at the same time as the Salty Dogs boats. 

We encountered constant 25 to 35 knots but fortunately from the south and high seas (10' to 12'). Pushed us off course a bit but it was manageable. We were on a C&C 35-2.

The most unsettling thing was to hear the USCG calls that night. Navy was involved as well. I remember one boat had trouble responding to the radio calls so they ended up communicating via their Nav lights! CG hovered around until they could get a clear response. These folks do great work...


----------



## JonEisberg

John Harries - one of my favorite Voices of Reason - weighs in...

He's spot on, as usual:

Atlantic Sailboat Rallies Are Not A Good Idea In The Fall



> The point is that, in my view, counter-intuitively, the tougher the passage the LESS desirable joining a rally is.


----------



## smackdaddy

> I really encourage everyone, and particularly those with less ocean experience, to stay away from these rallies in the fall. In my opinion, they confer an illusion of safety in numbers, that encourages the unprepared and inexperienced to go to sea when they shouldn't, combined with a herding sense of urgency to depart. Yes, I know the Salty Dawg didn't have a set departure date, but the pressure to go with friends and other boats is still there.


Exactly.

Now Jon, about this...



JonEisberg said:


> Can you cite where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'? Who is fostering such a perception, precisely?


...did you want to, ahm, clarify your position?


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> John Harries - one of my favorite Voices of Reason - weighs in...
> 
> He's spot on, as usual:
> 
> Atlantic Sailboat Rallies Are Not A Good Idea In The Fall


More importantly is his discussion on Basic Seamanship & Preparedness. Something that many are missing in this and other threads.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Now Jon, about this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Can you cite where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'? Who is fostering such a perception, precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> ...did you want to, ahm, clarify your position?
Click to expand...

...did you want to, ahm, show me where the organizers of the Salty Dawg Rally have ever *specifically cited an argument touting 'safety in numbers'?* Perhaps that argument is buried somewhere in their 'Mission Statement', I just haven't found it, and so I will have to await your cite...

I suggest you re-read my earlier posts throughout this thread - particularly #373 and 375 - should you require additional "clarification"  Sorry, I'm close to being 'talked-out' on this issue, I don't see the point of having to repeat myself over and over, again...

Look, I've never denied that the perception of 'Safety in Numbers' exists surrounding these rallies. It always has, and always will...

I simply don't see where the organizers of the SDR are specifically fostering it, especially when they have bent over backwards to make it clear that each individual participant is solely responsible for making their own decisions regarding the preparation of their boats, and choosing their own route and time of departure from Hampton...

The herding instinct will always exist to a certain extent among sailors traveling in company, and following the seasons... Hell, I even see it among folks just motoring down the ICW - it's amazing how soon after passing thru Norfolk various 'herds' can form, often being guided by some Waterway Guru who might have made the trip before...

I simply think the organizers of the SDR have been unfairly targeted in this thread - especially when the way in which their rally is organized _specifically_ places _more_ personal responsibility upon each individual participant than the 1500, or most other rallies I know of...

And, I'm starting to grow weary of saying so over, and over, and over again... Which doesn't happen often, for me


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I simply think the organizers of the SDR have been unfairly targeted in this thread - especially when the way in which their rally is organized _specifically_ places _more_ personal responsibility upon each individual participant than the 1500, or most other rallies I know of...


The SDR has not been unfairly targeted in this thread. As Morganscloud said, ~5% of this fleet required SAR - in a "near gale".



> Morganscloud: My point is that this was at worst a near-gale at sea, more likely just a pretty normal frontal passage-not the Queens Birthday Storm or the 79 Fastnet-but nearly 5% of the fleet needed assistance. *I think this is simply not good enough and reflects badly on all of us in the offshore voyaging community.*


I completely agree with him. So, I think the real takeaway here is that the way their rally is organized seems to be wrong.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> The SDR has not been unfairly targeted in this thread. As Morganscloud said, ~5% of this fleet required SAR - in a "near gale".
> 
> I completely agree with him. So, I think the real takeaway here is that the way their rally is organized seems to be wrong.


Well, a far greater percentage of the 22 boats in the 2011 NARC Rally had to be abandoned, with the loss of one life...

But, yeah, it's the way the SDR is organized that's all wrong


----------



## Yorksailor

This whole scenario is a difficult problem and the 'Rally Theory' is based on three false premises:

*One...*There is a weather window on November the first between the last tropical storm and the first northern winter storm that not only exists but can be predicted by a weather router.

*Two...*There is safety in numbers.

*Three...*That somehow if you spend enough money on a boat and toys it will magically imbue the owner with the requisite seamanship skills to handle storm force conditions.

I think the question that every skipper and crew, entered into the Rally, should be forced to address in public is:

If we run into 50+ knots and 25 ft seas for 48 hours we all have the experience to handle the conditions. Even if the most experienced person on the boat is injured! And my boat can also meet that standard.

I think that many boats can meet the above test, but there is a significant number that cannot. But then it is a free Country and as the man at the County Fair said,

"You pays your money and you takes your chances!"

But I also agree at least partially with the great English single hander Blondie Hasler, who said,

"Gentlemen should not carry radios because if they do they might be tempted to call for help and put another person (USCG rescue swimmer?) at risk!"


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, a far greater percentage of the 22 boats in the 2011 NARC Rally had to be abandoned, with the loss of one life...
> 
> But, yeah, it's the way the SDR is organized that's all wrong


You keep comparing the two in areas where I don't see a lot of specific similarities. For example, this is what hit the 2011 NARC fleet:









_That's "TS Sean"_

Please read Morganscloud's assessment of the SDR conditions again and explain to me how they relate.

If I recall correctly from my research for my recent rescue article, _Elle_ (steering failure) and _Triple Stars_ (COB) were abandoned - and _Riot_ was towed in after a steering failure while on final approach to St. George harbor (no SAR).

So, if this is correct, you're right - 2 boats is twice the percentage of the fleet compared to the SDR (though I would not really put _Triple Stars_ in the same category due to the circumstances - which would bring the percentages more in line with one another).

Even so, considering the conditions, the SDR was far more a poor reflection on seamanship (as Morganscloud says) - than what happened with the NARC.

You've still presented nothing that sways me from the belief that the SDR (and/or any rally out there) should EITHER institute ISAF-based safety standards like the NARC - OR greatly increase the experience level required for participation _(or both!)_...SO THAT when the SDR puts all the onus on the skippers, they at least will be somewhat certain those skippers can handle it.

And/or maybe - as Morganscloud says - they should do away with the fall rallies altogether (though I personally wouldn't go that far).


----------



## Argyle38

smackdaddy said:


> The SDR has not been unfairly targeted in this thread. As Morganscloud said, ~5% of this fleet required SAR - in a "near gale".
> 
> I completely agree with him. So, I think the real takeaway here is that the way their rally is organized seems to be wrong.


Actually, after reading the article, it seems to me that the takeaway is that fall rallies from the US to the Caribbean or Bermuda are a bad idea. I don't see anything there about the organization of this one in particular being in question.


----------



## smackdaddy

Argyle38 said:


> Actually, after reading the article, it seems to me that the takeaway is that fall rallies from the US to the Caribbean or Bermuda are a bad idea. I don't see anything there about the organization of this one in particular being in question.


I guess it was the title of his article that made me think otherwise: *"Salty Dawg Rally-What The Hell?"*


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> I guess it was the title of his article that made me think otherwise: *"Salty Dawg Rally-What The Hell?"*


When I think about the rally name it just gets funnier, what Salty Dog would join a rally?


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> John Harries - one of my favorite Voices of Reason - weighs in...
> 
> He's spot on, as usual:
> 
> Atlantic Sailboat Rallies Are Not A Good Idea In The Fall


John makes many good points but he has missed one important factor. I'll torture you with some other thoughts before talking about that item.

With regard to safety in numbers I absolutely agree that for all intents and purposes once you leave the dock there is very little value in being part of a rally other than company on the radio and the parties at your destination. There is value in the preparatory seminars and camaraderie. A lot of information is shared there, not just from the presenters but among the participants.

Climate change is unquestionably a factor. Whatever you may think about causality the climate is changing. Herb Hilgenberg and I had a long discussion on this subject almost ten years ago when I was planning my first transatlantic crossing. The real and measurable changes reduces the value of classic Sailing Instructions and pilot charts. Add in the significant changes in boat performance and the historical routes and practices have less relevance than attributed to them. Jimmy Cornell's new Ocean Atlas is one attempt at addressing the change, using modern data collection over a short period of time (years, not decades or centuries) to update the pilot charts. Jimmy and his son are working on a software version to provide the functionality of VPP with the new data set.

John's discussion on windage is important. The "junk on the back" tendency is a huge deal. There is just too much [email protected] back there on many cruising boats. Enclosures, solar panels, davits, wind gens, dinghies, grills, jugs, roller furling sails, and other "stuff" have a bigger impact on sailing performance than most cruisers understand. It is huge and completely unaddressed by any of the sailing/racing rules others have promoted as the "answer" to the "rally problem."

Sailors have to have a means of managing their sail plan. Furling headsails have limitations, not the least of which is windage forward as you roll them up. That's one reason I head offshore with a 100% jib on my furler. It has less windage than my 135 when rolled up. I'm a big fan of cutters and cutter rigged sloops and ketches. The staysail greatly improves pointing (and thus options) and keeps the center of effort in close to the mast. I'm less of a fan of trysails and prefer deeply reefed mains but I won't argue with those who feel differently. The point is to get the sail area down while retaining propulsion and control.

In my opinion cruisers should be as self-sufficient as possible. That means understanding how weather works and having the resources to get weather information on the boat. I like weather fax to get synoptics. I've posted before on the shortfalls of gribs. Regardless, I am in the same camp as Lee Chesneau and Evans Starzinger -- you should be your own best forecaster and router. If you choose to use the services of someone else like Chris Parker (who I know, like, and respect highly) you should be having a _discussion_ with him based on your own observations and not just blindly consuming the guidance of someone else. The weather a router sees looking out the window is not what you see (you are looking out the window, aren't you?). Synoptics, a calibrated barometer (a barograph if you can swing on), and some understanding of meteorology are core to safe passagemaking.

Andy Schell's blatant commercial for the WCC/ARC is just embarrassing. The Caribbean 1500 was down to just 30 boats this year while the Salty Dawg was up to over 130. Anything can certainly be improved, but rallies like the NARC and SDR are clearly attracting more folks than the expensive WCC events. Jimmy Cornell sold the ARC at just the right time. Smart guy. *grin*

The issue that hasn't been addressed is that of the insurance companies policy with regard to named storms and the calendar. The old 1 October date became 1 November. The actuaries decided that another month would reduce the probability of hurricane damage. In exchange those headed South offshore are more likely to hit nasty conditions associated with big frontal passages. Not all of us fit under the bridges on the ICW, and even those who do don't like the journey so much.

I'm not a rally person myself (well, I have spoken at seminars) but I do think they are a perfectly acceptable way to make a passage. When you are at sea you are responsible for your boat, your crew, and yourself. No one else can be responsible for you.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> I simply don't see where the organizers of the SDR are specifically fostering it, especially when they have bent over backwards to make it clear that each individual participant is solely responsible for making their own decisions regarding the preparation of their boats, and choosing their own route and time of departure from Hampton...


Strongly agreed. I was at two of their preparatory events. They were very clear about personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.



JonEisberg said:


> I even see it among folks just motoring down the ICW - it's amazing how soon after passing thru Norfolk various 'herds' can form, often being guided by some Waterway Guru who might have made the trip before...


*grin* Me too. I've snuck out of anchorages at dawn to avoid a row of ducklings who hope I'll make decisions for them.

I've certainly picked up buddy boats before. One single-hander comes to mind that we shared watches with offshore. Entirely different than deferring decision-making.



Yorksailor said:


> *Three...*That somehow if you spend enough money on a boat and toys it will magically imbue the owner with the requisite seamanship skills to handle storm force conditions.


Excellent point. The boats are stronger than the crews. Tactical decision-making on the boat is the biggest factor in success.

Do you know what you're doing? Or do you hope someone will tell you what to do?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You keep comparing the two in areas where I don't see a lot of specific similarities. For example, this is what hit the 2011 NARC fleet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _That's "TS Sean"_
> 
> Please read Morganscloud's assessment of the SDR conditions again and explain to me how they relate.


Probably about as much as the conditions seen in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream this by the 1500 fleet, and some of the SDR fleet, respectively. They were sailing in quite different weather systems, after all...

One thing I do take issue with Harries on this, I believe he may be underestimating a bit the severity of the conditions some of those boats encountered out there... Some very experienced offshore sailors (Brownell's Hylas 54 DISTANT STAR, for one), in some very well-found yachts, saw some pretty serious weather... Unless one had actually been out on the ocean during all three of these events, it's pretty tough to compare the comparative severity - particularly when dealing with the Gulf Stream, which most know can produce extremely variable and localized conditions, where 2 boats mere miles apart can often see entirely different conditions...

So, I have little doubt that some of the boats heading south this year encountered some pretty serious stuff... For example, the Alden 54 ZULU sailed in the 2011 NARC rally, making it to Bermuda with no real problems. Yet in this year's SDR, they were one of the boats that suffered a rudder failure, and had to be towed back in... Go figure...



smackdaddy said:


> So, if this is correct, you're right - 2 boats is twice the percentage of the fleet compared to the SDR (though I would not really put _Triple Stars_ in the same category due to the circumstances - which would bring the percentages more in line with one another).


Hmmm, I'm certainly no math whiz, but I believe 2 boats abandoned out of a fleet of 22, is bit more than twice the percentage of 1 out of 130+, no? 



smackdaddy said:


> Even so, considering the conditions, the SDR was far more a poor reflection on seamanship (as Morganscloud says) - than what happened with the NARC.


Again, I would disagree... Unless one does not include the decision to embark on a passage from Newport to Bermuda in November - while the formation of a tropical storm is taking place in the SW North Atlantic - in their notion of what constitutes 'Seamanship', perhaps... 



smackdaddy said:


> You've still presented nothing that sways me from the belief that the SDR (and/or any rally out there) should EITHER institute ISAF-based safety standards like the NARC - OR greatly increase the experience level required for participation _(or both!)_...SO THAT when the SDR puts all the onus on the skippers, they at least will be somewhat certain those skippers can handle it.


Again, we'll simply have to agree to disagree, as you have yet to present anything that indicates that ISAF-based safety standards would necessarily have made any difference aboard the boats that required assistance in this year's SDR...

For example, what difference did compliance with ISAF standards make aboard TRIPLE STARS in the 2011 NARC? Apparently, Jan Anderson was wearing neither a PFD, nor was tethered, when she was swept overboard and lost... Sure, safety inspections at the dock are a nice idea, but...

Again, not sure why the "experience level of the participants" in the SDR seems to be the focus here... As I've said earlier, I think in the case of all these rallies, that bar is so vague, and set so low, as to be essentially meaningless... The 1500's requirement of a prior 250 mile passage is essentially a joke. As Harries rightly points out, that can be a coastal passage completed in less than 48 hours in benign conditions, well within a forecast weather window, and bearing very little resemblance to the passage to the islands in November...

Of course, there are no simple answers to any of this, I wouldn't begin to want to determine what particular 'standard' anyone has to meet to participate in these rallies... It comes down to each individual skipper to make that determination - which of course highlights the inherent flaw in the offshore rally concept... Namely, that _NO ONE_ should ever be seriously contemplating making this passage, unless they are confident of doing so _COMPLETELY ON THEIR OWN_, without any of the 'guidance', or assistance these rallies claim to provide...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by Argyle38
> Actually, after reading the article, it seems to me that the takeaway is that fall rallies from the US to the Caribbean or Bermuda are a bad idea. I don't see anything there about the organization of this one in particular being in question.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it was the title of his article that made me think otherwise: *"Salty Dawg Rally-What The Hell?"*
Click to expand...

Harries offers a bit more on this, in his reply to Andy Schell in the Comments following his posting:



> I'm sorry, but I can't agree. *While I particularly singled out the Salty Dawg because of what happened this year, I believe that everything I wrote in this post applies equally to all rallies, including the 1500.*
> 
> The bottom line is that, in my opinion, rallies are intrinsically dangerous because they mix a financial interest of the organizer to get as many boats to sign up as possible with the natural human concept of safety in the herd, which in offshore sailing is a delusion.
> 
> I also think that rallies, together with overly controlling weather routers, have, over the years, eroded the basic decision making and risk management skills of offshore sailors by propagating the illusion that someone off the boat can be responsible for said boat's safety.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, I'm certainly no math whiz, but I believe 2 boats abandoned out of a fleet of 22, is bit more than twice the percentage of 1 out of 130+, no?


I totally agree with you. You aren't very good with math. I, like Morganscloud, am talking about the number of SAR cases in each event (though there were actually more calls than cases in the SDR itself, so even that number is low). Where the boat ends up (abandoned or towed) is immaterial.



JonEisberg said:


> Again, we'll simply have to agree to disagree, as you have yet to present anything that indicates that ISAF-based safety standards would necessarily have made any difference aboard the boats that required assistance in this year's SDR...
> 
> For example, what difference did compliance with ISAF standards make aboard TRIPLE STARS in the 2011 NARC? Apparently, Jan Anderson was wearing neither a PFD, nor was tethered, when she was swept overboard and lost... Sure, safety inspections at the dock are a nice idea, but...


Again, you're positing that ISAF-regs need to be a 100% cure-all to be effective. I don't think anyone, except maybe you, thinks that's a reasonable expectation. In fact, I think any _responsible skipper_ (greeen or salty) who values good seamanship would think that following the guidelines and advice offered by the ISAF regs would be a responsible, seamanly way to prep themselves and their boats for offshore passagemaking. And I don't think that skipper would then think that he or she is bulletproof and can be less attentive.

Bad decisions are made all the time by very prepared people...many times with extreme consequences. That's sailing. But this certainly doesn't mean that preparation is then worthless.

However, if you want to be the experienced voice of offshore sailing telling newbie sailors that following safety guidelines like ISAF is useless because things could go wrong anyway...go ahead. I just think that's very dangerous.

There is just no good reason, from a safety perspective, NOT to have them. Period.

At the end of the day, I just agree with Morganscloud more than I agree with you. He says what I've been saying all along in this thread:



> Morganscloud: The bottom line is that, in my opinion, rallies are intrinsically dangerous because they mix a financial interest of the organizer to get as many boats to sign up as possible with the natural human concept of safety in the herd, which in offshore sailing is a delusion.
> 
> I also think that rallies, together with overly controlling weather routers, have, over the years, eroded the basic decision making and risk management skills of offshore sailors by propagating the illusion that someone off the boat can be responsible for said boat's safety.


Bingo.

That said, I do agree with you here...



JonEisberg said:


> I think in the case of all these rallies, that bar is so vague, and set so low, as to be essentially meaningless... The 1500's requirement of a prior 250 mile passage is essentially a joke. As Harries rightly points out, that can be a coastal passage completed in less than 48 hours in benign conditions, well within a forecast weather window, and bearing very little resemblance to the passage to the islands in November...
> 
> Of course, there are no simple answers to any of this, I wouldn't begin to want to determine what particular 'standard' anyone has to meet to participate in these rallies... It comes down to each individual skipper to make that determination - which of course highlights the inherent flaw in the offshore rally concept... Namely, that _NO ONE_ should ever be seriously contemplating making this passage, unless they are confident of doing so _COMPLETELY ON THEIR OWN_, without any of the 'guidance', or assistance these rallies claim to provide...


Bingo II.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Harries offers a bit more on this, in his reply to Andy Schell in the Comments following his posting:


It is worth noting that the SDR doesn't charge to join the rally. Many parties are free and you pay a la carte for those you want to attend. It's hard to make the financial argument there. Schell is defensive about the hit the 1500 has taken by other events, in my opinion.

Jon - your math is correct.

Like Jon I know people who sailed in the SDR this year. While conditions offshore are generally over reported, the folks I heard from are experienced and I find their reports credible. Conditions were worse than predicted or indicated by official sources. A lot worse? Don't know.

With regard to ISAF and other offshore safety regulations I suggest you consider this: _S/V Hawk_ does not meet those requirements. I'd sail with Beth and Evans on _Hawk_ anywhere. I'd welcome them aboard _Auspicious_ (also not currently meeting ISAF requirements) - wait I did, but just for drinks. Ultimately the crew is more important than the boat. That's where all the rallies fall short - too much emphasis on the boat and not enough on the crew.


----------



## TomMaine

Has any rally negativity stopped anyone from participating in, Rallies? I do see the SDR has grown exponentially in just 3 years. That looks like a vote for that type of less stringent rally, and that they are gaining in popularity. 

I see the problems that Rally-negs dwell on('herding'), but in Rally's-vs- Solo boats, does anyone know if these problems are more common on a per boat basis in Rally-vs-solo boats? 

Or is just that you get the condensed version of 100 boats sailing at the same time, vs 100 boats sailing at 100 different times. 

It seems all the boats and crews that set out to sea are completely different from each other. Articles like Harries try to put them all in one box. 

No offense to Rally-negs(and Smackdaddy, the OP), but, have Rally's,...gone wrong?


----------



## blowinstink

I think you make a really good point Tom. 

The more meaningful discussion around the rallys is less about Rally A vs Rally B and more about what sorts of things that aspiring offshore sailors (individually) should be thinking about in advance of their departure. Where they leave from (Newport vs Norfolk vs Beaufort) is a huge under-discussed point; what experience level they feel is appropriate is another (you can preach hard rules but you may as well howl at the moon); what equipment another (my boat is smaller than the smallest in either rally . . . what does or should that mean?). 

You must make those decisions whether you shove off alone or as part of an organized passage. Rallys may entice some because of the social and or logistical benefits, but I doubt anyone is really saying to themselves, I am going to sail in Rally A because their inspection requires IASF regs, etc.. The fact is the decisions about experience and equipment and jump off spot and all need to be made by the skipper whether they are part of a rally or not. The experience of those respective fleets (and fleets in many rallys in recent years) should be instructive. Unfortunately, I think many are reluctant to relate those experiences because of the sort of posturing that goes on in many of these threads.

Anyway, not to hijack smack's thread, but I'd find a discussion of those points much more enlightening and useful than a bunch of absolutes about what rallys should or should not be.


----------



## Argyle38

SVAuspicious said:


> The issue that hasn't been addressed is that of the insurance companies policy with regard to named storms and the calendar. The old 1 October date became 1 November. The actuaries decided that another month would reduce the probability of hurricane damage. In exchange those headed South offshore are more likely to hit nasty conditions associated with big frontal passages. Not all of us fit under the bridges on the ICW, and even those who do don't like the journey so much.


This this this and some more this! I really think the insurance considerations might be the real elephant in the room that has not really been brought up. People (and their associated rallys) are allowing financial considerations trump safety. The month of October is still certainly still hurricane season, but tropical cyclone prediction seems quite a bit more accurate than North Atlantic fronts. That seems like it would make an October passage a better bet than November. Of course that makes rallys tough, since if there is a tropical storm or hurricane in the area, you could end up staying for a couple of weeks until it goes where it is going to go.


----------



## Argyle38

SVAuspicious said:


> With regard to ISAF and other offshore safety regulations I suggest you consider this: *S/V Hawk does not meet those requirements.* I'd sail with Beth and Evans on _Hawk_ anywhere. I'd welcome them aboard _Auspicious_ (also not currently meeting ISAF requirements) - wait I did, but just for drinks. Ultimately the crew is more important than the boat. That's where all the rallies fall short - too much emphasis on the boat and not enough on the crew.


Wow, really? The fact that a boat like Hawk, which is to me almost the definition of a properly designed and outfitted expedition vessel, does not meet ISAF req's but that abomination that Jon showed a picture of in this thread does, tells me a lot about ISAF requirements.

I would still say they might be good guidelines, but to require them to be followed to enter a rally, should on so desire, seems rather silly to me.


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> I think you make a really good point Tom.
> 
> The more meaningful discussion around the rallys is less about Rally A vs Rally B and more about what sorts of things that aspiring offshore sailors (individually) should be thinking about in advance of their departure. Where they leave from (Newport vs Norfolk vs Beaufort) is a huge under-discussed point; what experience level they feel is appropriate is another (you can preach hard rules but you may as well howl at the moon); what equipment another (my boat is smaller than the smallest in either rally . . . what does or should that mean?).
> 
> You must make those decisions whether you shove off alone or as part of an organized passage. Rallys may entice some because of the social and or logistical benefits, but I doubt anyone is really saying to themselves, I am going to sail in Rally A because their inspection requires IASF regs, etc.. The fact is the decisions about experience and equipment and jump off spot and all need to be made by the skipper whether they are part of a rally or not. The experience of those respective fleets (and fleets in many rallys in recent years) should be instructive. Unfortunately, I think many are reluctant to relate those experiences because of the sort of posturing that goes on in many of these threads.
> 
> Anyway, not to hijack smack's thread, but I'd find a discussion of those points much more enlightening and useful than a bunch of absolutes about what rallys should or should not be.


I agree that Tom makes some good points. And so do you. So don't worry about hijacking anything. It's a discussion.

However, I also agree with Morganscloud's take. For example, despite your point above Ausp, I absolutely do think you can make the same financial argument for the SDR that you can for the 1500. The SDR pulls in sponsorships (stuff/money) which will be based on their numbers of participants - so there is financial incentive, despite the fact that there is no entry fee. That's just the way it is. Any other argument is a smokescreen.

I think Tom's and stink's points above are where the rubber really meets the road. If ANY rally has such a low bar for entry that you're not getting people that know and have the answers to the questions above, you're being very irresponsible facilitating them heading out into the GS in November. Period.

And this irresponsibility is then compounded if you're not taking any steps to ensure some level of safety across the fleet you've organized.

So, all of your points are valid. And much of this debate would be moot merely by the rally organizers increasing the level of experience for participants. As for what that bar is - that's the discussion.

Finally, Tom, in light of the number of SAR cases in this particular rally, I'm comfortable saying that yes, this was one that "gone wrong".


----------



## smackdaddy

Argyle38 said:


> Wow, really? The fact that a boat like Hawk, which is to me almost the definition of a properly designed and outfitted expedition vessel, does not meet ISAF req's but that abomination that Jon showed a picture of in this thread does, tells me a lot about ISAF requirements.
> 
> I would still say they might be good guidelines, but to require them to be followed to enter a rally, should on so desire, seems rather silly to me.


So arg - I'm trying to figure out your stance here. Do you support these types of fall rallies?

And if so, are you saying that these organizations should not worry about a standard of experience or safety?


----------



## TomMaine

smackdaddy said:


> Finally, Tom, in light of the number of SAR cases in this particularly rally, I'm comfortable saying that yes, this was one that "gone wrong".


Fair enough. What evidence convinces you that number of 'cases' in the 120+- SDR participants are at a higher rate than solo boats?


----------



## SVAuspicious

blowinstink said:


> Where they leave from (Newport vs Norfolk vs Beaufort) is a huge under-discussed point


So let's talk about that. Given a choice I'd leave from Norfolk (actually Little Creek) first, second choice Newport, last choice Beaufort.



blowinstink said:


> what experience level they feel is appropriate is another (you can preach hard rules but you may as well howl at the moon)


How do you measure that? Do you mean experience or competence?

I've put two 500 ton masters off boats on deliveries. Clearly paper isn't a good measure.



Argyle38 said:


> This this this and some more this! I really think the insurance considerations might be the real elephant in the room that has not really been brought up. People (and their associated rallys) are allowing financial considerations trump safety. The month of October is still certainly still hurricane season, but tropical cyclone prediction seems quite a bit more accurate than North Atlantic fronts. That seems like it would make an October passage a better bet than November. Of course that makes rallys tough, since if there is a tropical storm or hurricane in the area, you could end up staying for a couple of weeks until it goes where it is going to go.


Yep. The other reality is that many rally participants, while having some schedule flexibility, have obligations at home and feel under schedule pressure.

Warning - story follows.

I was headed to the BVI one year (or maybe the Bahamas - I don't remember) with two friends aboard as crew. Janet was going to fly in and meet me. As is my practice we left Annapolis and sailed straight through to Little Creek. It was clear from synoptics (weather fax on board) that we weren't going. Janet had schedule issues that didn't let us wait a week. Instead we had a boy's cruise back up the Bay, eating down the provisions onboard, and had a nice time. Janet and I both flew to the islands for her vacation.

If you have schedule constraints you HAVE to be willing to give up on destinations.



Argyle38 said:


> Wow, really? The fact that a boat like Hawk, which is to me almost the definition of a properly designed and outfitted expedition vessel, does not meet ISAF req's but that abomination that Jon showed a picture of in this thread does, tells me a lot about ISAF requirements.


Read Evans FAQ page on their website and you'll see a number of choices they have made, carefully and on purpose, that conflict with ISAF. I won't argue with any of their choices.

By the way, Evans has brought _Hawk_ to the SSCA Annapolis Gam the last two years and is very approachable. Very good people. Really good stories seem to occur around him. Y'all come next year.


----------



## smackdaddy

TomMaine said:


> Fair enough. What evidence convinces you that number of 'cases' in the 120+- SDR participants are at a higher rate than solo boats?


That I don't know. This was one of your questions that I thought was very good though.

To be honest, my guess is that the percentages would be close comparing the two. If this were the case, however, the issue would be more that of stretching the CG's resources by concentrating so many calls in one time period. This is a rally danger in and of itself that hasn't really been addressed.


----------



## Argyle38

smackdaddy said:


> So arg - I'm trying to figure out your stance here. Do you support these types of fall rallies?
> 
> And if so, are you saying that these organizations should not worry about a standard of experience or safety?


Basically my view is that there is room for all sorts of Rallies with varying levels of requirements, so long as anyone is free to head out of the inlet on their boats, regardless of how well prepared.

If one boat can go out unprepared, two boats can sail together, happens all the time. If two boats can go, then four boats can travel together, and so on until you have a rally. There is really nothing any of us can do about except preach against going to sea unprepared, which is a noble cause in general. But, in my opinion, preparedness is 100% on the captain and 0% on any rally organizer.

If you don't think the SDR is good enough because they don't require enough experience or equipment, then that's fine, don't join. I just don't think they should be prevented from organizing because of that. And the revelation that Hawk isn't ISAF compliant shows that particular standard is not the final word in seaworthiness.

However, after saying all that, joining a fall rally is not something that I would likely do.


----------



## blowinstink

SVAuspicious said:


> So let's talk about that. Given a choice I'd leave from Norfolk (actually Little Creek) first, second choice Newport, last choice Beaufort.


I'd defer to your experience (as you know, I have one marginally successful offshore passage and a half dozen 24-48hr coastal runs so I am hardly experienced). However, on our trip in 2011 to the Abacos from Beaufort, the difference between being across the GS in 30 hours (as you are leaving B-fort) when the weather began departing pretty dramatically from the forecast was huge. If we'd have left from Norfolk , not only would we have experienced a significantly stronger frontal passing -- but we would have been in the middle of the GS when the weather deteriorated(it would take our boat 60+hrs to clear the GS). Don Street seems to strongly favor the more southern jump. I am curious, what makes you prefer the Chesapeake (Little Creek) departure? The only reason I can see for wanting to leave from further north would be for those headed to the eastern Caribbean who was to use the GS to make some of that easting (is that what you were getting at?).



SVAuspicious said:


> How do you measure that? Do you mean experience or competence?


I have no way of knowing. We learned so many lessons -- tangible and intangible on that passage. The Rally organizers by virtue of your experiences are your contemporaries, not mine. I don't know how they ought to weigh different folks' experience. If forced into the organizer's shoes, I think I'd be inclined not to endeavor to judge at all. Perhaps by staying out of that entirely, they would impress upon the participants that the decision was truly theirs alone. I really can't say.

I do think it is important to draw a distinction between a rally inducing sailors to take passages they otherwise would not (clearly bad) vs a rally not setting high enough standards for sailors who have otherwise made a decision to undertake the passage (much more of a mixed bag IMO).

One thing that I do know relevant to this thread is that when we decided to head offshore in 2011 it was serious decision and not one I took lightly at all. In some ways, I think we were well prepared and in others we certainly were not. The end result -- we got there safely though in less than fine form -- probably reflects both of those truths. The lessons from that trip are countless and invaluable. They are tangible and intangible and they simply were not going to come from anywhere other than doing it. You can probably make a good case that I would have done well to crew on an longer offshore passage first. The fact of the matter was I was unlikely to do that then (more likely now). I'm itching to get out there again!!!

I've given some thought to trying to distill the parts of our decision-making process (and subsequent lessons) that are relevant here. Our prior inexperience is very similar to the "target sailor" of this discussion (were we prepared enough?). Our experience in the passage itself -- watching both Rallies that year (and knowing prior history not to mention learning of the Triple Star tragedy the day before we left Beaufort) and encountering weather significantly outside of the forecast, etc., is also pretty apt. It would probably take a couple of hours to do it justice. So well, see.


----------



## Argyle38

SVAuspicious said:


> Read Evans FAQ page on their website and you'll see a number of choices they have made, carefully and on purpose, that conflict with ISAF. I won't argue with any of their choices.
> 
> By the way, Evans has brought _Hawk_ to the SSCA Annapolis Gam the last two years and is very approachable. Very good people. Really good stories seem to occur around him. Y'all come next year.


I actually got a close look at Hawk last year and the year before when Beth and Evans wintered over here in Milford, CT. They kept the boat at the same yard where I keep mine. Never met them though.

Love to come to a gam some time. Probably not next year, but might be heading south in a couple of years (not in a rally though).


----------



## smackdaddy

Argyle38 said:


> Basically my view is that there is room for all sorts of Rallies with varying levels of requirements, so long as anyone is free to head out of the inlet on their boats, regardless of how well prepared.
> 
> However, after saying all that, joining a fall rally is not something that I would likely do.


Okay. That's what I thought. So at the end of the day, you don't want _anyone_ to be "regulated" (organizations or individuals)...but you have no interest in doing a rally anyway. I think that's probably a pretty common stance for many.

The only problem with this stance (as previously pointed out) comes when you're also one who thinks that sailors should be self-sufficient, having as little impact on CG resources as humanly possible. Rallies can obviously cause a tremendous amount of strain on these resources simply due to the fact that so many boats (with varying levels of preparedness) are in the same conditions at the same time. You just can't have it both ways.


----------



## SVAuspicious

blowinstink said:


> I'd defer to your experience (as you know, I have one marginally successful offshore passage and a half dozen 24-48hr coastal runs so I am hardly experienced). However, on our trip in 2011 to the Abacos from Beaufort, the difference between being across the GS in 30 hours (as you are leaving B-fort) when the weather began departing pretty dramatically from the forecast was huge. If we'd have left from Norfolk , not only would we have experienced a significantly stronger frontal passing -- but we would have been in the middle of the GS when the weather deteriorated(it would take our boat 60+hrs to clear the GS). Don Street seems to strongly favor the more southern jump. I am curious, what makes you prefer the Chesapeake (Little Creek) departure? The only reason I can see for wanting to leave from further north would be for those headed to the eastern Caribbean who was to use the GS to make some of that easting (is that what you were getting at?).


Reasonable questions, and I'd value Jon's thoughts as we haven't talked about this before.

See the current RTOFS model imagery here.

Heading South I want to get East as far North as I can; keep track of where the trades kick in. Leaving from Chesapeake Bay at 135T from the sea buoy you cross the GS where it is usually pretty narrow and NEly. That means there is as much fair Easting as foul Northing. Relative to Newport you cross the GS much sooner and so have better weather information when the sea temperature starts to rise. Relative to Beaufort the GS is usually narrower and the islands are no further away. From the Chesapeake if you stay off the beach you'll miss most of the unpleasantness of the fronts hitting the warm water over Diamond Shoals. It's not a perfect answer but on the boats I sail my choices are Chesapeake, Newport, Beaufort. YMMV.

On this thread we have talked about the illusion of safety from numbers. We haven't talked about the illusion of safety of being near shore. For myself on the US East Coast I want to get East of the GS and into warmer and deeper water as quickly as possible. When in doubt go out.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Argyle38 said:


> Love to come to a gam some time. Probably not next year, but might be heading south in a couple of years (not in a rally though).


There is a great new SSCA Gam in Essex CT. Late June this year I think. The Osbornes have been doing a great job organizing it.


----------



## Argyle38

smackdaddy said:


> Okay. That's what I thought. So at the end of the day, you don't want _anyone_ to be "regulated" (organizations or individuals)...but you have no interest in doing a rally anyway. I think that's probably a pretty common stance for many.
> 
> The only problem with this stance (as previously pointed out) comes when you're also one who thinks that sailors *should* be self-sufficient, having as little impact on CG resources as humanly possible. Rallies can obviously cause a tremendous amount of strain on these resources simply due to the fact that so many boats (with varying levels of preparedness) are in the same conditions at the same time. You just can't have it both ways.


The problem with that statement is that you are saying that sailors SHOULD be self-sufficient, etc. but you seem want to regulate them so that the "should" becomes a "must" and I believe that is where we disagree. I agree that sailors SHOULD be self-sufficient, and use the CG only as the very last resort, I am just not interested in forcing that behavior via any laws or regulations.

Also, the CG runs missions in all weather independent of whether there is an actual rescue, that is why they are so good at it when it counts, so rescues actually don't overly tax their resources, in most cases.


----------



## Argyle38

SVAuspicious said:


> There is a great new SSCA Gam in Essex CT. Late June this year I think. The Osbornes have been doing a great job organizing it.


Cool! Hopefully I'll have Argyle splashed by then  I'll check it out.

Thanks.


----------



## smackdaddy

Argyle38 said:


> The problem with that statement is that you are saying that sailors SHOULD be self-sufficient, etc. but you seem want to regulate them so that the "should" becomes a "must" and I believe that is where we disagree. I agree that sailors SHOULD be self-sufficient, and use the CG only as the very last resort, I am just not interested in forcing that behavior via any laws or regulations.
> 
> Also, the CG runs missions in all weather independent of whether there is an actual rescue, that is why they are so good at it when it counts, so rescues actually don't overly tax their resources, in most cases.


Got it. Thanks.

As long as you (and others with this stance) don't mind less experienced sailors getting into trouble and calling in the CG when things are not "very last resort" - I guess there's no problem. It's their "right". I just think most in your group have a problem carrying this logic through.

As for me, in terms of _organized sailing_ (races or rallies) - you're right, I think the standard for entry should match the level of potential difficulty/danger. That's just good for sailing.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I totally agree with you. You aren't very good with math. I, like Morganscloud, am talking about the number of SAR cases in each event (though there were actually more calls than cases in the SDR itself, so even that number is low). Where the boat ends up (abandoned or towed) is immaterial.


OK, we'll agree to disagree... I'd suggest there is at least some minor distinction between the case of the dismasted HC 38 that eventually made port under their own power, and the evacuation/abandonment of that OI 41 that required a CG rescue swimmer to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft into the Gulf Stream in the middle of the night... But, that's probably just me - or, maybe that CG helo crew, as well 



smackdaddy said:


> Again, you're positing that ISAF-regs need to be a 100% cure-all to be effective.


No, I'm not...



smackdaddy said:


> I don't think anyone, except maybe you, thinks that's a reasonable expectation. In fact, I think any _responsible skipper_ (greeen or salty) who values good seamanship would think that following the guidelines and advice offered by the ISAF regs would be a responsible, seamanly way to prep themselves and their boats for offshore passagemaking.
> 
> However, if you want to be the experienced voice of offshore sailing telling newbie sailors that following safety guidelines like ISAF is useless because things could go wrong anyway...go ahead. I just think that's very dangerous.
> 
> There is just no good reason, from a safety perspective, NOT to have them. Period.


Sorry, but I don't understand where you get the idea I believe ISAF guidelines are "useless"... Certainly, they are a decent starting point. But as someone else already noted, they put the focus on the preparation of the _boat_, instead of the _sailor_... And, they often tend to focus on relatively minor details, while ignoring more consequential matters such as the stowage of massive dinghies on davits, or lining the rail with jerry jugs of diesel... Frankly, I think a careful reading of books by people like Beth Leonard, Steve Dashew, Nigel Calder and Bill Siefert will prove far more productive than ticking off boxes on some ISAF checklist...

Dave has attended some of the SDR's pre-rally seminars, perhaps he can speak better to the sorts of things that were stressed during those... I've met Bill and Linda Knowles, and understand their motivation for starting the SDR, after realizing the 1500 was affording precious little 'bang for the buck' for repeat participants... They wanted an alternative, providing the most essential benefits such as weather routing... However, considering the SDR is being run as a non-profit, and there is no cost to the participants, and the organizers have made it patently clear that they are responsible for their own decisions regarding their own passages, I think it might be a bit of a stretch to expect that Bill and Linda will perform inspections on 130+ boats to ensure they're all in compliance with something like ISAF regs... 

Moreover, I'd guess that the use of ISAF guidelines by a rally like the 1500 might largely be little more than a consequence of some lawyer's concern over liability, rather than a overriding concern over the preparation of their fleet... One can't help but notice that the minimum requirements for participation in the 1500 are FAR less onerous than for something like the Newport-Bermuda Race, for example... Why should that be, for a voyage likely to be twice as long, equally challenging, and undertaken in November, rather than June? Well, I suspect the WCC knows that few would put up with such rigorous requirements as those of the CCA for the Bermuda Race, and their number of participants would continue to dwindle...

IMHO, if there was ONE meaningful requirement any of these rallies might have, it would be that at least ONE of the crew aboard every boat had made the trip before... More than anything, that seems to be the primary problem with this stuff, the absence of any sort of offshore 'apprenticeship' on the part of some of these crews heading offshore, the lack of prior offshore experience on the part of some of the skippers and crews headed out there...

But of course, that's the way of the world, these days... On Monday, I'm headed down to Charleston to pick up another boat to take south - just one more $300K 42-footer that happens to be the owner's first-ever boat...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I've met Bill and Linda Knowles, and understand their motivation for starting the SDR, after realizing the 1500 was affording precious little 'bang for the buck' for *repeat participants*...


Maybe you've just hit on a common-sense standard for entry into the SDR. Do the 1500 first...or the NARC, or the Newport-Bermuda Race, etc. Then, when you have that level of experience, join the more relaxed SDR. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Argyle38

smackdaddy said:


> Got it. Thanks.
> 
> As long as you (and others with this stance) don't mind less experienced sailors getting into trouble and calling in the CG when things are not "very last resort" - I guess there's no problem. It's their "right". *I just think most in your group have a problem carrying this logic through.*
> 
> As for me, in terms of _organized sailing_ (races or rallies) - you're right, I think the standard for entry should match the level of potential difficulty/danger. That's just good for sailing.


I have no problem with your thinking that.


----------



## SVAuspicious

First, if y'all would stop quoting people on my ignore list I'd be able to contribute better. *grin*



JonEisberg said:


> But as someone else already noted, they put the focus on the preparation of the _boat_, instead of the _sailor_... And, they often tend to focus on relatively minor details, while ignoring more consequential matters such as the stowage of massive dinghies on davits, or lining the rail with jerry jugs of diesel...


That would be me. The problem is that as judgment dominates multiple choice questions the determination of who makes the judgment becomes a factor. Who decides? Me? Jon? Some USCG Captain? Some armchair sailor? Who picks the people who pick?

I stand by my point that the crew is a bigger deal than the boat and its equipment. There is no question in my mind on that. What is less clear is how to evaluate who is ready to go offshore. I know a few people that thought they were ready who ended up on the radio or sat phone asking for help.



JonEisberg said:


> Dave has attended some of the SDR's pre-rally seminars, perhaps he can speak better to the sorts of things that were stressed during those... I've met Bill and Linda Knowles, and understand their motivation for starting the SDR, after realizing the 1500 was affording precious little 'bang for the buck' for repeat participants... They wanted an alternative, providing the most essential benefits such as weather routing... However, considering the SDR is being run as a non-profit, and there is no cost to the participants, and the organizers have made it patently clear that they are responsible for their own decisions regarding their own passages, I think it might be a bit of a stretch to expect that Bill and Linda will perform inspections on 130+ boats to ensure they're all in compliance with something like ISAF regs...


Absolutely agree. The Knowles are doing a wonderful thing for the cruising community. More training and seminars and roundtables are, in my opinion, of greater value than inspections.



JonEisberg said:


> IMHO, if there was ONE meaningful requirement any of these rallies might have, it would be that at least ONE of the crew aboard every boat had made the trip before... More than anything, that seems to be the primary problem with this stuff, the absence of any sort of offshore 'apprenticeship' on the part of some of these crews heading offshore, the lack of prior offshore experience on the part of some of the skippers and crews headed out there...


I think I understand what Jon intends but it comes back to who decides what experience counts. Some people are crew, some are "watch captains," and some are passengers. Who decides? Still evaluating people is more useful than checklists for boat systems.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> First, if y'all would stop quoting people on my ignore list I'd be able to contribute better. *grin*


Contribute what?



SVAuspicious said:


> Absolutely agree. The Knowles are doing a wonderful thing for the cruising community.


That, of course, is highly debatable. Morganscloud didn't seem to think so...as a start.

Look you and Jon know these people personally. So an objective viewpoint is NOT going to be your strong suit here. And that's cool, but at least be real about it.

To wit...



SVAuspicious said:


> I know a few people that thought they were ready who ended up on the radio or sat phone asking for help.


Like the 6 SDR participants? How is this "good for the cruising community".



SVAuspicious said:


> The problem is that as judgment dominates multiple choice questions the determination of who makes the judgment becomes a factor. Who decides? Me? Jon? Some USCG Captain? Some armchair sailor? Who picks the people who pick?
> 
> I think I understand what Jon intends but it comes back to who decides what experience counts. Some people are crew, some are "watch captains," and some are passengers. Who decides? Still evaluating people is more useful than checklists for boat systems.


This is a classic case of "it's not easy so let's not do it". Not a strong argument in my book....especially when, in fact, it's very easy.

You obviously appear to have a personal stake in this. So I think your biased contribution should be weighed accordingly.


----------



## Yorksailor

I have read this thread carefully and the best advice and knowledgeable statements have come from Jon and Auspicious. For Smack to accuse Auspicious of bias is inappropriate.

I hope that potential rally participants read this thread so that they realize the difficulty of the trip and the level of seamanship required. I have written of the fallacies inherent in thinking there is a weather window in which you can magically deliver your boat from the freezing North East to the sunny Caribbean in the month of November with a big party at each end of the trip.

We have come down Island from the NE twice in the last few years and in spite of the fact that we have a big well equipped boat (13 oz cloth main with a 4th storm reef of 110sq ft for a 30 ton boat as an example) and more 'gale time' and 'sea time' than 90% of the people in the Rallies we have chosen to make it a leisurely two month trip. To do otherwise is to risk breaking the prime directive:
*
"Never leave a warm pub to go out in a winter gale!" *

I knew three sailors that died because they broke that rule!

However, we might choose to go off-shore but it would not be to a schedule and it would be after we had assessed the weather data and made our own decision. I would listen and learn from Chris Parker's excellent analysis but we would never 'take his advice'!

I fear that one year the weather routers will get it really wrong and we will have a 'Queen's Birthday' like storm that will do real damage.

The 1994 Queen's birthday storm | Pangolin


----------



## manatee

Weather


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Heading South I want to get East as far North as I can; keep track of where the trades kick in. Leaving from Chesapeake Bay at 135T from the sea buoy you cross the GS where it is usually pretty narrow and NEly. That means there is as much fair Easting as foul Northing. Relative to Newport you cross the GS much sooner and so have better weather information when the sea temperature starts to rise. Relative to Beaufort the GS is usually narrower and the islands are no further away. From the Chesapeake if you stay off the beach you'll miss most of the unpleasantness of the fronts hitting the warm water over Diamond Shoals. It's not a perfect answer but on the boats I sail my choices are Chesapeake, Newport, Beaufort. YMMV.


Well, you're definitely a braver man than I  Newport, or anywhere N of the Chesapeake Entrance are way at the bottom of the list, for me... At least on anything less than a large, fully-crewed, fast yacht capable of making Bermuda in 4 days or so - and I'm not sailing many of those, these days... 

In the fall, I've always wound up departing from the Chesapeake, even with deliveries originating in the NE... I suppose I'd consider shooting straight for Bermuda if the forecast looked virtually certain, but that's a real rarity, difficult to plan for in advance, and might only be taken advantage of on short notice... It's just simpler to plan on running down to Hampton, and staging your departure from there...

You're absolutely right, getting across the Stream as quickly as possible, in favorable conditions, dictates the strategy of the trip, of course... With that in mind, I think Beaufort/Morehead City is really the best point of departure, and on a delivery with an ICW-capable boat, that will always be my fallback plan if having to wait in Hampton for awhile, or if the forecast is uncertain... Haven't made the trip in my own boat yet, but when/if I ever do, Beaufort will definitely be my first choice, unless the forecast from the Chesapeake looks ideal... But, if it's blowing NE in Norfolk, I'd take advantage and sail as much as possible down inside to Beaufort - which IMHO is a far more pleasant spot to wait it out for a favorable window for departure, anyway...

My own little boat is slower than those I deliver offshore, and I'd likely be singlehanding my own, so getting into the Stream shortly out of Beaufort would be critical, for me... It's a pity Hatteras and Ocracoke Inlets are as marginal as they are, they might be the ultimate jumping off spots, and if I were confident of the current status of either, I'd definitely consider either in my own boat. (With someone else's boat, however, perhaps not so much ) You'd have to do your final provisioning beforehand, though, as the shelves of the market in Ocracoke tend to get a bit bare by November/December...

One big advantage of leaving from south of Hatteras as opposed to the Bay, is that it will keep you a bit further south of the area between Hatteras and Bermuda where many late season sub-tropical systems historically tend to be generated... With my own boat, I'll take the possible hit of not making my easting further north, and if I'm only able to fetch Puerto Rico, or even the DR, instead of the Virgins further on down the road, it won't be the end of the world... Ideally, I'd cross the Stream in a SW breeze ahead of a front, and be carried a bit more N, anyway. On a delivery, or in a rally, however, your mindset is gonna be different - focused on a particular destination within a particular time frame... Flights to catch, awards ceremonies to attend, that sort of thing - you're not really 'cruising', in those instances...

I still think the best advice on this trip, by far, is that of the old master, Don Street... I'm amazed how many today seem to consider his view - largely because it was originally written decades ago - as now "old-fashioned", and no longer applicable due to modern weather forecasting... If anything, this year's events support his contention that counting on a reliable window much longer than 36-48 hours off the east coast in late fall, is little more than wishful thinking...

Don Street's Sailing Routes to the Caribbean | Cruising World










One of the best points raised among the Comments to Harries' post on Morganscloud pointed out how so many sailors today have become 'spoiled' by the heightened accuracy of modern forecasting... I never cease to be surprised by the number of folks out there now who appear to take what they see on a site like PassageWeather as virtual gospel - hell, I'm guilty of that sometimes, myself  But the double-edged sword today has become, that so many sailors have been able to complete relatively short coastal passages - the 250 mile 'qualifiers' required by the 1500, for example - completely within an accurately forecast weather window, without ever once having gotten 'caught out' in one of the likely surprises than can occur further offshore, or beyond a forecast of 72 hours, or so...


----------



## SVAuspicious

Yorksailor said:


> I have read this thread carefully and the best advice and knowledgeable statements have come from Jon and Auspicious. For Smack to accuse Auspicious of bias is inappropriate.


Thank you.

I can be very clear. I speak on several sailing subjects through SSCA (Gams and SSU webinars), Sail Magazine events, boat shows, and various rendezvouses. The only ones I get paid for (so far!) are SSU webinars, and that is beer money.

I don't get anything from the Knowles or SDR for supporting them. For anyone to suggest that because I don't agree with an ill-informed position I have a vested interest is offensive. I stand by my statements - the Knowles have organized a non-profit event that promotes education and information sharing associated with a Southern migration that will happen anyway, constrained by insurance company lawyers and actuaries who drive poor decision-making.



Yorksailor said:


> However, we might choose to go off-shore but it would not be to a schedule and it would be after we had assessed the weather data and made our own decision. I would listen and learn from Chris Parker's excellent analysis but we would never 'take his advice'!


I think Chris would agree. What Chris offers is well informed advice. The skipper has ultimate responsibility for decision-making.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, you're definitely a braver man than I  Newport, or anywhere N of the Chesapeake Entrance are way at the bottom of the list, for me...


Not me. I'm a coward. I've been beaten up often enough when I was young and invulnerable to avoid it at all costs. I don't have anything to prove.

I'd rather sit in Little Creek a couple of days for a system to pass then commit to the ICW (if the boat I'm on even fits) and end up in Beaufort only to wait on weather again. I also worry about the cost to my customer - three or four days of fuel and my time to get somewhere from which it will take just as long to get South. On the other hand I can do Norfolk to Beaufort (or Annapolis to Beaufort) single-handed and have crew meet me in Beaufort. That probably means picking up ground transportation for crew from New Bern of course.

The reason I don't like Beaufort NC (although I love the city) is that the Gulf Stream (GS) hasn't really tipped Easterly yet and it tends to be very wide there. By the time it gets a hundred miles North the GS has tightened back up and getting across is faster.

Thanks for the map from Don Street. I'd forgotten that like me he listed Little Creek as the launching point for the mouth of the Chesapeake. At the risk of someone assuming I have an ownership share in the marina (sorry - warped sense of humor) consider Vinings Landing Marina, 8166 Shore Dr, Norfolk, VA 23518, (757) 587-8000. Can walk to Food Lion, walk (if need be) to Norfolk International Airport, good on site restaurant, and if you can schmooze properly get a ride to the new West Marine in Virginia Beach. For really deep draft boats use Little Creek Marina (same owners, good service, longer walks). My reviews are on ActiveCaptain.



JonEisberg said:


> You're absolutely right, getting across the Stream as quickly as possible, in favorable conditions, dictates the strategy of the trip, of course... With that in mind, I think Beaufort/Morehead City is really the best point of departure, and on a delivery with an ICW-capable boat, that will always be my fallback plan if having to wait in Hampton for awhile, or if the forecast is uncertain.


Especially in Fall and Winter months, it's good to be warm as soon as possible. I have a nasty tendency to accept cold weather deliveries. *grin*

I think it is worth noting that I have tremendous respect for you, Jon, and your judgment even when we make different choices, which really isn't that often. For the record I do salute and get in line. If I ever have the chance to sail for you there will be no second guessing. Just hear me out and decide. From our correspondence I suspect you would act that same on my gig. The challenge will be finding a customer to pick us both up. *grin*



JonEisberg said:


> But, if it's blowing NE in Norfolk, I'd take advantage and sail as much as possible down inside to Beaufort - which IMHO is a far more pleasant spot to wait it out for a favorable window for departure, anyway...


I'd much rather spend time in Beaufort than Norfolk. Little Creek is not exactly a mecca for waiting for a weather window - convenient but not attractive. Hampton on the other hand is lovely. If I think I'm going to be stuck for a few days I would seriously consider moving to Hampton for the wait and then staging back to Little Creek when weather starts to clear.


----------



## outbound

Greatly appreciate this thread and have learned a lot. Would you guys care to rip up the thornless path please?
By the way had a really good time in Norfolk given virginia beach is so close


----------



## smackdaddy

Yorksailor said:


> I have read this thread carefully and the best advice and knowledgeable statements have come from Jon and Auspicious. For Smack to accuse Auspicious of bias is inappropriate.
> 
> I hope that potential rally participants read this thread so that they realize the difficulty of the trip and the level of seamanship required.


York, c'mon. According to Ausp, he's _friends with the founders of the SDR_. How on earth can that NOT bias one's opinion? Seriously.

For example, he stated that this rally was "wonderful for the sailing community". Conversely, Morganscloud (a pretty experienced sailor himself) stated the _exact_ opposite in his article, due to how these SAR incidents reflected on all of us. How exactly do you reconcile these two? Is there a bias on one side or the other of this disagreement? Is Morganscloud being "inappropriate"? Remember, Jon stated that Morganscloud's take was "spot on". How does Ausp feel about that?

Furthermore, Jon and Ausp disagree with each other in the posts above. So is this disagreement "inappropriate"? One is obviously biased toward one departure point for very good reasons - the other is the opposite. If, in fact, they are both giving "advice" (instead of stating opinion) - which is right and which is wrong?



SVAuspicious said:


> I don't get anything from the Knowles or SDR for supporting them. For anyone to suggest that because I don't agree with an ill-informed position I have a vested interest is offensive.


I didn't say you had a "vested interest", Ausp. I said your friendship with the Knowles biases your opinion. Is Morganscloud's position "ill-informed" as well?

Look, guys, we are discussing _opinion_ here - _not dogma_. Disagreeing with another person's opinion is not a bad or inappropriate thing. And if being disagreed with hurts your feelings, you might need to harden up a bit.

Furthermore, I've not given "advice" in this thread - I've stated what I think. Again - opinion. If you want to try derive "advice" from the points I've continually made it would be this:

1. Don't do a trip this big, especially in the fall, until you have much more experience than a single off-shore passage - and have dealt with rough conditions.
2. If you don't have a lot of experience, you should, at the least, adhere to an accepted standard like the ISAF regs in prepping and equipping your boat for offshore sailing.
3. The nature of rallies can increase risk due to herd mentality, scheduling, etc. - especially for less experienced sailors. This can cause very real problems.
4. You should not participate in rallies that don't acknowledge these things and/or don't think they are important - at least not until you have a great deal of experience.

I'm having a hard time seeing where this is such an inappropriate view of things.


----------



## christian.hess

this thread is well lost...

who ever wants to go cruising and wants to outfit their damn boat isnt going to go looking at isaf page on outfitting a boat if there even was one

as a level 2 coach certified by isaf there is absolutley nothing anywhere there that would make me outfit my boat differently or add to what I have learned from crewing and sailing my boat around or whatever..

I have learned specifics from doing stuff not adhering to strict rules on whatever name, organizatiion, rally, race, whatever...advocates doing so...

its this rubbish that you learn and become better by "adhering" to standards, from WHEREVER THEY MAY come from what really causes these accidents and disastrous results on simple rallies...if you dont have the experience or are UNwilling to learn what good does it to have the best life raft 2 inches from said position or the best lifeline and quick release system etc...serious question..if you cant deploy it, or you cant relay a ssb call, or cant heave to, or cant rig an emergency ruder etc...what good is it?

that you are in a crowd and can be rescued? well guess what sometimes yo cant be rescued...wah wah...

for petes sake...learn from those that have done such things...if possible and you are young be an apprentice, learn from those that want to teach and not make a buck, and not everything and not everyone with a degree or license, or masters whatever is going to be better than simple straightforward advise you get from those who have done so before you...be humble...

common who gives a rats ass what a rally promises or not? and why blame a rally or organizer of such for promoting a rally...?

why is it we always hold others responsible but not us? its your boat, fix it, refit it...sail...and be happy...LEARN!

man alive!!!!!!

happy sailing guys


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> the points I've continually made it would be this:
> 
> 1. Don't do a trip this big, especially in the fall, until you have much more experience than a single off-shore passage - and have dealt with rough conditions.
> 2. You should, at the least, adhere to an accepted standard like the ISAF regs in prepping and equipping your boat for offshore sailing.
> 3. The nature of rallies can increase risk due to herd mentality, scheduling, etc. - especially for less experienced sailors. This can cause very real problems.
> 4. You should not participate in rallies that don't acknowledge these things and/or don't think they are important - at least not until you have a great deal of experience.
> 
> I'm having a hard time seeing where this is such an inappropriate view of things.


Well, I am more comfortable with advice than rules (I guess that's progress). My thoughts on the above "advice":

1. I think that is unrealistic. I'd be curious how many cruisers met anything like that standard before they went. I think those who are going to go -- go. I have seen people who were way underprepared skate through seemingly treacherous trips and others who hold themselves out as experts get themselves in a boatload of trouble. If you're going to go - take it seriously. What you don't know you'll learn, what will be will be . . ..

2. I think it is worthwhile to review some of the racing and rally boat checklists but you also need to know that no boat is ever ready and if you want to go sometimes you have to go. You need to get yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness.

3. It is definitely worthwhile for people who might be inclined to join rallys to be aware of both the benefits and potential downsides. Nothing about the rally would seem to make the trip inherently safer and it could create a false sense of security. If that is recognized and accounted for, the rally structure and support might be a real benefit for some (weather, coms etc).

4. I don't really understand this one. You shouldn't make a passage you wouldn't otherwise make simply because a rally is going. I think rallies potentially offer some real benefits to people with less experience.

.02


----------



## Donna_F

christian.hess said:


> this thread is well lost...
> 
> who ever wants to go cruising and wants to outfit their damn boat isnt going to go looking at isaf page on outfitting a boat if there even was one
> 
> ...


Actually, I did. (Did that sound like the Gerber baby college fund commercial??)

I looked at one of the Bermuda race requirements for participating boats when I first thought about taking a boat offshore. It was a place to start.

I don't think it's a terrible idea.

(Now I'm backing up in the thread to see what I missed.)


----------



## christian.hess

sorry got harsh there...BUT I think we should be more responsible and not lay blame on any rally, government, coast guard, other cruisers, etc...

basically I have an issue with people getting all into details into what a rally has to offer or not and what they are responsible for vs. what a skipper and boatowner should be thats all...

like many sports where there is the important factor of equipment...

"its not the boat, its the skipper"

or "its not the bike its the rider"

thats what I was trying to emphasize...

peace


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Well, I am more comfortable with advice than rules (I guess that's progress). My thoughts on the above "advice":
> 
> 1. I think that is unrealistic. I'd be curious how many cruisers met anything like that standard before they went. I think those who are going to go -- go. I have seen people who were way underprepared skate through seemingly treacherous trips and others who hold themselves out as experts get themselves in a boatload of trouble. If you're going to go - take it seriously. What you don't know you'll learn, what will be will be . . ..
> 
> 2. I think it is worthwhile to review some of the racing and rally boat checklists but you also need to know that no boat is ever ready and if you want to go sometimes you have to go. You need to get yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness.
> 
> 3. It is definitely worthwhile for people who might be inclined to join rallys to be aware of both the benefits and potential downsides. Nothing about the rally would seem to make the trip inherently safer and it could create a false sense of security. If that is recognized and accounted for, the rally structure and support might be a real benefit for some (weather, coms etc).
> 
> 4. I don't really understand this one. You shouldn't make a passage you wouldn't otherwise make simply because a rally is going. I think rallies potentially offer some real benefits to people with less experience.
> 
> .02


This is what's so strange - and telling - about this debate. It just seems a little psychotic. Here's what I mean...

If a newb came on SN saying "I don't have much off-shore experience, but I'm planning to leave from Newport and head down to the BVIs in November, what should I think about here?"

Would you really say...

"If you're going to go - take it seriously. What you don't know you'll learn, what will be will be . . .."

_You_ very well might. But judging by past threads like this, I can virtually guarantee that this wouldn't be the prevailing sentiment or advice from the experienced sailors here.

I think a major issue here might be the sharply contrasting view of less experienced sailors to that of more experienced sailors. Us less experienced sailors that want to do offshore runs have no idea what "get[ting] yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness" actually means. Yet we understand that we "are going to go" and we will "take it seriously". But really, those are just platitudes. What do we actually _need to do_?

For the newer sailor, it's that space between preparing to go and going that needs specific guidance. That's why the ISAF regs are, to me, a great guide for how to prep and equip my boat for offshore sailing. This is VERY SPECIFIC information gleaned from the best sailors in the world. And I can have it now instead of guessing for years. I'm taking advantage of that...ticking one very important part of the equation off my list. (And yes, I fully understand that this is the boat - not the crew. I and my crew need to gain experience ourselves...which we are.)

The other alternative for the less experienced sailor, apart from going out and guessing, is directly learning from those more experienced - like in a rally setting. As you say, "I think rallies potentially offer some real benefits to people with less experience."

But why then are the most experienced sailors around here (and elsewhere) so set against being in these rallies themselves? Does this mean that maybe these rallies aren't the best place to learn those lessons required for being a self-sufficient skipper? And if this is true, AND if the experience bar for entry is low, is this a recipe for problems?

If a rally is supposed to be for the benefit of those with less experience, then make it so with good, clear guidelines and assistance. What a great learning experience!

However, if a rally is supposed to be for "seasoned sailors", then stick to that with a higher bar for entry.

It's the mixing of these two things, expectations of the experienced with allowance/encouragement of the inexperienced, that causes the problems.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> This is what's so strange - and telling - about this debate. It just seems a little psychotic. Here's what I mean...
> 
> If a newb came on SN saying "I don't have much off-shore experience, but I'm planning to leave from Newport and head down to the BVIs in November, what should I think about here?"
> 
> Would you really say...
> 
> "If you're going to go - take it seriously. What you don't know you'll learn, what will be will be . . .."
> 
> _You_ very well might. But judging by past threads like this, I can virtually guarantee that this wouldn't be the prevailing sentiment or advice.
> 
> I think a major issue here might be the sharply contrasting view of less experienced sailors to that of more experienced sailors. Us less experienced sailors that want to do offshore runs have no idea what "get[ting] yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness" actually means. Yet we understand that we "are going to go" and we will "take it seriously". But really, those are just platitudes. What do we actually _need to do_?
> 
> For the newer sailor, it's that space between preparing to go and going that needs specific guidance. That's why the ISAF regs are, to me, a great guide for how to prep and equip my boat for offshore sailing. This is VERY SPECIFIC information gleaned from the best sailors in the world. And I can have it now instead of guessing for years. I'm taking advantage of that...ticking one very important part of the equation off my list. (And yes, I fully understand that this is the boat - not the crew. I and my crew need to gain experience ourselves...which we are.)
> 
> The other alternative for the less experienced sailor, apart from going out and guessing, is directly learning from those more experienced - like in a rally setting. As you say, "I think rallies potentially offer some real benefits to people with less experience."
> 
> But why then are the most experienced sailors around here (and elsewhere) so set against being in these rallies themselves? Does this mean that maybe these rallies aren't the best place to learn those lessons required for being a self-sufficient skipper? And if this is true, AND if the experience bar for entry is low, is this a recipe for problems?
> 
> If a rally is supposed to be for the benefit of those with less experience, then make it so with good, clear guidelines and assistance. What a great learning experience!
> 
> However, if a rally is supposed to be for "seasoned sailors", then stick to that with a higher bar for entry.
> 
> It's the mixing of these two things, expectations of the experienced with allowance/encouragement of the inexperienced, that causes the problems.


I dunno Smacky. I think in post 402 I tried to say that I thought the discussion about these passages would be more valuable if it focused on things that aspiring offshore sailors should be focused on (that's what I meant by "take it seriously" -- learn what you need to know as best you can recognizing that none of us ever really know what we don't know).

Since then, I think the discussion of jump off points has been pretty insightful. There are certainly other related topics that could be discussed with value (three examples might be: understanding the 2 different likely wx threats -- late season TS's and winter storms; what offshore sailors view as "ready"; and the psychological challenges of decision making offshore) . But as you said, that's "me". I am at the point in this endeavor where I am interested in info that fills in the more subtle distinctions. For instance SVA walked me through the pilot charts before we did our 2011 trip and that was fantastic. But AFTER the trip, I had a much better understanding of what they meant. There is certainly a place for preparation and risk management but I don't think that defines the endeavor of offshore sailing.

And yeah, the forums are nothing if not psychotic bro 

Peace.


----------



## Donna_F

I've never sailed in a rally. I sail in the Chesapeake. I've only kissed the Gulf Stream and the weather was such that for four of the five days the current and engine moved the boat more than the wind. I did, however, just read these 435-odd messages and my head hurts almost as much as the day I was sick on the Stream.

As a new sailor, what I hope other new sailors don't miss in this overwhelming discussion are the messages from all of you who said to take responsibility for your own boat and your own decision making. I don't consider deciding to do what the boat next to me is doing without being fully informed myself a responsible decision. It's my _opinion_ (not advice, but my personal rule) that I want to know as much as I can so that in the end whatever decision I make about my boat is mine _based on all of the information available to me from as many sources as I can garner._

That's it. Back to your discussion. Keep it nice.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Look you and Jon know these people personally. So an objective viewpoint is NOT going to be your strong suit here. And that's cool, but at least be real about it.


Let me be clear, I would not classify Bill and Linda Knowles as 'friends' of mine. They might remember me in person, I seriously doubt they would recognize my name. I first met them about 3 years ago at Bluewater Yachting Center on a delivery north, they had just come in from the BVIs. They invited me aboard for a drink, they were just beginning to think about putting together an alternative to the 1500 at that time...

I ran into them again at Bluewater in Nov 2011, when I was there at the same time as the 1500 and SD fleets, with a boat going to Antigua, independent of either rally... We were all waiting for TS Sean to make its mind, and I probably chatted with them a few times in passing on the docks... That's it...

They're very nice, laid back folks, and obviously very capable sailors... Their motives in forming the SDR seem entirely pure, to me, in line with Bill's longstanding service to the Herreschoff Museum in Bristol, RI, where they spend the summer... I definitely got the impression much of the work he performed was of a voluntary nature...



smackdaddy said:


> Remember, Jon stated that Morganscloud's take was "spot on". How does Ausp feel about that?


However, that doesn't mean I absolutely agree with every single thought Harries has expressed... I've already suggested that I believe he may have understated the severity of the conditions at least some of the SDR fleet may have encountered...



smackdaddy said:


> Furthermore, Jon and Ausp disagree with each other in the posts above. So is this disagreement "inappropriate"? One is obviously biased toward one departure point for very good reasons - the other is the opposite. If, in fact, they are both giving "advice" (instead of stating opinion) - which is right and which is wrong?


Actually, I would categorize what I wrote re the various departure points for this passage as being closer to 'opinion', than 'advice'... At any rate, there seems to be very little distinction between the two, whenever expressed in a forum such as this...



smackdaddy said:


> 3. The nature of rallies can increase risk due to herd mentality, scheduling, etc. - especially for less experienced sailors. This can cause very real problems.
> 4. You should not participate in rallies that don't acknowledge these things and/or don't think they are important ...


Hmmm, can you point to a rally that actually does publicly "acknowledge... the nature of rallies can increase risk due to herd mentality..."? I've never noticed that sort of disclaimer on the 1500's website, for example 

Hell, I would suggest that the Salty Dawg - with their lack of a fixed departure date, and their stated emphasis on the responsibility for decision making being placed on each individual skipper - actually comes closer to making such an 'admission', than any other...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> They're very nice, laid back folks, and obviously very capable sailors... Their motives in forming the SDR seem entirely pure, to me, in line with Bill's longstanding service to the Herreschoff Museum in Bristol, RI, where they spend the summer... I definitely got the impression much of the work he performed was of a voluntary nature...


I have said nothing against those people. I've just questioned the way in which they've set up their rally - in light of the circumstances of these rescues. They are, in fact, doing the exact same thing (upcoming review board). So, it's all good.



JonEisberg said:


> However, that doesn't mean I absolutely agree with every single thought Harries has expressed... I've already suggested that I believe he may have understated the severity of the conditions at least some of the SDR fleet may have encountered...
> 
> Actually, I would categorize what I wrote re the various departure points for this passage as being closer to 'opinion', than 'advice'...


I know. My point is that your disagreement is okay - mine, according to Ausp, is not. That's kind of goofy. Maybe it comes down to how one sees one's own opinion.

Anyway, you're good about debating without getting bent. So, no worries.



JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, can you point to a rally that actually does publicly "acknowledge... the nature of rallies can increase risk due to herd mentality..."? I've never noticed that sort of disclaimer on the 1500's website, for example
> 
> Hell, I would suggest that the Salty Dawg - with their lack of a fixed departure date, and their stated emphasis on the responsibility for decision making being placed on each individual skipper - actually comes closer to making such an 'admission', than any other...


I don't know of a rally that acknowledges this herd risk. I just think it's a pretty obvious issue that people even in this thread denied was there. In any event, I likely will never do a rally. Not my thing at all.

As for the SDR, I think it goes back to your earlier statement about why it was founded - for those who had done the 1500 previously and weren't getting the bang for the buck. If the SDR limited entry to those who'd done the run previously (i.e. - had that level of experience), I wouldn't be talking about it.


----------



## smackdaddy

Pretty good guidance here (from the ISAF regs):



> 1.02.1 The safety of a yacht and her crew is the sole and inescapable responsibility of the person in charge who must do his best to ensure that the yacht is fully found, thoroughly seaworthy and manned by an experienced crew who have undergone appropriate training and are physically fit to face bad weather. He must be satisfied as to the soundness of hull, spars, rigging, sails and all gear. He must ensure that all safety equipment is properly maintained and stowed and that the crew know where it is kept and how it is to be used. He shall also nominate a person to take over the responsibilities of the Person in Charge in the event of his incapacitation.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> If a newb came on SN saying "I don't have much off-shore experience, but I'm planning to leave from Newport and head down to the BVIs in November, what should I think about here?"
> 
> Would you really say...


Well, here's what I would say:

_Don't do it... A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November..._



smackdaddy said:


> I think a major issue here might be the sharply contrasting view of less experienced sailors to that of more experienced sailors. Us less experienced sailors that want to do offshore runs have no idea what "get[ting] yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness" actually means. Yet we understand that we "are going to go" and we will "take it seriously". But really, those are just platitudes. What do we actually _need to do_?


Well, to use your own words, you need to "get an idea what "get[ting] yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness" actually means." In this regard, rallies actually can serve some purpose - by affording the opportunity to gain offshore experience, _by sailing as crew, on someone else's boat..._



smackdaddy said:


> The other alternative for the less experienced sailor, apart from going out and guessing, is directly learning from those more experienced - like in a rally setting. As you say, "I think rallies potentially offer some real benefits to people with less experience."


You're right... _By sailing with someone more experienced, aboard their boat_... It's a delusion to think someone is gonna learn anything from other more experienced sailors in the fleet, once boats have left the dock...



smackdaddy said:


> But why then are the most experienced sailors around here (and elsewhere) so set against being in these rallies themselves? Does this mean that maybe these rallies aren't the best place to learn those lessons required for being a self-sufficient skipper? And if this is true, AND if the experience bar for entry is low, is this a recipe for problems?
> 
> If a rally is supposed to be for the benefit of those with less experience, then make it so with good, clear guidelines and assistance. What a great learning experience!
> 
> However, if a rally is supposed to be for "seasoned sailors", then stick to that with a higher bar for entry.
> 
> It's the mixing of these two things, expectations of the experienced with allowance/encouragement of the inexperienced, that causes the problems.


Well, that's the rub, of course... I have a real problem with the notion that these rallies can realistically be run "for the benefit of those with less experience". It's an absurd notion, that the sea might make 'concessions' for newbies. It's been stated earlier, and I believe you voiced agreement, that unless one has the confidence, skills, boat, and crew to undertake such a passage _entirely on their own_, they have no business making the trip, period...

Of course, many newbs don't want to hear this, of course... _"I just bought a brand new Bluewater Beemer with a Joystick Docking option, why can't I sail straight to Paradise NOW?"_ This takes us to another elephant in the room, something I alluded to earlier, the rush to accelerate the learning curve today, and the dismissal of the notion of any sort of Offshore Sailing _Apprenticeship_...

John Harries writes elsewhere about this issue, how he sailed tens of thousands of miles, numerous passages to and from Bermuda, on OPBs before ever undertaking such a passage as skipper... Of course, the opportunity I've had to run OPB's boats is pretty unique, but I crewed on races to Mackinac, Mazatlan, Halifax, Jamaica, Bermuda, and probably racked up 100K miles delivering other people's boats, before I ever owned a boat capable of being sailed offshore, of my own... However, such a notion of apprenticeship, learning by taking comparative 'baby steps' offshore, is hopelessly old-fashioned these days, and only serves to have us 'old-timers' who continue to promote its value, branded as a dreaded "Elitist"... How dare we suggest the need for such a protracted learning process, and that experience today cannot be gained instantaneously, without all that introductory stuff? We've already eliminated the need to learn the most difficult chore, and the element that heretofore has prevented newbs from venturing offshore - namely, how to navigate - after all...

Surely, in today's world, there must be an app for this, no?


----------



## BentSailor

JonEisberg said:


> Surely, in today's world, there must be an app for this, no?


Sure there is... but it fails as soon as you're outside WiFi range


----------



## SVAuspicious

blowinstink said:


> 4. I don't really understand this one. You shouldn't make a passage you wouldn't otherwise make simply because a rally is going. I think rallies potentially offer some real benefits to people with less experience.


I think this is one of the benefits of the SDR. The entire rally is based on the concept of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. There were seminars and gatherings up and down the US East Coast starting long before the intended departure date so that participants would have time to integrate what they learned from the presenters and from each other.



JonEisberg said:


> Let me be clear, I would not classify Bill and Linda Knowles as 'friends' of mine. They might remember me in person, I seriously doubt they would recognize my name. I first met them about 3 years ago at Bluewater Yachting Center on a delivery north, they had just come in from the BVIs. ... snip ... They're very nice, laid back folks, and obviously very capable sailors... Their motives in forming the SDR seem entirely pure, to me, in line with Bill's longstanding service to the Herreschoff Museum in Bristol, RI, where they spend the summer... I definitely got the impression much of the work he performed was of a voluntary nature...


I like and respect the Knowles. I've met them three or four times and we've corresponded sporadically for a couple of years. I don't think we know each other well enough to be considered friends, although perhaps someday we will be.

I agree with Jon's assessment of the Knowles. They are good people with big hearts with much skill and knowledge to share. They give with no strings attached.

So I like them. Does that make me biased? I like a lot of people. Must one be a hermit to be objective?



JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I would categorize what I wrote re the various departure points for this passage as being closer to 'opinion', than 'advice'... At any rate, there seems to be very little distinction between the two, whenever expressed in a forum such as this...


I second that characterization.

When anyone offers an opinion there are so many unspoken assumptions and boundary conditions that differences between the opinions of people with open minds provide an opportunity for discussion and mutual learning. I think that is the sort of relationship that Jon and I share. I don't remember him ever saying I was wrong about something and I know I haven't ever said he was wrong. We seek to learn and consider from one another. We may not change our disparate opinions but we do give thought.

Of greater value--I hope--to the cruising community of the ramblings of Eisberg and Skolnick are the many issues on which we agree. Relevant to this discussion our focus on the capabilities of the people on the boat over the boat and its outfit.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, here's what I would say:
> 
> _Don't do it... A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November..._


Agreed. I'd probably follow that with a list of things he or she should learn: weather forecasting, routing, sail trim, enough fluid dynamics to really understand sail trim and hull performance, some basic marlinspike skills, basic mechanics, communications skills, navigation. I might dig out some checklists for the boat but the focus is on understanding, knowledge, and skill.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, to use your own words, you need to "get an idea what "get[ting] yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness" actually means." In this regard, rallies actually can serve some purpose - by affording the opportunity to gain offshore experience, _by sailing as crew, on someone else's boat..._


Agreed. That's why I usually make room on deliveries for someone new, someone building experience and basic skills. It's part of my way of giving back.

I also make time to sail with others on their boat. I've down a number of owner-aboard deliveries including the first offshore passage of a lot of owners.

In both sorts of cases we'll talk about the whys and hows of decisions and choices so crew can learn and grow.

This is one of the reasons that the Yachtmaster credential is more respected around the world than US Coast Guard licenses. The MCA license focuses on decision-making and judgment. The USCG focuses on passing a knowledge test.

Which thought doesn't wander as far from the original SDR topic as it might seem.


----------



## outbound

E +S - think a more common danger is folks like me. I' done multiple Marion and Newport to Bermuda trips but that was in my 30's and early 40's. Also it was in June. I' gone to the Caribbean and back in perfect weather with very skilled crew. This could lead to great hubris. I was then boat less for awhile and now re enter the scene on the biggest boat I' ve ever owned with tons of technology I'm just starting to understand. 
Fortunately I hopefully have enough acceptance of my limitations to hire someone like you for my next transit and do multiple long near coastal hops get my wife and I up to speed before hand However, those who are not honest with themselves and realize the need for backup and re education set themselves up for disaster.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, here's what I would say:
> 
> *Don't do it... A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...*


I totally agree with you, Jon. I just wish the SDR would say the same.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, to use your own words, you need to "get an idea what "get[ting] yourself to a place where you are comfortable with your level of prep and readiness" actually means." In this regard, rallies actually can serve some purpose - by affording the opportunity to gain offshore experience, _by sailing as crew, on someone else's boat..._
> 
> You're right... _By sailing with someone more experienced, aboard their boat_... It's a delusion to think someone is gonna learn anything from other more experienced sailors in the fleet, once boats have left the dock...


Again, I totally agree with you. That's why I do the off-shore races and deliveries as crew. I've learned a hell of a lot - with a hell of a lot still to learn before we take our own boat across to Florida next summer.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, that's the rub, of course... I have a real problem with the notion that these rallies can realistically be run "for the benefit of those with less experience". It's an absurd notion, that the sea might make 'concessions' for newbies. It's been stated earlier, and I believe you voiced agreement, that unless one has the confidence, skills, boat, and crew to undertake such a passage _entirely on their own_, they have no business making the trip, period...
> 
> Of course, many newbs don't want to hear this, of course... _"I just bought a brand new Bluewater Beemer with a Joystick Docking option, why can't I sail straight to Paradise NOW?"_


Again, agreed. And this is why I have a problem with the low standard for entry to rallies like the SDR. They're basically telling that newb, "Why, you can! Just join our rally!" That's been my problem with it from the beginning. I think it's somewhat dangerous and irresponsible.



JonEisberg said:


> This takes us to another elephant in the room, something I alluded to earlier, the rush to accelerate the learning curve today, and the dismissal of the notion of any sort of Offshore Sailing _Apprenticeship_...


Sounds like you need to start a rally Jon. That one I'd join.



SVAuspicious said:


> There were seminars and gatherings up and down the US East Coast starting long before the intended departure date so that participants would have time to integrate what they learned from the presenters and from each other.
> 
> I'd probably follow that with a list of things he or she should learn: weather forecasting, routing, sail trim, enough fluid dynamics to really understand sail trim and hull performance, some basic marlinspike skills, basic mechanics, communications skills, navigation. I might dig out some checklists for the boat but the focus is on understanding, knowledge, and skill.


So what is the list of those SDR seminars, Ausp? That would be very helpful to the debate. Strangely, they don't seem to be listed on the SDR website...which makes it even harder for a less experienced sailor to determine the value of the rally in terms of learning. Here is a list of the events from the website:



> Nov 2, 2013 • Hampton, VA • Chicken BBQ with Stell and Snuggs performing.
> 
> Nov 1, 2013 • Hampton, VA • Whole Pig Roast with Mike and Amy Aiken performing. Rum Bar, featuring Pain Killers, provided by Phil Worrall on Rum Runner.
> 
> Oct 31, 2013 • Hampton, VA • Dark n Stormy Cocktail/Costume Party courtesy of Hampton Tourism and Convention Center. Caribbean Music with steel drums by Donna Lange.
> 
> Oct 29, 2013 • Hampton, VA • Check-in for the 2013 Fall Salty Dawg Rally begins at the Dawg House (aka the Bluewater Pavilion).
> 
> Oct 10 - 14, 2013 • Annapolis, MD • We will be at the Annapolis Sailboat Show, Tent H8.
> 
> Oct 10, 2013 • Annapolis, MD • Join us at our 2nd Annual Annapolis Rendezvous, sponsored by Jack Martin Insurance and Falvey Insurance at Mears Pavilion (519 Chester Avenue, Annapolis, MD) on Thursday, October 10th, 6pm.
> 
> _Oct 9, 2013 • Annapolis, MD • Full day of seminars sponsored by Sea Hawk Paint, Mears Pavilion, Annapolis, MD. By RSVP to first 100 people._


"Up and down the US East coast"? Really? I see _one day_ of seminars in Annapolis - for only, maybe, 1/3 of the total participants (likely less depending on actual attendance).

I assume that because you, like Jon, would tell a person without much off-shore experience that they _shouldn't do this trip_ (unlike the SDR) - those seminars covered all of the topics you list above to your satisfaction - in addition to one very important one you left off...safety? So, as of October 10, that newb was now qualified for the trip and you would have encouraged their departure over a Dark-n-Stormy, a Painkiller, and some roasted pig?



SVAuspicious said:


> When anyone offers an opinion there are so many unspoken assumptions and boundary conditions that differences between the opinions of people with open minds provide an opportunity for discussion and mutual learning. We seek to learn and consider from one another. We may not change our disparate opinions but we do give thought.


That's absolutely true for most of us. On the other hand, a tender few get in a huff and call the person they disagree with a "troll". How do you feel about those people, Ausp?


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon, based on our continued comparisons of the 1500 and the SDR, I took a look at what each offers the participant (especially the less-experienced one like me) in terms of "assistance and education" to help participants be as safe and successful as possible.

*SDR*
As shown above, they list a single day of seminars (with no detail of what those are) for a max of 100 people in Annapolis. Additionally, here's what the less-experienced sailor can expect for additional assistance and/or learning:
BENEFITS FOR SALTY DAWGS | Salty Dawg Rally



> When you join the Salty Dawg Rally not only can you enjoy the camaraderie of fellow blue water sailors at a variety of Rally events but you can also take advantage of great participant discounts.
> 
> MARINE WEATHER SERVICE- Chris Parker
> During passage, free daily weather forecast & routing advice, via SSB and e-mail. Beginning Nov. 1, live daily weather webcasts. Sponsored by Bluewater Sailing Magazine.
> 
> BLUEWATER SAILING MAGAZINE
> Not only does Bluewater Sailing Magazine sponsor Marine Weather Serive but they also provide each boat owner and all crew members with a free one year digital subscription to BWS magazine.
> 
> NV CHARTS
> Choice of two free charts of the US East Coast (excluding Bermuda).
> 
> BITTER END YACHT CLUB
> Free/discounted moorings and dockage, wifi, pool, yoga, etc.
> 
> LEVERICK BAY DISCOUNTS
> Leverick Bay is giving participants $25 moorings/night, $35/night at the dock plus utilities, regardless of the size of your boat, 25% off drinks at the Jumbies Beach Bar (except during Happy Hour when Painkillers and more are buy 1, get one free), 15% off meals (upstairs and down), except for the Friday Night Beach Barbecue and 10% off the Food Pantry for provisioning. Enjoy the Mocko Jumbies on Friday night and Pirate Michael Beans Monday - Thursday, both are free!
> 
> BLUEWATER YACHTING CENTER DISCOUNT
> Bluewater Yachting Center in Hampton, VA is offering special rates for the Salty Dawg Rally.
> 
> CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL
> The Crowne Plaza in downtown Hampton is offering special rates for family and friends of participants.
> 
> FALVEY INSURANCE and JACK MARTIN ASSOC.
> Jack Martin & Associates of Annapolis, MD and Falvey Insurance of Kingston, RI have teamed up to provide an excellent combination of insurance pricing and coverage for Salty Dawg Rally participants.
> 
> OFFSHORE PASSAGE OPPORTUNITIES
> The use of the OPO database, to find crew for your boat, is offered to participants at no charge.
> 
> WEST MARINE
> Special store discounts and shuttle service from Bluewater Yachting Center to the Hampton store.
> 
> ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR
> Enterprise Rental is offering Corporate rates nationwide for SDR participants. Consider this for provisioning and passage preparations!
> 
> DOWNUNDER DIVING
> Discounts on diving services (hull cleaning, inspections, zinc replacement etc. ) from Don the Diver while in Hampton, VA.
> 
> BAMBOUSHAY POTTERY
> Free official Salty Dawg Mug handmade by Bamboushay Pottery/BVI Painters.
> 
> BEE'S KNEES ZIPPER WAX
> Samples in every Skipper Bag.
> 
> GOLDEN HIND CHANDLERY
> Golden Hind Chandlery in Road Town is providing 15% discounts for participants.
> 
> PRISM
> Special discounts in addition to sample polish products in all Skipper Bags.
> 
> RITE WAY DISCOUNTS-BVI
> In addition to an 8% discount on in-store purchases (10% discount to seniors), free delivery of provisions to your boat in Tortola or Virgin Gorda, all season, at Rite Way Food Markets (including Harbour Market in Soper's Hole), provided by Roadtown Wholesale Trading, Ltd.
> 
> YACHT SHOTS PHOTOGRAPHY -BVI
> Get great photos of your boat at discounted rates from Yacht Shot Photography.
> 
> BLUE WATER DIVERS
> Get 10% off at Blue Water Divers in Nanny Cay, voted best dive operator in the BVI.
> 
> SAILORS NIGHT VISION CAP
> SDR embroidered Night Vision Cap in every Skipper Bag.


So, by my count here, the less-experienced sailor gets camaraderie, weather routing service, a couple of charts, discounted booze, insurance, services, and rental cars, oh, and a hat with lights on it. I suppose we should also count the "tribal advice" on the departure date that they mentioned after the rescues.

*1500*
Now let's compare the above with the 1500...
Carib1500



> *The job of a rally organiser is to provide a safe framework for participants, and to provide them with the information they need to make safe decisions for their boat and crew.*
> 
> The start port and dates make the most of the available weather to maximize your Caribbean sailing, and our week-long pre-departure program will get you relaxed and ready for cruising.
> 
> Without a doubt the most difficult part of getting to the Caribbean is timing the weather window before departure. Fall on the East Coast is squeezed between late summer hurricane season and early winter gale season. By joining the 1500, you can rest assured that the 'experts' are there to take the pressure off of that decision. Our support team consists of professional ocean sailors working closely with our weather forecasters at WRI to ensure the fleet makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions.
> 
> Before you even get to the start, we help with your preparations by providing a comprehensive Rally Handbook and regular newsletters, and we're here to help you find crew and answer your questions by phone or email.
> 
> From Time of Registration:
> ● West Marine discounts at all stores nationwide
> ● Bound Rally Handbook, including local info and ocean sailing tips
> ● Free rig inspections anytime at Port Annapolis Marina
> ● Access to World Cruising Club's extensive online resources for offshore sailing
> ● Discounted chart and pilot book ordering through website
> 
> In Portsmouth VA:
> ● 2 free nights dockage at Ocean Marine Yacht Center
> ● Welcome Pack
> ● ARC Caribbean 1500 boat flag
> ● One issue of SAIL Magazine and an annual subscription for each skipper and crew member
> ● Safety equipment inspection
> ● Lecture program (Gulf Stream crossing, rigging, weather, provisioning, first aid)
> ● Rig inspections by Southbound Yacht Rigging
> ● Discounted fuel polishing at Ocean Marine Yacht Center
> ● Safety demonstration (live flare and liferaft demonstration)
> ● Comprehensive social program nightly
> ● Skippers' Briefing
> ● Welcome Party
> ● Farewell Party
> 
> On passage at sea:
> ● Float plan filed with USCG and Virgin Islands Search & Rescue (VISAR)
> ● Position reporting
> ● Radio net
> ● Daily weather forecast sent by email
> ● Tracking of yachts, including loan of a satellite tracker
> ● Display of positions on ARC Caribbean 1500 event website
> 
> In Nanny Cay:
> ● Welcome on arrival
> ● Customs clearance at Nanny Cay - avoid stopping at Soper's Hole
> ● Local tourist information
> ● Full social program nightly
> ● ARC Caribbean 1500 awards ceremony
> ● 2 days free docking at Nanny Cay on arrival
> ● Lectures on topics relating to cruising the Caribbean


Now, being one of those less-experienced sailors that wants to learn from the more experienced, I can unequivocally say that, judging by these lists, the 1500 is hands-down the better option at helping me prepare to be safe and successful out there. There's no doubt about that.

The issue is, it's way easier and cheaper for me to join the SDR. And I get that cool hat with lights on it!


----------



## 34crealock

So maybe one should be a "Salty Dog" to get the most from the SD rally and FNGs should do the 1500 or hire a captain or just go on their own, if they so please.


----------



## smackdaddy

34crealock said:


> So maybe one should be a "Salty Dog" to get the most from the SD rally and FNGs should do the 1500 or hire a captain or just go on their own, if they so please.


Makes sense to me.

PS - It seems, however, the long-term goal of the SDR might be more FNG-focused. This is from their *sponsorship page*.



> The Salty Dawg Rally is a R.I. registered non-profit organization and for the next year will *demonstrate its roll [sic] as an educational organization by fostering and teaching seamanship, safe boat handling, navigation and other skills needed by blue water sailors.*
> 
> Testimonial from George Day, Publisher, Blue Water Sailing magazine: "When Bill and Linda Knowles and I got talking about starting *a new, free rally for cruisers that would help sailors get to and from the BVI each fall and spring*, I knew they were onto a great idea. *There was another rally out there but it was not free and not run in the true spirit of the cruising lifestyle. *I am sure Bill and Linda and all of the great volunteers and sponsors who made the first two rallies successful didn't anticipate what they were getting into but we all are thrilled to be part of a grass roots cruising rally that we believe in. So, we are happy to be a top sponsor and look forward to many happy years supporting the Salty Dawg Rally."


If that's what they eventually do, and have others pay for it, then good on them. That said, I'm now very interested in the reasons behind this split between the 1500 and the SDR. What does Mr. Day mean when he says, "not run in the true spirit of the cruising lifestyle"? Seems to be an interesting story here...especially in light of these rescues.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yep - an interesting story here...

This is from the Blue Water Sailing website:
CAPTAINS LOG | DECEMBER 2013 | BLUE WATER SAILING MAGAZINE | CRUISING, SAILING, BOAT REVIEWS, GEAR, CHARTERING | 888.800.SAIL



> This fall, our boat partners Tony and Judy Knowles have been deep in the throes of getting our Jeanneau 45.2 Lime'n ready for a winter cruise from Newport, RI to the Caribbean. As I type, they (and we) are watching the weather in the North Atlantic very carefully as we look for a weather window that will allow Lime'n to get to Bermuda (four days of sailing) in relatively benign conditions. We have been logging on to the Passage Weather website twice a day to get the overall weather picture, and we have *engaged Commanders Weather to advise us when it looks prudent to go*. The most important part of this first southbound leg is to get across the Gulf Stream in fair and mild weather. A North Atlantic gale in the stream is not something any of us want to meet.
> 
> In Hampton, Va., the relatively new, free Salty Dawg Rally, sponsored by BWS and many other companies, has grown to 120 boats in its third year and the skippers and crews have been busy getting ready for the 1,300 mile passage from the mouth of the Chesapeake to The Bitter End Yacht Club in Virgin Gorda, B.V.I. *The Salty Dawg Rally is a pure cruising event with no set departure date, other than a recommended date, no racing and no prizes for winners, losers or otherwise. The prize is the simple pleasure of cruising in company.* Unlike other rallies, the Salty Dawg Rally provides daily weather and routing services from expert router Chris Parker; his services are BWS's contribution to the event.
> 
> In Norfolk, Va., the Caribbean 1500 is also getting ready for their November start. A fee based event, *the 1500 appeals to new cruisers who want the supervision of rally organizers who mandate gear and equipment for each boat and then provide in depth boat inspections.*
> 
> *But not all skippers join rallies. *Bermuda Harbor Radio informs us that approximately 1,100 boats from North America clear through Bermuda every fall and spring. *Most of those are independent souls like Tony and Judy who have spent all summer and fall getting Lime'n ready and will set sail when the weather suits them*.


Am I reading this correctly? Are these people related to the other Knowles who founded the SDR? And they wouldn't sail in it? And the writer (and their boat partner) seems to be the same Mr. Day (the BWS publisher) that had the quote above and sponsored the SDR - and he wouldn't sail in it either?

Okay - this is getting weird.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Well, here's what I would say:
> 
> Don't do it... A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you, Jon. I just wish the SDR would say the same.
Click to expand...

What, so now it's the responsibility of the SDR to issue public pronouncements of disapproval upon every hypothetical passage potentially being undertaken by some newbie out there? 

Where, exactly, does the 1500 say that?

Seems to me, the SDR certainly implies what you are insisting they make clear, by limiting participation in their rally to those "experienced sailors" who have "previously completed at least one bluewater passage..."



smackdaddy said:


> Again, agreed. And this is why I have a problem with the low standard for entry to rallies like the SDR. *They're basically telling that newb, "Why, you can! Just join our rally!"* That's been my problem with it from the beginning. I think it's somewhat dangerous and irresponsible.


Please, do us all a favor... Show us exactly _where_ they are saying that...

The SDR requires the completion of one previous "bluewater passage"... The 1500 requires the completion of "a 250 mile passage"... Now, without further confirmation of what constitutes a "bluewater passage", sure sounds like the bar is set lower for the 1500, to me...



smackdaddy said:


> Sounds like you need to start a rally Jon. That one I'd join.


Trust me, I am perhaps one of the least likely candidates on Earth to perform such a 'service'... 

A good friend served as the 'Lead Boat' of the Bahamas fleet of the 1500 several years ago, before it was taken over by the WCC...

First words out of his mouth afterwards are not printable here, but they basically amounted to _"NEVER AGAIN..."_


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> The SDR requires the completion of one previous "bluewater passage"... The 1500 requires the completion of "a 250 mile passage"... Now, without further confirmation of what constitutes a "bluewater passage", sure sounds like the bar is set lower for the 1500, to me...


The only thing I'll quibble with you on is this^^^

Your statement is plain wrong. Here's what you should have typed:

*The SDR requires the completion of one previous "bluewater passage"... The 1500 requires the completion of "a 250 mile passage"... plus...*



> *...they require all of the rally boats to carry a minimum quantity and quality of safety and communications equipment, and to have undertaken training in using that equipment, heavy weather sailing techniques, and managing emergencies.*


Which bar is lower?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> That said, I'm now very interested in the reasons behind this split between the 1500 and the SDR. What does Mr. Day mean when he says, "not run in the true spirit of the cruising lifestyle"?


Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr. Day, but I'm guessing it might have something to do with the fact that most cruisers aren't in the regular habit of writing $2K checks to some organization prior to the start of every offshore passage they might make 



smackdaddy said:


> Yep - an interesting story here...
> 
> This is from the Blue Water Sailing website:
> CAPTAINS LOG | DECEMBER 2013 | BLUE WATER SAILING MAGAZINE | CRUISING, SAILING, BOAT REVIEWS, GEAR, CHARTERING | 888.800.SAIL
> 
> Am I reading this correctly? Are these people related to the other Knowles who founded the SDR?


Whoa, I'd say in your desperate search for The Smoking Gun, you're reading WAY too much into that 

Who knows if they're related to Bill and Linda? What real difference would it make?



smackdaddy said:


> And they wouldn't sail in it?


Where is that stated, or implied?

Could it not be possible that Day's boat partners are - like him - very experienced sailors returning to the Caribbean for another winter there, and have simply chosen to sail directly via Bermuda, instead?



smackdaddy said:


> And the writer (and their boat partner) seems to be the same Mr. Day (the BWS publisher) that had the quote above and sponsored the SDR - *and he wouldn't sail in it either?*


Again, where is that either stated, or implied?



smackdaddy said:


> Okay - this is getting weird.


Only because you seem to be on a mission to make it so...


----------



## smackdaddy

Fair enough - I should have typed _"didn't"_ sail in it. As for where it's stated or implied, read the article. Among other things, it says this:



> But not all skippers join rallies.... Most of those are independent souls like Tony and Judy who have spent all summer and fall getting Lime'n ready and will set sail when the weather suits them.


Also, _Lime'n_ is not on the tracker list for the SDR. I don't know if there is a fleet list somewhere else, but...

In any case, it's an interesting story. Maybe the issue _was_ the fees being charged for the 1500. But this statement by GeorgeD:



> There was another rally out there but it was not free and *not run in the true spirit of the cruising lifestyle.*


...just makes me wonder if it's just the entry fee at issue.

And it's "Smoking Anchor" silly.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - I think I've figured out the fundamental problem here (I'm slow) via this statement by George Day of Blue Water Sailing (a sponsor of the SDR):



> In Norfolk, Va., the Caribbean 1500 is also getting ready for their November start. A fee based event, *the 1500 appeals to new cruisers who want the supervision of rally organizers who mandate gear and equipment for each boat and then provide in depth boat inspections.*


This is in-line with Jon's and Ausp's - and others' - complaints about adding unneeded regulations and costs in sailing. If you are an experienced, capable skipper - why in the hell would you want the above? I think this is likely the primary reason these people split from the 1500 - and it makes perfect sense.

These people who have already done the trip are obviously not new cruisers, they don't need or want the supervision of rally organizers, and they don't need or want a gear/equipment mandate or inspection. And they _certainly don't want to pay_ for this stuff they don't need. They are confident in their experience, boat, knowledge, and capabilities. And this is all well-and-good..._for the experienced cruisers_.

BUT, according to George's statement above, the SDR is in a very precarious position. Does it want to be what is was apparently founded to be: An alternative to rallies like the 1500 which are geared to "new cruisers" - i.e. - _only for experienced cruisers_? Or does it want to be what it is envisioning for the future in its sponsorship pitch - to "demonstrate its roll [sic] as an educational organization by fostering and teaching seamanship, safe boat handling, navigation and other skills needed by blue water sailors" - i.e. - _much more for new cruisers_?

The bottom line is that it can't be both under its current set-up. In fact, it's currently the worst of both worlds in my opinion.

If they recognize the 1500 as the kind of rally that provides the structure and education needed by _new cruisers_ (see the above quote), but then solicit these _new cruisers_ with a low bar to entry (in terms of both experience and cost) - without providing a similar structure...there's a serious problem.

Yes, it ALWAYS comes down to the skipper...solely and completely...period. That's unequivocal. But there are many, many different levels of skippers...the lesser experienced of which look to the more experienced for advice. So what advice do you give them?

Jon asked me this:



> What, so now it's the responsibility of the SDR to issue public pronouncements of disapproval upon every hypothetical passage potentially being undertaken by some newbie out there?


Until the SDR has a safety and preparedness educational structure in place (like they say they are committed to doing) similar to the 1500's my answer to this question is: *Absolutely*.

They should be willing to say exactly what Jon said (with a slight addition):

*"A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November.

If you insist on doing it, we'd recommend a rally like the C1500."*

It is absolutely that simple.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Until the SDR has a safety and preparedness educational structure in place (like they say they are committed to doing) similar to the 1500's my answer to this question is: *Absolutely*.
> 
> They should be willing to say exactly what Jon said (with a slight addition):
> 
> *"A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November.
> 
> If you insist on doing it, we'd recommend a rally like the C1500."*
> 
> It is absolutely that simple.


OK, so how do you _KNOW_ they haven't actually done that? Do you know, for a fact, that the SDR approved the application of _every single skipper_ that submitted an entry form this year? Or, that even those who might have been forthcoming and completely honest about their lack of offshore experience, would have been invited to participate, anyway? What evidence is there to support such an assertion? Wouldn't one need to be privy to every single application submitted to Bill and Linda, to back up your implication that they may not be willing to do what you suggest?

Look, we've long ago reached the point of quibbling over "what the meaning of 'is' is, here..." This parsing of every phrase, and so on, really is pretty meaningless until these terms are better defined... I admitted long ago that these respective qualifications for the 1500 and SDR are so vague as to be essentially meaningless, we can only guess at what either organizers consider to be the absolute defining perameters of "experienced", or "bluewater passage"... But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and concede the possibility that if that hypothetical newbie of yours came to them with an application, they just might be turned away, given their admitted lack of experience...



smackdaddy said:


> As for the SDR, I think it goes back to your earlier statement about why it was founded - for those who had done the 1500 previously and weren't getting the bang for the buck. *If the SDR limited entry to those who'd done the run previously (i.e. - had that level of experience), I wouldn't be talking about it.*


Once again, how do you _KNOW_ that?

Are you suggesting that the only boats that got into trouble this year lacked sufficient offshore experience, and that those who had made such a passage before were therefore immune to such difficulties?

What about ZULU, who had made the very tough 2001 NARC Rally without any major problems, and yet lost her steering in this year's SDR? What tidy little box does she fit into?


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, don’t read too much into the non-profit thing. I see a lawyer advising the rally organizer to protect his personal assets in the event of a lawsuit by setting up a corporation. Under the tax code there are a limited number of non-profit types, each with their own rules and attributes. The rally wouldn’t qualify as a church or religious organization so the best fit would be an “educational” non-profit. Just because they are setting up a corporation to protect their personal assets, don’t think that they are now going to change their focus and begin ”teaching” newbes like yourself on how to cruise.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, don't read too much into the non-profit thing. I see a lawyer advising the rally organizer to protect his personal assets in the event of a lawsuit by setting up a corporation. Under the tax code there are a limited number of non-profit types, each with their own rules and attributes. The rally wouldn't qualify as a church or religious organization so the best fit would be an "educational" non-profit. Just because they are setting up a corporation to protect their personal assets, don't think that they are now going to change their focus and begin "teaching" newbes like yourself on how to cruise.


Damn. I had high hopes. Who doesn't want some sailing lessons with roasted pig and booze at the end of the day?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> OK, so how do you _KNOW_ they haven't actually done that? Do you know, for a fact, that the SDR approved the application of _every single skipper_ that submitted an entry form this year? Or, that even those who might have been forthcoming and completely honest about their lack of offshore experience, would have been invited to participate, anyway? What evidence is there to support such an assertion? Wouldn't one need to be privy to every single application submitted to Bill and Linda, to back up your implication that they may not be willing to do what you suggest?
> 
> Look, we've long ago reached the point of quibbling over "what the meaning of 'is' is, here..." This parsing of every phrase, and so on, really is pretty meaningless until these terms are better defined... I admitted long ago that these respective qualifications for the 1500 and SDR are so vague as to be essentially meaningless, we can only guess at what either organizers consider to be the absolute defining perameters of "experienced", or "bluewater passage"... But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and concede the possibility that if that hypothetical newbie of yours came to them with an application, they just might be turned away, given their admitted lack of experience...
> 
> Once again, how do you _KNOW_ that?
> 
> Are you suggesting that the only boats that got into trouble this year lacked sufficient offshore experience, and that those who had made such a passage before were therefore immune to such difficulties?
> 
> What about ZULU, who had made the very tough 2001 NARC Rally without any major problems, and yet lost her steering in this year's SDR? What tidy little box does she fit into?


You're making things too complicated, Jon. This is what we KNOW:



> The Salty Dawg Rally is comprised of blue water *sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage*. There is no formal inspection of each boat...


That is _the publicly marketed_ standard for entry. And you, and others, have agreed that that's a low bar for this trip. No parsing required.


----------



## blowinstink

Smack (or any of you) -
Why should a rally be harder to join than for one to sail themselves?


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Smack (or any of you) -
> Why should a rally be harder to join than for one to sail themselves?


Speaking for myself, the only reason I'm hammering on this is the psychology behind it...stated or otherwise.

If you are going to head out completely on your own, you absolutely know, _you're completely on your own_. That drives your mentality for everything from preparation to calculation of risk to self-assessment of abilities, etc. And this is where most all the experienced sailors are in their viewpoints. And it's right.

As is stated in the marketing of most rallies, however, you're sailing _"in a group"_ (though that's a serious stretch once you get out there) - in addition to receiving other benefits like weather advice, etc. I don't think anyone would argue that's NOT a very different psychology than above...especially for less-experienced sailors. I think it colors risk assessment for that group. As others alluded to previously, it's an illusion of security. The sea is still the sea.

So, _something_ needs to balance this disparity...whether its a higher standard of entry, or a focused effort to make those less-experienced sailors more self-sufficient. Whatever.

But, this all obviously gets way more complex when it's in the context of a financially-driven organizing entity (whatever that entity may be). How do you balance all these things? I'm not saying it's easy...just important. It has to be addressed.

The alternative, of course, is to, as Jon says, do the miles over time (on your own and with better sailors for the harder stuff) and get to the point where you're confident in yourself and your boat (I'll also throw in some safety training like the SAS). Then you can head out on your own, COMPLETELY on your own schedule, and go where ever you want without signing a single waiver. What could be easier?


----------



## outbound

Smack- Bikers have a saying-even in a group ride YOU RIDE YOUR OWN RIDE. Biker also know it is more dangerous to ride in a group because the jerk next to you may do something stupid and your ability to act and react are limited by those around you and you are somewhat dependent on the decisions of the group leaders. I left rides even when designated a road captain because I did not like the co riders (drunk) or decisions of the leaders. I have only one life. I approach sailing the same. There were 3 outbounds in the SDR. They all left early and got there safely in 7 1/2d. Some had pro captains with them. Some not. All owners had their own wise decisions on what they were going to do with their boats and their lives. As they say "you can't fix stupid". Now reading about the boats that got in trouble I don't think any fit in that group. I do think as everyone has said the responsibilities of a captain rest on the captain not rally organizers.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You're making things too complicated, Jon. This is what we KNOW:
> 
> 
> 
> The Salty Dawg Rally is comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage. There is no formal inspection of each boat...
> 
> 
> 
> That is _the publicly marketed_ standard for entry. *And you, and others, have agreed that that's a low bar for this trip.* No parsing required.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't fully agree with such a blanket statement... As always, it depends upon the individual. For some, half a dozen uneventful bluewater passages may still not have resulted in making them 'qualified' for such a passage  For others, who perhaps have a lifetime of sailing and coastal cruising, one previous offshore passage might have been more that sufficient to have taught them what to expect... It's impossible to establish a One Size Fits All standard to this stuff...

Still, I don't see where the level of _experience_ demanded by the 1500 is any more stringent, in any meaningful way (You don't _REALLY_ believe that the 1500 requires some sort of documented proof, or checks to establish that all their participants *"have undertaken training in using that equipment, heavy weather sailing techniques, and managing emergencies."*, do you?)

Sure, their "ISAF-*based*" safety inspection is a nice idea... But, can you offer _ANY_ evidence that the lack of such an inspection for the SDR fleet had _ANYTHING_ whatsoever to do with the problems those boats encountered?


----------



## paperbird

I've been following this thread with considerable interest since we know people who did the SDR last year and talked about the potential of doing it ourselves in a couple of years. The thread been fascinating from a number of perspectives. To stay on the main point of the thread, it seems to me there are a couple of considerations.

1. the psychology of rallies. AKA herding instinct. 
No doubt there are major issues here. We humans are natural groupies. We crave the safety of the tribe whether we acknowledge it or not. It is a strong person who can objectively evaluate others' actions as merely another datapoint to consider in his/her own decision.

2. Shared experiences. 
We learn from others. Unfortunately, we also usually only encounter those who are closer to ourselves in experience. As lots of people on all sides of this thread have pointed out, we should each seek out others much more experienced than us and milk them for all we can. Study their boats, sail with them, challenge their thinking and decisions, etc. And alway be open to learning from anyone, anytime. Good ideas come from all quarters.

3. Rallies, liability and regulations
It certainly seems that our litigious society drives a lot of decisions. Long ago I dropped my scuba instructor certification when a fellow instructor was successfully sued by someone who had a diving accident on a vacation charter. Turns out the court said my instructor friend 'should have noticed' that the diver was ill-prepared and thereby prevented the accident. Adding regulations, requirements etc is no one's friend, but is increasingly common.

Bottom line for us after processing all this for the past several pages and several days.

We've sailed a ton in the Chesapeake. I've been offshore a few times, but only for 4-5 days at a stretch. Have also been through extensive offshore sail training including safety, medical, weather, navigation, comms, storm tactics, etc etc. Also rode out a few really bad storms that convinced me that boats are much more capable than I am. 

We plan to go south in the next season or so. Do I feel competent? Maybe. Depends on the voyage, the weather, the crew, and a host of other variables. 

When the time comes, will I seek out a rally? Maybe. Depends on the rally, the value I perceive they offer. One thing I would definitely value highly is the opportunity to meet with and learn from others prepping for the same voyage.

Would I pay a bunch for a rally. Doubtful. But again, it depends on what I get for that money. Parties? No. Seminars? Possibly. Routing services: if better than I can get on my own. etc. etc.

Would I make my own go/no go decision? I sure hope so. But I also recognize the call of the herd and that it can be strong.

Re this thread, I would offer that people seem to be talking past each other to keep reinforcing the same points over and over again. OK. We got it. Now seek to learn from each other through the discussion.

My 0.03 (inflation)


----------



## smackdaddy

Well said paper.

BTW - what do you sail?


----------



## paperbird

We have a new-to-us Pearson 422 we keep at HHN in Deale. Same hull as the 424 but with a center cockpit. We've been in the refit process for 2 years and are now hopefully approaching the final stages. Unfortunately, also the expensive stages - we're repowering this winter. Ouch, ouch, ouch.


----------



## smackdaddy

Very nice boat. I've done a lot of off-shore racing and return deliveries on a P365. Solid boat.

My condolences on the repower. That hurts.

(I sail a Hunter Legend 40.)


----------



## paperbird

Legends are great boats. I'm assuming you have voyaging plans for her. I think I remember you're in the Chesapeake as well. Hopefully our wakes will cross.


----------



## smackdaddy

paperbird said:


> Legends are great boats. I'm assuming you have voyaging plans for her. I think I remember you're in the Chesapeake as well. Hopefully our wakes will cross.


I'm actually on Galveston Bay. And yeah, like you, we (me and my two young sons) are planning a run across to Florida, then down through the islands in summertime hops over the next 3 years (before the oldest finishes HS).

So, maybe we can share some pig and booze in the BVIs while dissing rallies! Heh-heh.


----------



## paperbird

Sounds great. We can join a rally together to get there!


----------



## manatee

Announcing the SPDB - SmackPaperDaddyBird - Rally --- BVI or Bust!! 

(I thought about PSBD, but PaperSmackBird paints an ugly picture in my mind's eye.)


----------



## JonEisberg

manatee said:


> Announcing the SPDB - SmackPaperDaddyBird - Rally --- BVI or Bust!!
> 
> (I thought about PSBD, but PaperSmackBird paints an ugly picture in my mind's eye.)


Hmmm, I think a Thorny Path Rally is long overdue...

Bring your Nordhavns...


----------



## smackdaddy

manatee said:


> Announcing the SPDB - SmackPaperDaddyBird - Rally --- BVI or Bust!!
> 
> (I thought about PSBD, but PaperSmackBird paints an ugly picture in my mind's eye.)


Love it.

You don't have to have any experience, and your boat can be a complete pos. There will be no safety requirements or inspections...but lots of booze. You are completely responsible for your own safety because we don't really care.

The SPDB Rally will be free; however, you have to make a $15K donation to the USCG to participate.


----------



## chall03

This thread is still going??? 

Perhaps there should be an ISAF special regulation on beating dead horses


----------



## manatee

chall03 said:


> This thread is still going???
> 
> Perhaps there should be an ISAF special regulation on beating dead horses


Considering the various divergent discussions covered here, I think 'thread' is a misnomer. I was considering other descriptions to use - web, net, tapestry - but those imply an order or regularity not found here, so I think I'll go with 'tangle'.


----------



## paperbird

as in "oh what a tangled web we weave" - that sort of tangle?


----------



## JonEisberg

Rallies and Weather, from OCEAN NAVIGATOR...

He obviously hasn't read this thread, or he would have noticed the issue of insurance dictating departure timing being discussed 

Rallies and weather - Ocean Navigator - Web Exclusives 2013


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> He obviously hasn't read this thread, or he would have noticed the issue of insurance dictating departure timing being discussed


Y'all heard it here first folks. *grin*


----------



## Yorksailor

In the above referenced article in Ocean Navigator the statement by the weather router Ken McKinley

_"The idea that weather routers have "aided and abetted" the notion that sailors can go voyaging without ever facing a gale at sea is mildly offensive to me."_

when referring to John Harries statement in his blog post is very interesting and John's statement was actually an understatement.

For the last month I have, over my morning coffee sitting in a lovely Caribbean anchorage, been listening to Chris Parker's webcast which starts at 06:00 EST.

GreenLight Web

Chris Parker's information is excellent and when you follow on the internet while you have the synoptic and grib files open on your computer you can see the accuracy of the information but you can also follow the type of cruisers that use his information.

Chris Parker had three types of listener/on the webcast and the SSB transmissions:

1) Cruisers seeking information

2) Cruisers seeking advice

3) Cruisers seeking permission to leave the dock.

One cruiser actually needed confirmation that it was safe to undertake a 15 mile trip in protected waters on a sunny day. Another in a cruising cat needed a day when they could cross from Miami to Bimini motor sailing in near calm seas.

I do not fault cruisers who are cautious but I do fault cruisers who do not even develop the skills to sail the 50 nm from No Name Harbor to Bimini, across the Gulf Stream, utilizing the excellent weather data supplied by NOAA. It is obvious that the weather routers do in fact aid and abet this lack of ability and unrealistic expectations of the weather they might encounter.

Phil


----------



## JonEisberg

Yorksailor said:


> 3) Cruisers seeking permission to leave the dock.
> 
> One cruiser actually needed confirmation that it was safe to undertake a 15 mile trip in protected waters on a sunny day. Another in a cruising cat needed a day when they could cross from Miami to Bimini motor sailing in near calm seas.


Yes, it can be pretty stunning, at times...

One of the best I can recall, is someone asking Chris' blessing to move from Staniel Cay in the Exumas, just down to Little Farmers... On a picture perfect day...

And, no, not via Exuma Sound, but rather in the lee of Great Guana Cay...

One can only marvel at the fact they made it that far, to begin with... 

Haven't heard anyone yet ask Chris for guidance re some of the more open stretches of the ICW, but it's probably just a matter of time...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yes, it can be pretty stunning, at times...
> 
> One of the best I can recall, is someone asking Chris' blessing to move from Staniel Cay in the Exumas, just down to Little Farmers... On a picture perfect day...
> 
> And, no, not via Exuma Sound, but rather in the lee of Great Guana Cay...
> 
> One can only marvel at the fact they made it that far, to begin with...
> 
> Haven't heard anyone yet ask Chris for guidance re some of the more open stretches of the ICW, but it's probably just a matter of time...


Hey, remember the Other Knowles (see above) were also waiting for the Weather Dude to say it was cool to throw off the lines - and they are "experienced bluewater cruisers"!

The lesson? You can't know everything dude.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Rallies and Weather, from OCEAN NAVIGATOR...
> 
> He obviously hasn't read this thread, or he would have noticed the issue of insurance dictating departure timing being discussed
> 
> Rallies and weather - Ocean Navigator - Web Exclusives 2013


*"To sum up, I totally agree with the main point of the blog post, which is that those who undertake an oceanic passage must be aware of and prepared for adverse conditions which frequently arise during these passages. From a weather forecasting standpoint, voyagers should utilize information generated by a professional meteorologist to help make decisions, and should have the ability to fully understand what that information means and what the confidence levels are. This information can be obtained from a private meteorological consultant, or from forecasts generated by the meteorologists at NOAA. A very important fact to understand is that widely available GRIB data has had no analysis by a professional meteorologist and it should not be the sole resource used for voyage planning."*

Jon, this fellow is professional meteorologist that offers his service regarding paid routing and weather counsel to sailors that want to make passages.

What he says regarding sailors needing to have a boat well prepared and needing a minimum of experience is obvious as it is obvious that if someone can pay the services of a good professional to adjust his passage times for the better schedule it will be highly advantageous. He say also that he provides that service fora a rally.

However I doubt that all sailors will have the budget to resource to a hire a professional router and meteorologist to his own exclusive service and then again a Rally properly organized makes sense in what regards information regarding departure and route options since a rally will hire a professional like the one that wrote that article to provide for all that kind of useful information.

The discussion should not be if a Rally can be useful in what regards safety issues (it is clear that it can provide more safety) but regarding what should be the requirements a rally should have to maximize that safety, that obviously will never be a full one, and do not dispense from the participants a certain level of experience and boat preparation. Maybe that should be one of the requirements too.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tempest

Looks like this thing is headed toward 500 posts. There's been a lot of discussion about weather routers, vessel readiness, departure timing, etc etc. I tend to consider most of those things givens. One of the more interesting outcomes (to me) of this, worth further investigation is the number of rudders that fell off or were damaged. I wonder what part the use/reliance of Auto-helms in a rough, confused sea played into that. 

One thing I am pretty sure of, is that captains and crews must be able to "honestly" assess their physical fitness, endurance and mental toughness to withstand adverse conditions for extended periods of time ( hand steering if necessary). Physical fitness, to me also means that you are not prone to getting seasick and have tested that over time. 

Losing 30 to 50 % of your crew to seasickness wears on the remaining crew's reserves pretty quickly.


----------



## smackdaddy

Tempest said:


> Looks like this thing is headed toward 500 posts. There's been a lot of discussion about weather routers, vessel readiness, departure timing, etc etc. I tend to consider most of those things givens. One of the more interesting outcomes (to me) of this, worth further investigation is the number of rudders that fell off or were damaged. I wonder what part the use/reliance of Auto-helms in a rough, confused sea played into that.
> 
> One thing I am pretty sure of, is that captains and crews must be able to "honestly" assess their physical fitness, endurance and mental toughness to withstand adverse conditions for extended periods of time ( hand steering if necessary). Physical fitness, to me also means that you are not prone to getting seasick and have tested that over time.
> 
> Losing 30 to 50 % of your crew to seasickness wears on the remaining crew's reserves pretty quickly.


Great points Temp. We saw both of these issues on our recent off-shore run. As I mentioned in my write up on that, we had seas of 8'-12' for the first 10 hours or so on our forward starboard quarter (leftovers from a storm in the Gulf - the wind was only 20 knots or so). The first issue was seasickness. Both my boys got sick in the first hour - and I got sick for the first time ever. I was over it in a couple of hours, but the boys were out for most of the first day. It's definitely an issue to plan for - not discover in the middle of a 2-week run.

We also ran into AP issues. On the second day, the boat suddenly rounded up (it had been on AP the entire way). We hand steered it back to our course and reset the AP (a linear drive). It immediately rounded up again. So we hand-steered until the skipper came back on watch. While he was driving, the wheel locked up. I opened the lazarette and found the cause of all of it...the AP had broken off its base and was flopping around the locker.

Obviously a rudder failure is a much. much bigger deal than this - but it sure showed me that there is a tremendous amount of force in play in seas like that. Something I'm going to consider in the future.

(PS - Anyone know the specifics of if/why the AP would damage the rudder in such seas - whereas hand-steering would be more likely not to? I assume that there is natural "give" in the hand-steering, where the AP has none?)


----------



## chall03

Tempest said:


> One thing I am pretty sure of, is that captains and crews must be able to "honestly" assess their physical fitness, endurance and mental toughness to withstand adverse conditions for extended periods of time ( hand steering if necessary). Physical fitness, to me also means that you are not prone to getting seasick and have tested that over time.
> 
> Losing 30 to 50 % of your crew to seasickness wears on the remaining crew's reserves pretty quickly.


Couldn't agree more.

I think what you are talking about is a large part seamanship and a large part something deeper and more personal which speaks to a sailor's courage, mental toughness, stamina and an ability to face and deal with fear.

The frustration is of course that you can add 100 pages to the ISAF special regs and still not be able to measure the size of a sailor's stones. Nor is it practical for folk organising rallies to be able to measure stone size.

I do also disagree with you a little on sea sickness. I sail with a guy who get's sea sick everytime he goes offshore. Yet he still goes offshore. He just doesn't let it stop him and he is very capable crew member. Basically he knows his weakness and knows how to deal with it. That's what matters.

I am instantly suspicious of chest beating, beer can racers who tell me they don't get sea sick. Chances are they WILL get sea sick but haven't yet discovered the conditions that bring it on yet. I don't want them discovering them on my boat.

Give me someone who does get seasick, but is still brave enough to go offshore, who knows what medication/techniques work for them, and who is able to give me a realistic understanding of their capabilities.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Yes, it can be pretty stunning, at times...
> 
> One of the best I can recall, is someone asking Chris' blessing to move from Staniel Cay in the Exumas, just down to Little Farmers... On a picture perfect day...
> 
> And, no, not via Exuma Sound, but rather in the lee of Great Guana Cay...
> 
> One can only marvel at the fact they made it that far, to begin with...
> 
> Haven't heard anyone yet ask Chris for guidance re some of the more open stretches of the ICW, but it's probably just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, remember the Other Knowles (see above) were also waiting for the Weather Dude to say it was cool to throw off the lines - and they are "experienced bluewater cruisers"!
> 
> The lesson? You can't know everything dude.
Click to expand...

Well, if one is going the equate the importance of receiving a green light from a professional weather router to undertake a 15 mile balmy Bahamian daysail in protected waters whose depth will rarely exceed 2 fathoms, with obtaining similar guidance prior to shoving off on a North Atlantic passage from Newport to Bermuda in November, well...

Then I suppose you're correct, and that one can never, EVER know for sure whether it's safe to leave the dock, or not...


----------



## smackdaddy

Personally, I think it's perfectly safe 99% of the time. It's that 1% that's always the stinker. Even so, I like the odds.


----------



## JonEisberg

Tempest said:


> Looks like this thing is headed toward 500 posts. There's been a lot of discussion about weather routers, vessel readiness, departure timing, etc etc. I tend to consider most of those things givens. One of the more interesting outcomes (to me) of this, worth further investigation is the number of rudders that fell off or were damaged. I wonder what part the use/reliance of Auto-helms in a rough, confused sea played into that.


Interesting question, but I'm not sure why that should be so... I'd be more inclined to think that the use of autopilots in tough conditions would be more likely to result in gear breakage above the waterline, due to an event like an accidental jibe, and so on...

What you're suggesting is certainly possible, of course - I just don't think is was very likely a contributing factor... The failure that interests me the most, is that aboard the Alden 54 ZULU - I'm guessing that one might have had to do with the rudderpost being stainless, that was getting on in age... To those of us who sail Good Old Boats, that's the one I'd most like to learn more about...










If, indeed, an autopilot were to contribute to the failure of a rudder/steering system, well... the problem is _STILL_ likely to be with the integrity or robustness of the system itself, and not the fact the boat was being driven by an autopilot at the time... A rudder should certainly be able to take any forces an autopilot of vane might apply to it, after all...


----------



## SVAuspicious

Tempest said:


> One of the more interesting outcomes (to me) of this, worth further investigation is the number of rudders that fell off or were damaged. I wonder what part the use/reliance of Auto-helms in a rough, confused sea played into that.


A good helmsmen well rested and attentive can steer better and more gently than an autopilot. A less experienced or practiced person, or anyone tired and distracted, cannot come close. I don't see any causality between use of an autopilot and rudder loss.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Personally, I think it's perfectly safe 99% of the time. It's that 1% that's always the stinker. Even so, I like the odds.


Hmmm, 99% seems like extremely favorable odds, a virtual guarantee of 'safety', seems to me... Hell, why bother with weather routers, or even paying attention to the weather at all, with the percentages that much in your favor, and the probality that there will only be _ONE_ day between Labor Day and Thanksgiving that might be unsafe to depart Newport for Bermuda? I doubt any reputable router would claim a to be spot on 99% of the time, after all...

I certainly get what you're saying, and know that's not exactly what you're suggestiing... It just seems that figure might be a bit high, when applied to an offshore passage like that from the East coast to the Caribbean, in November...

On the other hand, perhaps 95% is a bit more accurate? That's the rough percentage of the Salty Dawg fleet - despite the absence of ISAF-based inspections - that _DID_ actually manage to complete their voyage successfully, after all...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, 99% seems like extremely favorable odds, a virtual guarantee of 'safety', seems to me... Hell, why bother with weather routers, or even paying attention to the weather at all, with the percentages that much in your favor, and the probality that there will only be _ONE_ day between Labor Day and Thanksgiving that might be unsafe to depart Newport for Bermuda? I doubt any reputable router would claim a to be spot on 99% of the time, after all...
> 
> I certainly get what you're saying, and know that's not exactly what you're suggestiing... It just seems that figure might be a bit high, when applied to an offshore passage like that from the East coast to the Caribbean, in November...
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps 95% is a bit more accurate? That's the rough percentage of the Salty Dawg fleet - despite the absence of ISAF-based inspections - that _DID_ actually manage to complete their voyage successfully, after all...


Oh, well, on the percentage thing, I was just using Hal Roth's estimate from his book "Handling Storms at Sea". But I'm sure you know better than he based on your equivalent experience.

So 95% it is.

Sorry Hal - Jon has spoken.


----------



## -OvO-

90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## Minnesail

-OvO- said:


> 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


That's only true 60% of the time.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, well, on the percentage thing, I was just using Hal Roth's estimate from his book "Handling Storms at Sea". But I'm sure you know better than he based on your equivalent experience.
> 
> So 95% it is.
> 
> Sorry Hal - Jon has spoken.


Sorry, don't have access to Roth's book at the moment... What exactly is the "it" that is "perfectly safe 99% of the time", that he is referring to?

While I have nothing but the utmost respect for Hal and Margaret Roth, and will freely admit my own experience offshore fades to virtual nonexistence in comparison to his, if he is suggesting that sailing a small yacht in the western North Atlantic - particularly between Newport and Bermuda, in November - is perfectly safe 99% of the time, well... I would have to respectfully disagree, and side instead with Don Street's, or John Harries' take on the matter...

But, I'm gonna guess that's probably not really what he's asserting, particularly in regards to the sort of passage you cited, and that the crew of George Day's LIME-N' was waiting to undertake... 

I think we can both probably agree that it's fruitless to attempt to assign any precise percentages to something like this, no? And, that Roth likely tossed out his 99% figure simply for effect? Given the limitless variables that might apply relative to the waters being sailed, in various types of boats, differing levels of experience of crews, variations in seasonal weather patterns from one year to the next, and so on, ad infinitum?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, don't have access to Roth's book at the moment... What exactly is the "it" that is "perfectly safe 99% of the time", that he is referring to?
> 
> While I have nothing but the utmost respect for Hal and Margaret Roth, and will freely admit my own experience offshore fades to virtual nonexistence in comparison to his, if he is suggesting that sailing a small yacht in the western North Atlantic - particularly between Newport and Bermuda, in November - is perfectly safe 99% of the time, well... I would have to respectfully disagree, and side instead with Don Street's, or John Harries' take on the matter...
> 
> *But, I'm gonna guess that's probably not really what he's asserting, particularly in regards to the sort of passage you cited, and that the crew of George Day's LIME-N' was waiting to undertake... *
> 
> I think we can both probably agree that it's fruitless to attempt to assign any precise percentages to something like this, no? And, that Roth likely tossed out his 99% figure simply for effect? Given the limitless variables that might apply relative to various types of boats, differing levels of experience of crews, variations in seasonal weather patterns from one year to the next, and so on, ad infinitum?


You hit it on the head with the bolded part. Your take on what I was saying about the 99%/1% ratio and how it relates here was as wrong as your notion that my saying the Knowles relying on the Weather Dude's okay to leave on their trip (the same thing you and Ausp were making fun of newbs for doing) brought forth the "obvious" conclusion that "one can never, EVER know for sure whether it's safe to leave the dock, or not."

I don't really know how you come up with these crazy comparisons and extreme conclusions, I just like watching them spin out all over the place. That's all.

To be very clear, Roth was talking about the overall chance one has of actually running into a very serious storm while out cruising. In his 40 years, 200+K miles, 3 roundings of Cape Horn etc. there were a very small handful of times the conditions rose above F8 (Gale). This worked out to maybe 1% or less of his cruising time spent in "a strong gale or a storm".

So the point is if you're at all smart and watch what you're doing, your chances of avoiding a boat-breaking storm are very, very good. As I said, I like those odds.

On the other hand, if you rely on others to do the thinking for you, don't rely on established standards of safety and preparedness, or misjudge conditions because of herd mentality...that ratio may drop to your 95%...for newbs and experienced sailors alike.

Even so, your odds are still pretty good to leave the dock. Just be careful where you're going - and have your boat prepared...maybe even to some degree of ISAF standards.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I don't really know how you come up with these crazy comparisons and extreme conclusions, I just like watching them spin out all over the place.


OK, whatever...

However, let the record show that in this particular instance, it was you - in post #479 - who introduced the rather "crazy comparison" between my simple mention of those seeking permission from Chris Parker to undertake a short Bahamian daysail, and your example of the Knowles' waiting for a window to depart for Bermuda... 



smackdaddy said:


> To be very clear, Roth was talking about the overall chance one has of actually running into a very serious storm while out cruising. In his 40 years, 200+K miles, 3 roundings of Cape Horn etc. there were a very small handful of times the conditions rose above F8 (Gale). This worked out to maybe 1% or less of his cruising time spent in "a strong gale or a storm".
> 
> So the point is if you're at all smart and watch what you're doing, your chances of avoiding a boat-breaking storm are very, very good. As I said, I like those odds.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured... and, I don't disagree with your conclusion, at all...

However, at the risk of exposing myself as the true wimp sailor that I am, this is where we apparently disagree...

I most certainly do not necessarily consider anything short of F8 conditions as being, by definition, "perfectly safe"...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, don't have access to Roth's book at the moment... What exactly is the "it" that is "perfectly safe 99% of the time", that he is referring to?


If you can get the citation from the person who posted the challenge I will call Margaret and ask her. Hal unfortunately is now a silent partner.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> OK, whatever...
> 
> However, let the record show that in this particular instance, it was you - in post #479 - who introduced the rather "crazy comparison" between my simple mention of those seeking permission from Chris Parker to undertake a short Bahamian daysail, and your example of the Knowles' waiting for a window to depart for Bermuda...


If you are willing to write the above sentence as follows:

"My simple mention of _those seeking permission from Chris Parker_ to undertake a short Bahamian daysail, and your example of the Knowles' _seeking permission from Chris Parker_ to depart for Bermuda..."

-OR-

"My simple mention of _waiting for a window_ to undertake a short Bahamian daysail, and your example of the Knowles' _waiting for a window_ to depart for Bermuda..."

Then I think we're on the same page. If not, then my question of distinction still stands.



JonEisberg said:


> I most certainly do not necessarily consider anything short of F8 conditions as being, by definition, "perfectly safe"...


Oh, I don't either by any means. Goofballs and drunks die in F0 conditions all the time! But if one is halfway sober, intelligent, and prepared (maybe using the ISAF regs for example, and/or with Hal Roth's techniques and equipment recommendations, etc.), one's odds are very, very good that he won't die if he leaves the dock. That was Hal's point. I just believe him...that's all.


----------



## ccriders

I would guess that a weather router adds value to the weather equation, but that value is proportional to the routers expertise. With the internet, today we can look at raw data from a multitude of data points, we can read directly NOAA reports, and we can listen to the many weather guessers, but how do you develop the ability to integrate all this data into an accurate forecast?
The time domain is also a major factor in usefulness of weather prediction. So, if you want to leave port for a destination ten or so days away, it really becomes a big time problem for those dependent upon fair weather, say less than force six or seven. Once committed to a trip like SDR one will have to deal with the weather one gets, and that is where captain, crew and equipment makes the difference.


I think you guys have been beating each other over the head saying this very thing all the time talking past each other. ISAF regulations or your own set of standards for equipment developed through research an experience are just fine, but offer no guarantee that nothing will fail. Your experience is always a value addition to the equation, but is no guarantee you will not make a mistake, use poor judgement or find yourself in danger.
I think that without final incident reports we know not who, what, when, how and why those boats got into trouble. What was the mix of weather, equipment or competence for each incident? It would be nice if the SDR people could (would) get the final incident reports, conduct some interviews and publish a lessons learned on their website.
One issue the whole Atlantic cruising establishment needs to address is the November 1st departure issue. That seems a pretty straight forward the source of weather issues and clouds the question of when to leave.
Oh well, just trying to extend this discussion to 500 posts.
John


----------



## smackdaddy

ccriders said:


> I think you guys have been beating each other over the head saying this very thing all the time talking past each other.


You said it brother. But hey, what else is there to do? It's the Christmas season, so we have to beat on each other's heads! At least I'm using a tightly rolled ISAF manual...with a roll of quarters in the middle.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh look, 499.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now that we have 500, let's talk about something else.

Just kidding - I'm with you CC. I look forward to an incident report and summation of their board recommendations moving forward. I think that will tell us a lot.


----------



## JonEisberg

ccriders said:


> I would guess that a weather router adds value to the weather equation, but that value is proportional to the routers expertise. With the internet, today we can look at raw data from a multitude of data points, we can read directly NOAA reports, and we can listen to the many weather guessers, but how do you develop the ability to integrate all this data into an accurate forecast?
> The time domain is also a major factor in usefulness of weather prediction. So, if you want to leave port for a destination ten or so days away, it really becomes a big time problem for those dependent upon fair weather, say less than force six or seven. Once committed to a trip like SDR one will have to deal with the weather one gets, and that is where captain, crew and equipment makes the difference.


You may be taking too lightly the fact that weather routing for such a passage doesn't end upon departure, but is only just _beginning_... One is not necessarily stuck with the weather one "gets", a good router like Herb, or Chris, can be of great assistance in helping sailors avoid the worst, or take advantage of favorable developments throughout the entire duration of the passage...

2 years ago, we decided to put into Bermuda enroute to Antigua when Herb began showing some concern about the possibility of the development of another tropical low after Sean... And, early last summer on a trip north from Trinidad, checking in with Chris via satphone every couple of days helped us make the right decision to come back up thru the Bahamas instead of staying east, arriving in Ft Pierce, and hunkering down just 36 hours before TS Andrea passed over Florida and ran up the coast... An Island Packet 38 left Puerto Rico at the same time we were passing thru the Mona Passage, apparently without availing themselves of the services of someone like Chris, or of any realtime weather info... They met with Andrea off the coast of SC, the boat was abandoned 60 miles short of Charleston, fortunately without any loss of life...

Reading thru some of the blogs from the SDR and the 1500 this year, it certainly seemed that those fleets were aided considerably by the respective routers, as the weather developed, and changed...

Having said all that, however, I am in full agreement with you, and someone like John Harries, that today's sailors have in many cases become 'spoiled' by the accuracy of modern forecasting...The Island Packet SP Cruiser abandoned off Hatteras last winter by her allegedly "professional delivery crew" is a classic example. They were reading the forecast off their iPhone as if it were a train schedule, and were caught out by the intensification of the winter's most powerful storm a day earlier than originally projected... It used to be, that much beyond 48-72 hours after putting to sea, to a very large extent one simply had to "take what you got"... That fostered the mindset of something akin to 'hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst'... Unfortunately, with the manner in which so many of the boats I see heading offshore are so ill-prepared to deal even only with _'the worst' that one is LIKELY to encounter_ on such a passage, such a mindset seems to have largely gone by the boards...



ccriders said:


> I think that without final incident reports we know not who, what, when, how and why those boats got into trouble. What was the mix of weather, equipment or competence for each incident? It would be nice if the SDR people could (would) get the final incident reports, conduct some interviews and publish a lessons learned on their website.


Sure, that might be nice, but I wouldn't be holding my breath... 

Did the NARC compile final incident reports after the carnage and loss of life in 2011? Did the 1500 do the same after the loss of RULE 62, and the death of one of her crew? Quite the opposite, in fact... After the initial announcement/acknowledgement of that tragedy, it seems to have never been mentioned again, in the apparent hope that it will simply be forgotten...

I'm guessing CRUISING WORLD might publish some sort of debrief, as they did in the wake of the 2011 NARC... BLUE WATER SAILING might be a more likely candidate, given their sponsorship role in the event, we shall see... However, I'm not really sure why the problems encountered by a relative handful of boats in the SDR rate the publication of 'Final Incident Reports' any more so than all of the similar abandonments, etc., that seem to have been taking place with some regularity of late...


----------



## JonEisberg

ccriders said:


> One issue the whole Atlantic cruising establishment needs to address is the November 1st departure issue. That seems a pretty straight forward the source of weather issues and clouds the question of when to leave.


Frankly, aside from insurance considerations, I think that issue is being slightly overblown... Certainly, I'd like to see insurers cut sailors a bit of slack on this, but as a seasonal benchmark, November 1 remains as good a target date for departure from the East coast as any, IMHO...

This year was unusual, with the lack of tropical activity in the Atlantic throughout the fall... But, only 2 years ago, TS Sean developed on Nov 6, and maintained its status as a tropical storm for a full week...

There seems to be no such thing as a 'typical' year these days, but I still think November 1 is generally gonna be about the right time to leave, on average...


----------



## chall03

For post 503 let me summarise this thread.

*You can't fix stupid*.

Rallies do not make cruising unsafe. 
Weather routers do not make cruising unsafe. 
Bad weather should not make cruising unsafe.
Stupid people making stupid decisions make cruising unsafe.

AND Increased regulation has not and cannot fix stupid.

The skipper is responsible for the safety of his vessel and crew. Period. Above all else, aside form all else. This is the beginning and the end.

You may use special regs or whatever other source you have elected to inform your safety decisions. You may choose to enter a rally or not. You may then choose to leave on the 'rally date' or not. You may use the services of a weather router. Or not. You may have or have not gotten 'qualifications' and attended courses of different kinds and levels and feel that this will make you immune from stupid. However if you NEED anyone other than yourself to make decisions for you, or to tell you that to blindly follow is dumb, *then you have no place skippering a boat offshore. *

_(I am not in any way calling any of the participants of the Salty Dawg Rally who ran into trouble stupid incidentally, I do not know the individual circumstances well enough. This is a general comment on the issues raised in this thread)_


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> For post 503 let me summarise this thread.
> 
> *You can't fix stupid*.


LOL! Well, in my effort to summarize, I'd say this is my takeaway:

_*There is no substitute for Experience*_...

And, just to put all this hand-wringing over the abandonment of 2 boats out of a rally fleet of 120+ into some perspective... 

The ISAF-inspected fleet of 55 in the 1998 Caribbean 1500 lost 2 boats as a result of their encounter with the Phoenix that arose from the remnants of Hurricane Mitch...










Both losses primarily due to, IMHO, a lack of experience of the crews, or their ability to physically deal with the conditions encountered...

A couple of good reads here, written in the aftermath... One cannot help but be astonished at the number of crews that set out on such a passage _without ever once before having attempted to heave-to_, or that some boats were fitted with windvanes _that were either not rigged, or had never been used before..._ That sort of stuff says it all, to me...

HEAVY-WEATHER SAILING: Remembering Hurricane Mitch

The Loss of 'Kampeska' - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Well, in my effort to summarize, I'd say this is my takeaway:
> 
> _*There is no substitute for Experience*_...


Agreed. And on the way to that experience, one needs to take other measures to help insure against the lack of it.

My takeaway...

In the case of the SDR in particular..._something definitely needs to change_. They're doing it wrong.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> My takeaway...
> 
> In the case of the SDR in particular..._something definitely needs to change_. They're doing it wrong.


Hmmm, well... let's see...

How about _Ordinary production boats festooned with a ton of Crap-on-de-Back should be prohibited from venturing offshore?_

(grin, bigtime)


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Frankly, aside from insurance considerations, I think that issue is being slightly overblown... Certainly, I'd like to see insurers cut sailors a bit of slack on this, but as a seasonal benchmark, November 1 remains as good a target date for departure from the East coast as any, IMHO...


Let's not lose sight of the fact that most insurance companies moved "the" date from 1 Oct to 1 Nov as a result of a single storm. Insurance company actuaries are very conservative but don't always have all the data.



JonEisberg said:


> How about _Ordinary production boats festooned with a ton of Crap-on-de-Back should be prohibited from venturing offshore?_


I don't know about prohibited, but you and I are definitely on the same page with regard to those abominations. How about we co-author an article for Sail or Cruising World? It might be a tough sell given the number of canvas ads in the magazines.


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> For post 503 let me summarise this thread.
> 
> *You can't fix stupid*.
> 
> Rallies do not make cruising unsafe.
> Weather routers do not make cruising unsafe.
> Bad weather should not make cruising unsafe.
> Stupid people making stupid decisions make cruising unsafe.
> 
> AND Increased regulation has not and cannot fix stupid.
> 
> The skipper is responsible for the safety of his vessel and crew. Period. Above all else, aside form all else. This is the beginning and the end.
> 
> You may use special regs or whatever other source you have elected to inform your safety decisions. You may choose to enter a rally or not. You may then choose to leave on the 'rally date' or not. You may use the services of a weather router. Or not. You may have or have not gotten 'qualifications' and attended courses of different kinds and levels and feel that this will make you immune from stupid. However if you NEED anyone other than yourself to make decisions for you, or to tell you that to blindly follow is dumb, *then you have no place skippering a boat offshore. *
> 
> _(I am not in any way calling any of the participants of the Salty Dawg Rally who ran into trouble stupid incidentally, I do not know the individual circumstances well enough. This is a general comment on the issues raised in this thread)_


Big deal Chall The problem is that are many that don't know that they don't know enough to skipper a boat offshore...and they go offshore anyway carrying others with them. Some don't even know what kind of safety and security equipment they should have and use in case of an emergency.

Can rules and regulations prevent to go offshore at least some of those that don't have a clue and prevent them to put themselves and others in danger?

Can rules an regulations prevent inadequate boats or boats in bad condition to be sailed offshore preventing all the implied risks for the crew?

Can the imposition of minimum required safety and security equipment better the security of those that don't have a clue about what they should carry on a boat in the case of an emergency?

The answer is simple and obvious.

You seem to resent that safety rules and regulations to be applied to all, even to those that don't need them because they know what they are doing. They are not there for those but for the majority of less experienced sailors and as there is no way to tell them apart, all have to comply.

Anyway those rules and required safety equipment doesn't came out of thin air and result from the counsel of the most experienced sailors. Anyway any experienced sailor will have that security material on his boat, so what's the problem in it being mandatory by law?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, well... let's see...
> 
> How about _Ordinary production boats festooned with a ton of Crap-on-de-Back should be prohibited from venturing offshore?_


So after all you think that some mandatory rules can help

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blowinstink

PCP said:


> The problem is that are many that don't know that they don't know enough to skipper a boat offshore...


And there are many who are certain they do know enough who don't or won't. And there always will be -- it is part an parcel of the whole experience. Its called life.



PCP said:


> Can rules and regulations prevent to go offshore at least some of those that don't have a clue and prevent them to put themselves and others in danger?
> 
> Can rules an regulations prevent inadequate boats or boats in bad condition to be sailed offshore preventing all the implied risks for the crew?
> 
> Can the imposition of minimum required safety and security equipment better the security of those that don't have a clue about what they should carry on a boat in the case of an emergency?
> 
> The answer is simple and obvious.
> 
> You seem to resent that safety rules and regulations to be applied to all, even to those that don't need them because they know what they are doing. They are not there for those but for the majority of less experienced sailors and as there is no way to tell them apart, all have to comply.
> 
> Anyway those rules and required safety equipment doesn't came out of thin air and result from the counsel of the most experienced sailors. Anyway any experienced sailor will have that security material on his boat, so what's the problem in it being mandatory by law?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


So now you want to take Smack's notion of regulating the rally participants (I suppose the Coast Guard would be charged with enforcing that . . .) and extend it to regulating all offshore sailing. Lovely. I am glad that the only people talking about doing so have all been herded to this little irrelevant corner of the internet.

What I find truly bizarre is that so many of you of this opinion (granted not all) are socially conservative and not only tout your own individual responsibility and the like, but you are also vehemently opposed to groups of people organizing themselves for their common good in social ventures such as healthcare or environmental regulation that impact the entire community.

And yet here, where the impact is truly limited to the people who make the choice (informed or uninformed) to venture offshore, you all of a sudden have no problem with intrusive regulation. I struggle to understand that contradiction. The societal justification fails. Is it personal? Is it simply a desire for some sort of validation of your status (you are prepared? others are stupid?). Of course then the ocean will have its say as well.

Why the forums always focus on why someone else is right or wrong and not on teaching / learning / sharing experiences . . . I will never know.


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> And there are many who are certain they do know enough who don't or won't. And there always will be -- it is part an parcel of the whole experience. Its called life.
> 
> So now you want to take Smack's notion of regulating the rally participants (I suppose the Coast Guard would be charged with enforcing that . . .) and extend it to regulating all offshore sailing. Lovely. I am glad that the only people talking about doing so have all been herded to this little irrelevant corner of the internet.
> 
> What I find truly bizarre is that so many of you of this opinion (granted not all) are socially conservative and not only tout your own individual responsibility and the like, but you are also vehemently opposed to groups of people organizing themselves for their common good in social ventures such as healthcare or environmental regulation that impact the entire community.
> 
> And yet here, where the impact is truly limited to the people who make the choice (informed or uninformed) to venture offshore, you all of a sudden have no problem with intrusive regulation. I struggle to understand that contradiction. The societal justification fails. Is it personal? Is it simply a desire for some sort of validation of your status (you are prepared? others are stupid?). Of course then the ocean will have its say as well.
> 
> Why the forums always focus on why someone else is right or wrong and not on teaching / learning / sharing experiences . . . I will never know.


Dude, it's not nearly that complex or political.

Look, if some organization is going to make a buck off facilitating a bunch of sailors taking their boats into harm's way - they have a responsibility to that group. The organization can't reap benefits while eschewing responsibility. Period.

I don't give a damn about what everyone else does.


----------



## chall03

PCP said:


> Big deal Chall:


I do believe a skipper being responsibly for his vessel is.



PCP said:


> Big deal Chall The problem is that are many that don't know that they don't know enough to skipper a boat offshore...and they go offshore anyway carrying others with them. Some don't even know what kind of safety and security equipment they should have and use in case of an emergency.


Agreed. The problem I have is that you seem to believe that you can regulate and mandate these people to safety.

I believe that the best thing you can do is to impress to these folk that they are responsible for their vessel and crew, and what this means in terms of sailing a small yacht into the ocean. If they get that, then no one needs to _*make*_ them have a seaworthy yacht.

I sail offshore with my wife and young daughter, I need very little convincing to inspect my rig, or carry adequate safeties.



PCP said:


> Can rules and regulations prevent to go offshore at least some of those that don't have a clue and prevent them to put themselves and others in danger?





PCP said:


> Can rules an regulations prevent inadequate boats or boats in bad condition to be sailed offshore preventing all the implied risks for the crew?


No and No IMHO. I believe and have seen here locally examples of how that can actually encourage a 'textbook' safety approach at the expense of real world, genuine seamanship.



PCP said:


> You seem to resent that safety rules and regulations to be applied to all, even to those that don't need them because they know what they are doing. They are not there for those but for the majority of less experienced sailors and as there is no way to tell them apart, all have to comply.
> 
> Anyway those rules and required safety equipment doesn't came out of thin air and result from the counsel of the most experienced sailors. Anyway any experienced sailor will have that security material on his boat, so what's the problem in it being mandatory by law?


I do actually resent people making decisions that I need to make myself.

In your world a room full of experienced sailors sit around the ISAF table, decide what is best for all of us( cause they are the experienced sailors) and we all just do it cause it is mandatory. It is not model I believe leads to genuine impovements in offshore safety.

I am subject to ISAF safety regs, and am fully compliant. I find it took me quite a bit of time to actually understand it all to a level I was happy with and how it all applies to vessel. IMHO it would be too easy to just buy everything on the list and not understand it all, and yet be fully compliant.


----------



## Classic30

chall03 said:


> I believe that the best thing you can do is to impress to these folk that they are responsible for their vessel and crew, and what this means in terms of sailing a small yacht into the ocean. If they get that, then no one needs to _*make*_ them have a seaworthy yacht.


100% agreement from me. 



chall03 said:


> I do actually resent people making decisions that I need to make myself.
> 
> In your world a room full of experienced sailors sit around the ISAF table, decide what is best for all of us( cause they are the experienced sailors) and we all just do it cause it is mandatory. It is not model I believe leads to genuine impovements in offshore safety.
> 
> I am subject to ISAF safety regs, and am fully compliant. I find it took me quite a bit of time to actually understand it all to a level I was happy with and how it all applies to vessel. IMHO it would be too easy to just buy everything on the list and not understand it all, and yet be fully compliant.


Spot on.. I wasn't going to wade in, but I'll take it a step further:

To make their job even half do-able, that "room-full of experienced sailors sitting around the ISAF table" have to assume that every single yacht sailing the world's oceans can safely comply with the regulations they make.

Problem is, as good as the regulations might be (subject to change, of course), there are a goodly number of old classic yachts out there that have been racing on the world's oceans longer than ISAF has existed and for which 100% compliance to the exact 'letter of the law' becomes a battle indeed - in some cases making the grey areas around some rules a feat of navigation in itself and in others close to ruling out an entire fleet altogether at the whim of an inexperienced local ISAF compliance officer.

Let's just say I do not think any of them have an easy job.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, it's not nearly that complex or political.
> 
> Look, if some organization is going to make a buck off facilitating a bunch of sailors taking their boats into harm's way - they have a responsibility to that group. The organization can't reap benefits while eschewing responsibility. Period.


Well, then, just to play devil's advocate, here... 

No "organization" has made more bucks, or done more to "facilitate a bunch of sailors taking their boats into harm's way", than the manufacturer who built the boat to begin with, and the dealer, broker or previous owner who sold it, or the underwriter insuring it...

Where, then, does _their_ responsibility end?

This slope gets awfully slippery, awfully quickly, doesn't it?

btw, _"into harm's way???"_ Hell, I thought it was supposed to be perfectly safe out there, 99% of the time?


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Hmmm, well... let's see...
> 
> How about Ordinary production boats festooned with a ton of Crap-on-de-Back should be prohibited from venturing offshore?
> 
> 
> 
> So after all you think that some mandatory rules can help
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo
Click to expand...

Paulo, I'm sure you realize my tongue was planted firmly in cheek on that one 

Hell, I sail a 40+ year old production boat myself, after all 

I've always argued, there's a simple solution to this problem of folks 'sailing beyond their level of experience...' Shut down GPS, or at least render it unavailable to ordinary citizens...

However, I'm gonna guess, that such a 'solution' is probably a non-starter, for most...

Myself, included...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, then, just to play devil's advocate, here...
> 
> No "organization" has made more bucks, or done more to "facilitate a bunch of sailors taking their boats into harm's way", than the manufacturer who built the boat to begin with, and the dealer, broker or previous owner who sold it, or the underwriter insuring it...
> 
> Where, then, does _their_ responsibility end?
> 
> This slope gets awfully slippery, awfully quickly, doesn't it?
> 
> btw, _"into harm's way???"_ Hell, I thought it was supposed to be perfectly safe out there, 99% of the time?


No, your slope ain't slippery. None of those things you list even remotely relate to what we're talking about...that is, the _responsible use_ of the thing. If you're really the type of person who holds the manufacturer, dealer, broker, previous owner, and/or your insurer responsible for *how you use your boat*, you might be a lawyer's dream, but you're seriously doing it wrong.

As we've already agreed, this particular run in November has much higher risks than at other times. This means you are intentionally getting much closer to that 1% - precisely as has been shown (by you) to be the case in recent years.

But, unlike your weird scenario above, if a less-experienced sailor is "enticed" into this higher risk *by an organization that's making money off that enticement*, there's a problem. This is affecting _how the skipper is using the boat_.

Jon, look, despite the pretzel logic you seem to like to get yourself into, you've already stated your position quite well...and it underscores why you can't see things clearly in this debate and keep chasing your tail. It's this:

*"There is no substitute for Experience..."*

You have it - at a level that seems to make you, and Ausp, feel very comfortable...some might say smug.

But you guys seem to have forgotten that many other sailors don't and that _the only way to get it is to get out there and do it._ Yet the only way to _do that responsibly_ is to prepare yourself and your boat to be as safe as possible. AND, since this less-experienced sailor lacks the experience to know exactly how to do this on his/her own, he/she should definitely turn to the resources of more experienced sailors (be that crewing, ISAF, SAS, well-run rallies, races, whatever).

See, you're only half-right in your pronouncement. There IS actually a substitute for experience...it's courage-mixed-with-caution. Because the only way to gain the experience is to do it. I'm just a very strong advocate of doing it safely.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> No, your slope ain't slippery. None of those things you list even remotely relate to what we're talking about...that is, the _responsible use_ of the thing. If you're really the type of person who holds the manufacturer, dealer, broker, previous owner, and/or your insurer responsible for *how you use your boat*, you might be a lawyer's dream, but you're seriously doing it wrong.


Nah, I can assure you, I am most definitely not "that type of person"...

On the other hand, it sounds like you might be - with your insistence that the organizers of the SDR bear some measure of responsibility for the difficulties some of their boats encountered 



smackdaddy said:


> But, unlike your weird scenario above, if a less-experienced sailor is "enticed" into this higher risk *by an organization that's making money off that enticement*, there's a problem. This is affecting _how the skipper is using the boat_.


_"Enticed"???_ You mean, like the obviously profitable Caribbean 1500 has been doing for over 20 years, with a substantial advertising budget, offering such promises as:



> By joining the 1500, you can rest assured that the 'experts' are there to take the pressure off of that decision. Our support team consists of professional ocean sailors working closely with our weather forecasters at WRI to ensure the fleet makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions.


Or, "enticed" by the grassroots, non-profit upstart SDR, formed as an alternative to the 1500, that offers no such "enticement" beyond "opening the door to new friends and experiences while cruising various areas in the Caribbean", while making it perfectly clear that "it is the responsibility of each skipper to have proper safety equipment and to ensure that the vessel is prepared for the passage", and " It is each skipper's responsibility to decide the course and whether or not to set out for the passage."...

I don't know, the former sounds a lot more "enticing", to me... 

Seriously, if you can show how your ISAF inspection would have made a difference in the outcome of this year's SDR, then you _might_ have a case...



smackdaddy said:


> Jon, look, despite the pretzel logic you seem to like to get yourself into, you've already stated your position quite well...and it underscores why you can't see things clearly in this debate and keep chasing your tail. It's this:
> 
> *"There is no substitute for Experience..."*
> 
> You have it - at a level that seems to make you, and Ausp, feel very comfortable...some might say smug.
> 
> But you guys seem to have forgotten that many other sailors don't and that _the only way to get it is to get out there and do it._ Yet the only way to _do that responsibly_ is to prepare yourself and your boat to be as safe as possible. AND, since this less-experienced sailor lacks the experience to know exactly how to do this on his/her own, he/she should definitely turn to the resources of more experienced sailors (be that crewing, ISAF, SAS, well-run rallies, races, whatever).
> 
> See, you're only half-right in your pronouncement. There IS actually a substitute for experience...it's courage-mixed-with-caution. Because the only way to gain the experience is to do it. I'm just a very strong advocate of doing it safely.


What I find most astonishing about this sort of argument, is the absolute _IMPATIENCE_ on the part of so many sailors today, relatively new to the game, to somehow accelerate the learning curve, and become "Bluewater Passagemakers' literally overnight... Why the insistence that one needs to undertake such a passage early on _as skipper, aboard their own boat?_

I know, it's the way of the world now, people buying 40+ footers as their first boat, first place they want to sail to is the Caribbean... Fine, let them be "enticed" to join the 1500, where they can _"rest assured that the 'experts' are there to take the pressure off ..."_, and not have to make the sort of decisions the SDR insist that each skipper, and that skipper alone, should be making...

I don't know how i can make it any plainer... Gaining experience _TAKES TIME_... Certainly, there is a wide variety of ways to obtain it, and I've always thought coastal cruising can be far more challenging, and educational, than sailing offshore... But one has to do stuff like go out when it's blowing like stink, and actually try stuff like heaving-to _BEFORE_ setting off in the 1500...

I'm totally mystified, _WHAT IS THE FREAKIN' RUSH, for those of lesser experience to be making these challenging offshore passages???_ Many of them simply end up hating them, anyway... 

That's the one statistic I'd love to know - the ratio of rally participants whose first offshore passage, turned out to be their last... I'm guessing it's pretty close to 50-50...


----------



## ccriders

JonEisberg said:


> Hell, I sail a 40+ year old production boat myself, after all


Have you removed and inspected your chain plates recently?


----------



## smackdaddy

ccriders said:


> Have you removed and inspected your chain plates recently?


Or dropped the rudder? Or replaced the standing rigging? Or replaced keel bolts?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> _"Enticed"???_ You mean, like the obviously profitable Caribbean 1500 has been doing for over 20 years, with a substantial advertising budget, offering such promises as:
> 
> Or, "enticed" by the grassroots, non-profit upstart SDR, formed as an alternative to the 1500, that offers no such "enticement" beyond "opening the door to new friends and experiences while cruising various areas in the Caribbean", while making it perfectly clear that "it is the responsibility of each skipper to have proper safety equipment and to ensure that the vessel is prepared for the passage", and " It is each skipper's responsibility to decide the course and whether or not to set out for the passage."...
> 
> I don't know, the former sounds a lot more "enticing", to me...


You keep wanting to make the SDR look better. It isn't, Jon. BOTH rallies (as well as others) are enticing sailors to do this passage (that was the reason I used the word "organization" instead of "SDR"). One of these rallies is very expensive and has a lot of safety regulations (good ones I think) that mean a good deal even more expense. The other rally is free...with no expensive regulations.

Free.

So, what's your point about comparative enticement again?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by ccriders
> Have you removed and inspected your chain plates recently?
> 
> 
> 
> Or dropped the rudder? Or replaced the standing rigging? Or replaced keel bolts?
Click to expand...

Funny you guys should ask - all of the above, and more, actually... 

Chainplates replaced about 8 years ago, twice the thickness and roughly 1.5X the length of the originals...

Rudder completely rebuilt and re-designed to be far stronger and better balanced about 10 years ago - with much helpful input from our own esteemed Jeff H, I might add  I'd say it's now massively overbuilt, the original bronze 1 1/8" rudderstock upgraded to a 1 5/8" hunk of Nitronic 50 that was cut off a length of rod rigging for a 155' Perini Navi, seated in a tube and bearings from Tides Marine... I believe I can safely say I probably have the only Allied Chance 30-30 in existence, with a touch of Perini Navi pedigree... 










Standing rigging all relatively new Dyform and Sta-Loks...

Replaced the keel bolts? Hell, I swapped out _the whole damn keel_ 

Again, with a lot of great advice from Jeff, I reduced my draft with a Tartan-style Beavertail from Mars Metals... Completely transformed the boat, a vast improvement over the original 70's style 'Shark Fin'...

Before:










And after:










So, yeah - while she may just be a Good Old Production Boat, she now bears little resemblance to the first one to be popped out of this mold in upstate New York, way back when I was still a college boy...










So, I'd sail her to the islands without a second thought - but I'd probably be more inclined to leave from Beaufort, instead...


----------



## smackdaddy

You, sir, are good. Seriously. She looks awesome.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Let's not lose sight of the fact that most insurance companies moved "the" date from 1 Oct to 1 Nov as a result of a single storm. Insurance company actuaries are very conservative but don't always have all the data.


Good point, Dave - I'd sort of forgotten about that... Which is somewhat surprising, given the fact that change essentially cut the number of deliveries I could manage each fall in half  Which storm was that, again?

I remember at that time, I was doing a lot of deliveries for Ocean Yachts... That first year, I had to run one of their new sportfishers down to the Lauderdale Boat Show - which is always held over the last weekend in October... They had to move heaven and earth with their insurance company, to grant them a waiver to allow the boat to be in FL in time to be put in the show... UFB...

I had another pair of clients, who both had winter homes in Vero Beach, and each had a Grand Banks trawler... They were good friends and business associates, I ran their boats north and south for years... Great guys, I was always free to go on my schedule, their only request being that the boats be in Vero for Thanksgiving...

Well, after the change came, and neither boat could enter FL before November 1, I had to go thru the stupid exercise of running one first down to Brunswick, or Hilton Head, and leave it there... Then, head back to NJ to start down with the other, then drive back up to wherever to resume the first one, and so on...

Fortunately, after a year or two of this nonsense, both guys upgraded to Eastbays, which being much faster, I could run back to back within that time frame, no problem...

Still, those were the Good Old Days... 



SVAuspicious said:


> I don't know about prohibited, but you and I are definitely on the same page with regard to those abominations. How about we co-author an article for Sail or Cruising World? It might be a tough sell given the number of canvas ads in the magazines.


I'm afraid that would be a complete waste of time, Dave... No one wants to hear a dissenting view on enclosures, these days...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You, sir, are good. Seriously. She looks awesome.


Thanks...

Just throwing good money after bad - and a bit of sweat equity - is all it takes...


----------



## SVAuspicious

chall03 said:


> No and No IMHO. I believe and have seen here locally examples of how that can actually encourage a 'textbook' safety approach at the expense of real world, genuine seamanship.


Exactly - despite all the discussion this thread keeps coming back to safety rules and ignoring the skill, knowledge, and experience of the crew. A good crew (like, say, Beth and Evans) will make their own choices about what makes sense for them. ISAF be damned. It is not nearly as important as the crew.



JonEisberg said:


> So, I'd sail her to the islands without a second thought - but I'd probably be more inclined to leave from Beaufort, instead...


*big grin*


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Exactly - despite all the discussion this thread keeps coming back to safety rules and ignoring the skill, knowledge, and experience of the crew. A good crew (like, say, Beth and Evans) will make their own choices about what makes sense for them. ISAF be damned. It is not nearly as important as the crew.


This really is a _ridiculous_ argument. It ONLY applies to those with vast amounts of experience. If you really want to keep sailing an elitist pastime, Ausp, then knock yourself out, and enjoy your shrinking world.

In the mean time, there are LOTS of newer sailors _all over the world_ that will have to _earn that experience_ the way it's always been done: By going out and doing it...one step at a time. For them, I will always maintain they should look to every possible resource (ISAF included) and be cautious, smart, and deliberate to do so as safely as possible.

So newbs - don't settle for someone like Ausp telling you that you shouldn't sail if you don't have the experience of someone like Beth and Evans. On the other hand, don't settle for a fall rally that allows virtually any newb into it with the _expectation/assumption that he/she has the experience_ of someone like Beth and Evans.

There is a _very wide_ middle road between these two nonsensical extremes.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> This really is a _ridiculous_ argument. It ONLY applies to those with vast amounts of experience. If you really want to keep sailing an elitist pastime, Ausp, then knock yourself out, and enjoy your shrinking world.
> 
> In the mean time, there are LOTS of newer sailors _all over the world_ that will have to _earn that experience_ the way it's always been done: By going out and doing it...one step at a time. For them, I will always maintain they should look to every possible resource (ISAF included) and be cautious, smart, and deliberate to do so as safely as possible.
> 
> So newbs - don't settle for someone like Ausp telling you that you shouldn't sail if you don't have the experience of someone like Beth and Evans. On the other hand, don't settle for a fall rally that allows virtually any newb into it with the _expectation/assumption that he/she has the experience_ of someone like Beth and Evans.
> 
> There is a _very wide_ middle road between these two nonsensical extremes.


You are setting up a ridiculous strawman (or 2?) Smack. SVA didn't suggest for a minute that only highly experienced sailors should go offshore. In fact, I think he has volunteered with the SDR at least 1-2 years. They are the one's you say have indefensibly low standards, right? I think maybe you have too much of your personal credibility in this fight. I mean, pick your poison . . . is SVA encouraging newbies to sail into treacherous waters for which they are unprepared? Or, is he an elitist who would only want to see others with extensive offshore experience "out there"?

If I can turn back to the reality of it for a moment:

I know Dave, and while our online personalities don't always mesh, I know he is both a decent and helpful guy. The fact that I know him in connection with helping to prepare and plan for my first extensive offshore run (my previous long run had been only 36 hours . . . maybe BW maybe coastal depending on definitions) makes me very confident that he is neither of the things you alternatively suggest (elitist or cavalierly sending newbie offshore).

The thing is -- and the thing that I really think you are missing -- is that SVA didn't encourage me to sail offshore. As I imagine pretty much everyone who actual sails offshore does, I made that decision myself (and in fact you confront and make the decision multiple times leading up to such a passage). What he did was help me become *better prepared*. The things we discussed (pilot charts, charts and fall-off points, local conditions in bahamian waters, SSB wx reception, etc) were all things I was familiar with at certain levels. I had personal experience with some and had read about others. SVA helped me raise that understanding -- and by doing so made me better prepared. The point I am trying to make is not about SVA or me at all -- it is the universal point (and the flaw with your concern or argument) -- *individuals* make the decision to sail offshore. It is almost the essence of the thing. For me, I probably wouldn't be interested in a rally precisely because it might take away from that essence. On the other hand, they provide a real resource. The type of resource I can see value in having. If you suggest that they shouldn't be able to provide that resource unless (cough) it isn't needed . . . well, again I am glad SN is not where policy is made.


----------



## ccriders

JonEisberg said:


> You may be taking too lightly the fact that weather routing for such a passage doesn't end upon departure, but is only just _beginning_... One is not necessarily stuck with the weather one "gets", a good router like Herb, or Chris, can be of great assistance in helping sailors avoid the worst, or take advantage of favorable developments throughout the entire duration of the passage...


In my mindset, I'm plowing along out there at 5 kts at best and have a fast moving storm barreling down on me at 20mph more or less. I'm not so sure I could execute the avoidance route suggested by the weather router. This by the way may be the best argument for a greater than 40 ft boat.

Your boat is beautiful and the work you have done is impressive. The reason for my chain plate comment is that when I got my boat in 2006, I faced some serious standing rigging problems, so ended up replacing it all, but did not know enough to take out and inspect the chain plates. After reading here many reports of chain plate problems I tackled that job this last week. I'm happy to say mine looked fine and polished up nicely with no bulkhead rot or compression, etc. Your comment about putting in longer chain plates than the originals is interesting. It seems to me the least strong portion of the chain plate is that portion extending above the deck, given there is no corrosion within the deck area and that the longer tail section is really addressing the potential weakness of the bulkhead to which it is attached. So, was longer necessary?

New subject. There seems to be serious conflict about how one gains experience. To what degree does the ASA courses build the experience necessary to qualify for one of these regattas? Their 108 course "Offshore Passage Making" states the student can act as captain or crew on a sailing vessel on offshore passages in any weather.
Could this then be part of the "experience" qualification to meet minimum participation?
Talk amount yourselves...
John


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> You are setting up a ridiculous strawman (or 2?) Smack. SVA didn't suggest for a minute that only highly experienced sailors should go offshore. In fact, I think he has volunteered with the SDR at least 1-2 years. They are the one's you say have indefensibly low standards, right? I think maybe you have too much of your personal credibility in this fight. I mean, pick your poison . . . is SVA encouraging newbies to sail into treacherous waters for which they are unprepared? Or, is he an elitist who would only want to see others with extensive offshore experience "out there"?
> 
> If I can turn back to the reality of it for a moment:
> 
> I know Dave, and while our online personalities don't always mesh, I know he is both a decent and helpful guy. The fact that I know him in connection with helping to prepare and plan for my first extensive offshore run (my previous long run had been only 36 hours . . . maybe BW maybe coastal depending on definitions) makes me very confident that he is neither of the things you alternatively suggest (elitist or cavalierly sending newbie offshore).
> 
> The thing is -- and the thing that I really think you are missing -- is that SVA didn't encourage me to sail offshore. As I imagine pretty much everyone who actual sails offshore does, I made that decision myself (and in fact you confront and make the decision multiple times leading up to such a passage). What he did was help me become *better prepared*. The things we discussed (pilot charts, charts and fall-off points, local conditions in bahamian waters, SSB wx reception, etc) were all things I was familiar with at certain levels. I had personal experience with some and had read about others. SVA helped me raise that understanding -- and by doing so made me better prepared. The point I am trying to make is not about SVA or me at all -- it is the universal point (and the flaw with your concern or argument) -- *individuals* make the decision to sail offshore. It is almost the essence of the thing. For me, I probably wouldn't be interested in a rally precisely because it might take away from that essence. On the other hand, they provide a real resource. The type of resource I can see value in having. If you suggest that they shouldn't be able to provide that resource unless (cough) it isn't needed . . . well, again I am glad SN is not where policy is made.


Stink, here's the reality: If the SDR (specifically them due to their hands-off approach) uses the same standard SVA uses to judge a sailor fit for a passage like this I have absolutely no argument. The problem is, they don't. The fact that he doesn't mind such a low standard of entry for a rally like this - but still expects a high standard of experience-based knowledge/judgment for each participating skipper is about as straw man as one can get. You just can't have it both ways. It's a dangerous combination.

What makes this whole discussion bizarre is that I _actually agree _with Ausp and Jon regarding the level of experience one should have to do this trip. *It's the SDR that disagrees with them - not me.* Yet, where is their energy going?

Again, my argument is not geared toward Ausp or Jon or any individual (unless they say something silly). It's geared _specifically_ toward the rally organization (be it SDR, or whomever operates similarly). If that organization truly does for their less-experienced participants the kinds of things Ausp did for you:



> What he did was help me become *better prepared*. The things we discussed (pilot charts, charts and fall-off points, local conditions in bahamian waters, SSB wx reception, etc) were all things I was familiar with at certain levels. I had personal experience with some and had read about others. SVA helped me raise that understanding -- and by doing so made me better prepared.


Then we have absolutely no argument. (And no, a limited attendance, single day seminar is not enough in my opinion - and is _definitely_ not "several up and down the East Coast" as he said.)

If that organization doesn't do this, and if they have a bar for entry that is far, far below what Ausp or Jon would _ever_ recommend for such a trip - what exactly are these guys defending? _This_ is where reality is getting bent.



blowinstink said:


> The point I am trying to make is not about SVA or me at all -- it is the universal point (and the flaw with your concern or argument) -- **individuals* make the decision to sail offshore. It is almost the essence of the thing.* For me, I probably wouldn't be interested in a rally precisely because it might take away from that essence. On the other hand, they provide a real resource. The type of resource I can see value in having. If you suggest that they shouldn't be able to provide that resource unless (cough) it isn't needed . . . well, again I am glad SN is not where policy is made.


You're absolutely right. Individuals make that choice to undertake and continue a passage...except in a rally...where choices get a lot more complex. If a rally is a good resource - I'm all over it. If it's not - something should change to make it one.


----------



## SVAuspicious

blowinstink said:


> I know Dave, and while our online personalities don't always mesh, I know he is both a decent and helpful guy. The fact that I know him in connection with helping to prepare and plan for my first extensive offshore run (my previous long run had been only 36 hours . . . maybe BW maybe coastal depending on definitions) makes me very confident that he is neither of the things you alternatively suggest (elitist or cavalierly sending newbie offshore).


Thank you. That is kind.

Short story, and I hope I don't embarrass anyone. I recall a relevant passage in which someone I know was getting beaten up and really wanted to run an inlet. With the crew on a sat phone, me in Annapolis, an SSB call into Marsh Harbour, and a VHF link to Guana we got real time information on the inlet to determine if entrance was safe.

Sorry for the digression. My point is that I *want* people to be out sailing. I *want* to help them be self-sufficient. My favorite owner-aboard deliveries are those that end with the owners telling me they won't need me next time. I love those trips.

My point is simple. I don't understand why it is obscured. ISAF regulations for what equipment to have on board misses the most important factor of crew skill, knowledge, and experience.

On delivery I ALWAYS have one spot for a new person building that experience. I take it as a personal responsibility to the cruising community to give back. How can I reasonably expect experience if I don't contribute to it, as others contributed to mine?

You don't have to spend years and years (well some people may, based on the belligerency in this thread) to develop that experience. Most of it isn't that hard. Unfortunately you can't teach judgment.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You keep wanting to make the SDR look better.


You misunderstand... I have made it clear from the outset that I've always had deep reservations about the whole rally concept... I simply don't see where what occurred in this year's SDR differs fundamentally from the sort of incidents that have occurred in every other rally out there over the years, repeatedly...



smackdaddy said:


> One of these rallies is very expensive and has a lot of safety regulations (good ones I think) that mean a good deal even more expense. The other rally is free...with no expensive regulations.


Again, I am still waiting for someone to explain how the 1500's ISAF safety inspection would have prevented/averted any of the rudder failures or dismastings last month... Why have they not prevented similar failures in the 1500 or ARC in the past?

_*In both 2010, and 2011, boats have been lost, AND SAILORS HAVE DIED while participating in the very rallies you are insisting that the SDR should be emulating...*_ Why are the far less serious incidents that occurred last month suddenly sparking such outrage, demands for 'change' and/or regulation, often bordering on the downright hysterical?

Or, have you simply not been paying attention to what's been happening in these rallies over the past 2 decades, until now?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Individuals make that choice to undertake and continue a passage...except in a rally...where choices get a lot more complex. If a rally is a good resource - I'm all over it. If it's not - something should change to make it one.


With you Smack, up until the except. There is no except, your boat, your the one sailing it. A rally is a rally not an ocean chaperoning package holiday.


----------



## chall03

Without knowing on the ground details about the SDR or speaking to it specifically, I actually believe rallies can be a great part of the mix of ways to learn and gain experience cruising. We have both spent time sailing with others offshore and have also done more formal training, but on top of that we have also taken part in a rally and found it was a great fun way to meet some more experienced cruisers, ask them questions and pickup a thing or two. Briefings and weather information were also a good help and it was a bit of fun.

Even being relative newbies at the time we weren't silly enough to just follow blindly and indeed on more than one occasion made decisions contrary to the majority. Rallies aren't for everyone, we probably won't do too many more but I fail to see them being a 'great evil' tricking ma and pa suburbia to sail off into the ocean naively.

Do people not know there are big waves out there? Really?? And that is SDR's fault?


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Thank you. That is kind.
> 
> Short story, and I hope I don't embarrass anyone. I recall a relevant passage in which someone I know was getting beaten up and really wanted to run an inlet. With the crew on a sat phone, me in Annapolis, an SSB call into Marsh Harbour, and a VHF link to Guana we got real time information on the inlet to determine if entrance was safe.
> 
> Sorry for the digression. My point is that I *want* people to be out sailing. I *want* to help them be self-sufficient. My favorite owner-aboard deliveries are those that end with the owners telling me they won't need me next time. I love those trips.
> 
> *My point is simple. I don't understand why it is obscured. ISAF regulations for what equipment to have on board misses the most important factor of crew skill, knowledge, and experience.*
> 
> On delivery I ALWAYS have one spot for a new person building that experience. I take it as a personal responsibility to the cruising community to give back. How can I reasonably expect experience if I don't contribute to it, as others contributed to mine?
> 
> You don't have to spend years and years (well some people may, based on the belligerency in this thread) to develop that experience. Most of it isn't that hard. Unfortunately you can't teach judgment.


Now this is a great post - and the way it should be. Goodonya Ausp.

The only clarification I'll add is to the bolded part above. Make this case to your friends at the SDR so that there is a sufficiently high standard for entry (as you say, the most important factor). Then there's not nearly the level of need for safety guidance that is present in a skipper who has only done a single passage.


----------



## aeventyr60

A new rally for the East Coast folks. Future fodder for the SN paparazzi. Hurry up regulators, your time is limited in making a difference.

You are here: Home / Countries / USA / ARC DelMarVa: A new rally for East Coast USA
ARC DelMarVa: A new rally for East Coast USA
By World Cruising Club — last modified Dec 18, 2013 08:37 PM
World Cruising Club will have a new addition to the World Cruising Club USA portfolio in 2014 thanks to teaming up with SpinSheet Magazine to host ARC DelMarVa.

Published: 2013-12-18 00:00:00
Topics: Rallies
Countries: USA
ARC DelMarVa: A new rally for East Coast USA

This week long cruise discovers the highlights of the Chesapeake Bay and takes sailors around the DelMarVa peninsula, starting and finishing in Annapolis, MD.

Divided into three legs, boats will sail close to 450 nm into Delaware Bay, including an offshore passage. Safe and Social cruising will be at the heart of the event, with briefings, parties and expert support from the World Cruising Club team


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> A new rally for the East Coast folks. Future fodder for the SN paparazzi. Hurry up regulators, your time is limited in making a difference.
> 
> You are here: Home / Countries / USA / ARC DelMarVa: A new rally for East Coast USA
> ARC DelMarVa: A new rally for East Coast USA
> By World Cruising Club - last modified Dec 18, 2013 08:37 PM
> World Cruising Club will have a new addition to the World Cruising Club USA portfolio in 2014 thanks to teaming up with SpinSheet Magazine to host ARC DelMarVa.
> 
> Published: 2013-12-18 00:00:00
> Topics: Rallies
> Countries: USA
> ARC DelMarVa: A new rally for East Coast USA
> 
> This week long cruise discovers the highlights of the Chesapeake Bay and takes sailors around the DelMarVa peninsula, starting and finishing in Annapolis, MD.
> 
> Divided into three legs, boats will sail close to 450 nm into Delaware Bay, including an offshore passage. Safe and Social cruising will be at the heart of the event, with briefings, parties and expert support from the World Cruising Club team


I just hope the WCC has the stones to mandate Magmas on each rail. Someone's gonna get hungry out there.


----------



## JonEisberg

ccriders said:


> In my mindset, I'm plowing along out there at 5 kts at best and have a fast moving storm barreling down on me at 20mph more or less. I'm not so sure I could execute the avoidance route suggested by the weather router. This by the way may be the best argument for a greater than 40 ft boat.


Certainly, it will not always be possible to avoid fast moving systems entirely, but even in a 4KSB it can still be possible to place yourself in a more advantageous position, or alter your passage entirely. A good router will always take your boat's speed into consideration. If there was one gripe I often heard about Herb, it's that he would often expect you to motor to the waypoint he was suggesting for 24 hours out, and would lose patience with those not inclined to do so... But, he always had your best interests in mind, and was primarily focused on keeping folks out of harm's way, and making the most favorable possible passage...

Personally, I've always thought an argument in favor of a larger boat due to their perceived ability to better 'play' the weather, is vastly overblown... The difference between 4 and 5 knots, or 5 and 6, is generally gonna be pretty insignificant in the big picture... The oft-heard mention of boats capable of consistently reeling off 200-mile days is largely overstated, a survey by Beth Leonard shows such an average is rarely achieved by most cruisers with any real regularity... You really need to get up to the size range or speed potential of something like the Dashew's 78' BEOWULF, to have the ability to play fast moving weather systems as if you were Stan Honey navigating a RTW record attempt...










Or, perhaps go with one of the Open-based designs that are becoming popular with cruisers for whom speed is paramount...

Like the Pogo, for instance... Here's one just crossing the finish line in this year's ARC Rally 












ccriders said:


> Your comment about putting in longer chain plates than the originals is interesting. It seems to me the least strong portion of the chain plate is that portion extending above the deck, given there is no corrosion within the deck area and that the longer tail section is really addressing the potential weakness of the bulkhead to which it is attached. So, was longer necessary?


Probably not, but it helps me sleep better 

Allied built my built like a tank, but I always thought the chainplates looked a bit marginal, to my eye... And they always seemed a bit 'short', I had much more length on my chainplate bulkhead to work with, so why not go a bit longer?

But my primary concern was with a bit of deck core saturation I had in the vicinity of the starboard chainplate when I bought the boat, created by the previous owner's stupid attempt to plug some leakage around the chainplate from _underneath_... So, I was a bit concerned that the core of the bulkhead might have been somewhat compromised, as well... Of course, all the new bolt holes for the replacement were drilled out oversized, and re-filled with high density epoxy, but I still figured it might be a good idea to simply add a few more fasteners further on down the bulkhead, to prevent the possibility of any degree of 'creeping' upward... So far, so good...



ccriders said:


> New subject. There seems to be serious conflict about how one gains experience. To what degree does the ASA courses build the experience necessary to qualify for one of these regattas? Their 108 course "Offshore Passage Making" states the student can act as captain or crew on a sailing vessel on offshore passages in any weather.
> 
> Could this then be part of the "experience" qualification to meet minimum participation?


Sorry, but that's one thing I can't offer much of an informed opinion upon  I have no knowledge of what the ASA offers in their various courses...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Like the Pogo, for instance... Here's one just crossing the finish line in this year's ARC Rally


Impressive.


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> I just hope the WCC has the stones to mandate Magmas on each rail. Someone's gonna get hungry out there.


ISAF regulations forbid the Magma's due to faulty propane connections. They did approve the Force 8 Kettle. Under extensive testing and in concern for crew safety and nourishment, stern mounted meat cooking devices are now required safety devices.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> ISAF regulations forbid the Magma's due to faulty propane connections. They did approve the Force 8 Kettle. Under extensive testing and in concern for crew safety and nourishment, stern mounted meat cooking devices are now required safety devices.


Speaking of which, wasn't it you that put up a pic of a huge freakin' chunk of yak you bought while toodling around Nepal? That was an impressive _hors d'ouvre_!


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Speaking of which, wasn't it you that put up a pic of a huge freakin' chunk of yak you bought while toodling around Nepal? That was an impressive _hors d'ouvre_!


Yes, guilty as charged. We prefer to wrap a small snapper in a banana leaf and cook slowly over the Force 8 Kettle. Sometimes even as we sail!

For a Christmas feed we will have clams done up with lemongrass, a few mud crabs and some giant tiger prawns on the Kettle.

Happy Holidays!


----------



## chall03

aeventyr60 said:


> ISAF regulations forbid the Magma's due to faulty propane connections. They did approve the Force 8 Kettle. Under extensive testing and in concern for crew safety and nourishment, stern mounted meat cooking devices are now required safety devices.


We had a magma and it rattled itself to death on passage in anything over 20kts.

Now have a Aussie made Galleymate.

Apparently you can also use them as an emergency rudder pending ISAF approval. 

Marine Barbecues on Vimeo


----------



## smackdaddy

Mate, let's throw some shrimp on the rudder!

Good morning Chall. I'm going to bed.

PS - your 4KSB acheiveing 20 knots is truly impressive. Even to a Texan.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Mate, let's throw some shrimp on the rudder!
> 
> Good morning Chall. I'm going to bed.
> 
> PS - your 4KSB acheiveing 20 knots is truly impressive. Even to a Texan.


You ain't seen nothing until you've seen a Roberts planing......


----------



## aeventyr60

The gallymate has also been known to be used as an anchor for frustrated CQR users. Extensive testing as a heavy weather para type anchor are currently underway. With a new crop of down under rally goers (sail indonesia) arriving shortly the supply will be endless.


----------



## smackdaddy

Just read a great article in SAIL magazine by Peter Nielsen regarding the SDR and C1500. It's called "Group Think". Here's the takeaway:



> The C1500 organizers, with their European risk-management-style insistence on strict safety protocols, started their rally a day early, on the weather router's advice, to beat the two fronts bearing down on the Chesapeake. The Salty Dawg people, whose rally was founded in response to the rigid safety requirements of the C1500, take a _laissez-faire_ approach that places the onus for preparation and decision-making on the individual skippers. Rightly so, you may say, and I would usually be the first to agree, as the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain.
> 
> But of all the reasons to join a flock of other boats in an organized blue water rally, surely the notion of safety is one of the strongest. I suspect that the passage that lay ahead of the skippers in the Salty Dawg and the C1500 would be the longest most of them had undertaken, and faced with the unfamiliar, there is certainty of comfort in company, and at least the illusion of safety in numbers.


Exactly.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Just read a great article in SAIL magazine by Peter Nielsen regarding the SDR and C1500. It's called "Group Think". Here's the takeaway:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of all the reasons to join a flock of other boats in an organized blue water rally, surely *the notion of safety* is one of the strongest. I suspect that the passage that lay ahead of the skippers in the Salty Dawg and the C1500 would be the longest most of them had undertaken, and faced with the unfamiliar, *there is certainty of comfort in company, and at least the illusion of safety in numbers.*
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...

Wow, is he really _SERIOUS_ with that last bit?

I don't know, sure sounds pretty wishy-washy, to me... A couple of grand seems a lot to fork over to the WCC in a feel-good concession to _the notion of safety_, in order to obtain the placebo of _comfort_ of sailing in company, and the pleasant _illusion_ provided in drinking the Safety in Numbers Kool-Aid...

_Illusion_, or _Delusion_? What does it matter, right? Hey, whatever it takes to get the reluctant spouse to set sail for Paradise, I suppose... 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what he's getting at, but it sure sounds to me like he's pretty much in agreement with what I wrote here in another thread on rallies over a year ago:



> In my observation/interaction with offshore rally participants, the primary motivation for plunking down that sort of cash appears to be an effort to assuage the fears of their spouses, and caving into their mistaken belief that there is anything resembling "safety in numbers" during the course of an offshore passage... Simpler to just pay for the Placebo Effect, I suppose, than to acknowledge the simple reality that if you have any real doubts about your ability or confidence to undertake a bluewater passage on your own, well... then you're not ready, PERIOD...
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/956155-post10.html


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, is he really _SERIOUS_ with that last bit?
> 
> I don't know, sure sounds pretty wishy-washy, to me...


I guess you'll need to take it up with him. But I think you nailed the problem...it's the "wishy-washy" nature of group think that has to be accounted for in these rallies. And the SDR, it seems, is currently not doing a great job of this IMUSO.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> But I think you nailed the problem...it's the "wishy-washy" nature of group think that has to be accounted for in these rallies. And the SDR, it seems, is currently not doing a great job of this IMUSO.


So, then... It's the rally _*that makes it abundantly clear that each skipper is SOLELY responsible for the preparation of his vessel, and the choice of his departure time*_ - and NOT the one that touts the notion that their _*" 'experts' are there to take the pressure off of that decision... to ensure the fleet makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions"*_ - that needs to better address the matter of "GROUP THINK"???

OK, we'll just have to take your word for it, I suppose...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> So, then... It's the rally _*that makes it abundantly clear that each skipper is SOLELY responsible for the preparation of his vessel, and the choice of his departure time*_ - and NOT the one that touts the notion that their _*" 'experts' are there to take the pressure off of that decision... to ensure the fleet makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions"*_ - that needs to better address the matter of "GROUP THINK"???
> 
> OK, we'll just have to take your word for it, I suppose...


Dude - it ain't just me. Have you not gotten that yet? This was from SAIL magazine - and we're seeing the same general "Group Think" and/or "What The Hell?" sentiments elsewhere from guys far more in the know than I. So you're kind of arguing with the wrong dude here.

I can't help it if I've been right all along. It's just my burden to bear.


----------



## aeventyr60

I liked the "illusion" part. Plenty of smoke and mirrors being used by the marketers to create the "illusion" of the cruising fantasy.


----------



## BentSailor

aeventyr60 said:


> I liked the "illusion" part. Plenty of smoke and mirrors being used by the marketers to create the "illusion" of the cruising fantasy.


What "illusion"? Isn't this magazine advertisement what *all* cruising is like?


----------



## aeventyr60

Bent,

Exactly how it is out here. White shirts and shorts, Biff and Muffy on the helm...


----------



## BentSailor

aeventyr60 said:


> White shirts and shorts, Biff and Muffy on the helm...


...Biff already grey and balding 

I love sailing (and know it gets... _unpleasant_) but I do have to laugh at the targeted advertising. It's like every yacht advertisement is focused on my _parents_. Some of us looking at buying a yacht have a full crop of hair, no grey in it, and like the trophy wife in the white swimsuit to be at least as young as we are


----------



## aeventyr60

By the time your able to afford a new glossy yacht you will have no hair and what remains will be grey. If your wallet is still fat then you can get the trophy wife half your age too.


----------



## smackdaddy

BentSailor said:


> What "illusion"? Isn't this magazine advertisement what *all* cruising is like?


What the hell? My Hunter didn't come with the scantily clad au pair!?!?

Damn Salty Dawg Rally.


----------



## BentSailor

smackdaddy said:


> What the hell? My Hunter didn't come with the scantily clad au pair!?!?


I think it comes as an (expensive) optional extra when you buy it from Hunter direct. I'm sure it's listed in there beside bow-thrusters and in-mast furling 

P.S. Don't you just love what the young boy is focused on. Kids these days


----------



## smackdaddy

BentSailor said:


> I think it comes as an (expensive) optional extra when you buy it from Hunter direct. I'm sure it's listed in there beside bow-thrusters and in-mast furling
> 
> P.S. Don't you just love what the young boy is focused on. Kids these days


Heh-heh...La Pair d'Au Pair! Fine young lad!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - it ain't just me. Have you not gotten that yet? This was from SAIL magazine - and we're seeing the same general "Group Think" and/or "What The Hell?" sentiments elsewhere from guys far more in the know than I. So you're kind of arguing with the wrong dude here.
> 
> I can't help it if I've been right all along. It's just my burden to bear.


Sorry, but it IS only you... Neither Peter Nielsen, nor John Harries are saying that the Salty Dawg Rally has a problem with "Group Think" _exclusive to them_, or that is a consequence of their putting full responsibility in the hands of their participants, or their lack of a safety inspection... Harries, in fact, made it clear that he was speaking of these fall rallies in general, and not just the SDR...

It is you who continues to argue that the SDR is the one doing it wrong, and that changes need to be made... Again, I find the notion that the one rally which puts total responsibility in the hands of its participants, being singled out as the one that needs to better address the issue of "Group Think", completely baffling...

But, perhaps that's just me...


----------



## JonEisberg

BentSailor said:


> What "illusion"? Isn't this magazine advertisement what *all* cruising is like?


Perhaps that's what it's like for you family guys, but for a guy like me with a penchant for sailing solo, THIS is more what it's like...










Oh, and one thing about that Bavarian _VISION_ you're pictured... Trust me, you do NOT want to get pinned by a strong breeze against a floating dock the approximate height of those picture windows...

I've witnessed the ability of that middle one to produce some _EXTREMELY_ disconcerting _cracking_ noises... 

Genius engineering, placing that thing in the hull at the point of maximum beam...


----------



## ccriders

smackdaddy said:


> What the hell? My Hunter didn't come with the scantily clad au pair!?!?
> 
> Damn Salty Dawg Rally.


What year did you say your boat was manufactured? Maybe the au pair has a pair of her own back in France and needs to be replaced with a new model.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but it IS only you... Neither Peter Nielsen, nor John Harries are saying that the Salty Dawg Rally has a problem with "Group Think" _exclusive to them_, or that is a consequence of their putting full responsibility in the hands of their participants, or their lack of a safety inspection... Harries, in fact, made it clear that he was speaking of these fall rallies in general, and not just the SDR...
> 
> It is you who continues to argue that the SDR is the one doing it wrong, and that changes need to be made... Again, I find the notion that the one rally which puts total responsibility in the hands of its participants, being singled out as the one that needs to better address the issue of "Group Think", completely baffling...
> 
> But, perhaps that's just me...


Well, it's clear that you're baffled. That's for sure.

On your first point, I've never said "Group Think" is exclusive to the SDR. I'm not sure where you got that. I fully agree that it's an issue with all rallies - and, therefore, fully agree with Nielsen and Harries in this regard. So you're wrong (or just baffled) on this one.

On your second point, you're right...I think the SDR is doing it wrong. But as I said, _I'm not the only one that holds this view_. Again, though he's not as blunt as I am, you seem to be missing Nielsen's point. Let me boil it down:



> The Salty Dawg people...take a laissez-faire approach that places the onus for preparation and decision-making on the individual skippers. Rightly so, you may say, _*and I would usually be the first to agree*_, as the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain.
> 
> *But...*


See that big "but"? That's Nielsen's but not mine.

I understand you just can't get your mind past what you already think. But, sorry, it's pretty clear that it ISN'T only me seeing problems with the SDR.


----------



## luv4sailin

To: Smackdaddy and Jon

Merry Christmas. Perhaps an event in history is applicable today with regard to your ongoing postings on rallies.






Best wishes to you both in the new year.

Regards,
Ron


----------



## smackdaddy

luv4sailin said:


> To: Smackdaddy and Jon
> 
> Merry Christmas. Perhaps an event in history is applicable today with regard to your ongoing postings on rallies.
> 
> Christmas truce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Best wishes to you both in the new year.
> 
> Regards,
> Ron


Remember - Jon and I are like siblings. We hammer on each other relentlessly, but it's not malicious. I respect him. I just like giving him noogies.

Merry Christmas to all. Even _you_ Jon Eisberg.


----------



## manatee

For Smack & Jon--


----------



## SVAuspicious

For those that keep circling back to rules like those of ISAF as the "solution" to safety at sea read this earlier thread: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship-articles/29098-can-you-buy-safety.html .

Safety inspections--ISAF-based or not--are simply NOT the answer to improved safety at sea. Judgment, skill, and experience in that order are the answer. "Stuff" is a distant fourth. Unfortunately you can't teach judgment. I think you can learn it with enough scar tissue. *grin*


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Well, it's clear that you're baffled. That's for sure.


OK, the Christmas Truce is over... 



smackdaddy said:


> On your first point, I've never said "Group Think" is exclusive to the SDR. I'm not sure where you got that.


Post #548, perhaps?



smackdaddy said:


> But I think you nailed the problem...it's the "wishy-washy" nature of group think that has to be accounted for in these rallies. And the SDR, it seems, is currently not doing a great job of this IMUSO.


True, "group think" is not an issue exclusive to the SDR, but according to you, they're the ones not adequately addressing it, and the ones who need to "change"...



smackdaddy said:


> On your second point, you're right...*I think the SDR is doing it wrong.* But as I said, _I'm not the only one that holds this view_. Again, though he's not as blunt as I am, *you seem to be missing Nielsen's point. Let me boil it down:*
> 
> 
> 
> The Salty Dawg people...take a laissez-faire approach that places the onus for preparation and decision-making on the individual skippers. Rightly so, you may say, *and I would usually be the first to agree*, as the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain.
Click to expand...

So, then - here's what Nielsen is saying in effect, and you are in complete agreement with, when applied to the SDR:

_Normally, I'm inclined to believe that the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain. *Except*, in the case of the rally whose mission statement makes it perfectly clear from the outset that the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain..._

Completely nonsensical... Congrats, you're following Lewis Carrol through the rabbit hole and into ALICE IN WONDERLAND, with your endorsement of that sort of 'logic'... 



smackdaddy said:


> *But...*
> 
> 
> 
> See that big "but"? That's Nielsen's but not mine.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Then why did you stamp everything he wrote following that "But" with your own imprimatur of _"EXACTLY"_ ???



> *But* of all the reasons to join a flock of other boats in an organized blue water rally, surely the notion of safety is one of the strongest. I suspect that the passage that lay ahead of the skippers in the Salty Dawg and the C1500 would be the longest most of them had undertaken, and faced with the unfamiliar, *there is certainty of comfort in company, and at least the illusion of safety in numbers.*


OK, help me out here, since you appear to know "exactly" what Nielsen means with this nonsensical non-sequitur. Is this where the SDR has gone wrong, in their refusal to embrace the _"certainty of comfort in company, and at least the illusion of safety in numbers."_ ? Is _THAT_, indeed, the rationale for sailing in a rally, "finding comfort" in the Placebo of Superstition? Are we to the point where weather routers should now be thinking twice before endorsing a Friday departure, as well?

You keep insisting that the SDR is 'doing it wrong', and yet neither you, nor Neilsen, say with any degree of clarity what the SDR did wrong, how it contributed to the difficulties some boats encountered, or what should be done to prevent this from happening again... Beyond some vague rhetoric about ensuring participants are more experienced, or whatever... Need I remind you yet again that - at least as far as we know at this point - none of the participants in this year's SDR performed stunts of seamanship as stupid as those performed in a recent 1500? Such as entering Oregon Inlet in a big NE swell, or attempting to enter a cut in the Abacos, at night, during a rage?

What makes our back and forth on this especially amusing, is our relative positions we've debated in prior "Bluewater vs. Production Boats" threads... I seem to recall you generally taking the position that it's always the sailor, not the boat, that matters - and that in general most any production boat is adequate for bluewater voyaging...

Based upon what we know so far about the incidents last month, if there is one possible lesson to take away, it might be this: Passagemakers have to give very serious consideration about setting out in 'ordinary' production boats, particularly ones that might be 25-30 years old...

With the exception of JAMMIN', and the Catana 47 that lost it's carbon fiber rig, the C-38, the OI 41, and the Alden 54 were all likely built in the 70's or 80's... Could be just me, but a boat like AHIMSA would not be high on my list of vintage production boats to make this trip, and I would pass on doing a delivery of one over that route... That boat was new to her owners, who knows what condition it was in. The HC-38 NYAPA was sailed by some pretty experienced cruisers, and by at least one account was very well maintained... And the Alden ZULU was a beautiful, high-quality boat, and I'm guessing she simply fell prey to an instance of "Sh_t Happening" that can occur aboard even the most well-found vessel...

Again, I simply think that much of the hand-wringing over what occurred last month is a bit overwrought - especially when compared to far more serious or higher percentage of incidents in previous rallies... I'm content to let Evans Starzinger have the final word:



> Finally, there were a couple hundred boats going down that route, many of them with limited offshore experience, and it is a tough route in early Nov, so the failure rate is actually not all that bad. It could be much better, most of these things could have been avoided, but it is not terrible all things considered (inexperience and conditions).
> 
> Fact of life: occasionally things break and stuff happens at sea - in a large fleet there will be incidents.
> 
> Salty Dog Rally Incidents - Page 4 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## flyingwelshman

smackdaddy said:


> What the hell? My Hunter didn't come with the scantily clad au pair!?!


I didn't realize that I should have had one on my Hunter.

After reading about this critical piece of equipment here on Sailnet, I contacted Hunter in Florida to see about getting my boat up to its like-new condition.

Unfortunately, because of the age of my boat ('89) Hunter did not stock the parts. The new au pairs do not fit the old (pre '94) designs - they're metric.

So, O.E.M. was out of the question, I decided to go 'after market' - there are some pretty good ones out there....

This model would fit, but I can't afford the price tag (it's maintenance costs are very high, plus it is incompatible with my crew):










I looked on Craigslist and found this re-furbished model:










I have heard about the risk of silicone seepage so I decided to go for a well-maintained factory original. Her name is Mirielle - she's from Montreal. So far I'm very happy with her. Here she is installed in my cockpit:


----------



## manatee

> JonEisberg:
> {snip}
> I seem to recall you generally taking the position that it's always the sailor, not the boat, that matters - and that in general most any production boat is adequate for bluewater voyaging...
> 
> Based upon what we know so far about the incidents last month, if there is one possible lesson to take away, it might be this: Passagemakers have to give very serious consideration about setting out in 'ordinary' production boats, particularly ones that might be 25-30 years old...
> {snip}


For example: READ ME


----------



## smackdaddy

You two are seriously high-maintenance. But it's the holidays, so I'll continue to try to help you understand things.



SVAuspicious said:


> For those that keep circling back to rules like those of ISAF as the "solution" to safety at sea read this earlier thread: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship-articles/29098-can-you-buy-safety.html .
> 
> Safety inspections--ISAF-based or not--are simply NOT the answer to improved safety at sea. Judgment, skill, and experience in that order are the answer. "Stuff" is a distant fourth. Unfortunately you can't teach judgment. I think you can learn it with enough scar tissue. *grin*


I don't think anyone has said that ISAF is _the_ "'solution' to safety at sea". You seem to have trouble understanding what you read.

I won't re-hash it all here, because I think I've been very clear about the issues surrounding the SDR being the _combination_ of a low bar to entry (especially for this stretch of ocean at this time of year) _combined with_ their _laissez faire_ approach to safety. Maybe you can find someone to explain this to you.



JonEisberg said:


> True, "group think" is not an issue exclusive to the SDR, but according to you, they're the ones not adequately addressing it, and the ones who need to "change"...


Right. You seem to be in the same confused boat as Ausp. See the above for the problem with the SDR. I think I've been very clear about that.

They should at least change one or the other of these current approaches.



JonEisberg said:


> So, then - here's what Nielsen is saying in effect, and you are in complete agreement with, when applied to the SDR:
> 
> _Normally, I'm inclined to believe that the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain. *Except*, in the case of the rally whose mission statement makes it perfectly clear from the outset that the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain..._
> 
> Completely nonsensical... Congrats, you're following Lewis Carrol through the rabbit hole and into ALICE IN WONDERLAND, with your endorsement of that sort of 'logic'...


Yes...what you typed above is completely non-sensical. Of course, no one in this debate has ever said anything like that. If that's really what you understand Nielsen to being saying when you read his quote, that explains perfectly why you don't understand what's being talked about here.

It's always better to stick with what someone actually says than trying mightily to twist it to fit your point. Otherwise, "in effect", you're saying that:

_"Nielsen is a fool who believes that inexperienced sailors should rub themselves with seal fat and try to ride a polar bear."_



JonEisberg said:


> Post #548, perhaps?
> 
> True, "group think" is not an issue exclusive to the SDR, but according to you, they're the ones not adequately addressing it, and the ones who need to "change"...


Cool. So you're reversing yourself and finally acknowledging what I actually wrote instead of spinning into another rabbit hole. Thank you.



JonEisberg said:


> Oh, really? Then why did you stamp everything he wrote following that "But" with your own imprimatur of _"EXACTLY"_ ???
> 
> OK, help me out here, since you appear to know "exactly" what Nielsen means with this nonsensical non-sequitur.


I said "exactly" because I agree with what he wrote. Let me try yet again to boil it down for you...while you keep in mind the title of his article, "Group Think":



> The Salty Dawg people...take a laissez-faire approach that places the onus for preparation and decision-making on the individual skippers. Rightly so, you may say, and I would usually be the first to agree, as the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain.


Now - to this point, he said he would _usually_ see things the way you and Ausp (and most everyone else including me) sees them...that the ultimate responsibility for a boat's safety rest squarely on the shoulders of its captain.

But then there's the but...



> But of all the reasons to join a flock of other boats in an organized blue water rally, surely the notion of safety is one of the strongest. I suspect that the passage that lay ahead of the skippers in the Salty Dawg and the C1500 would be the longest most of them had undertaken, and faced with the unfamiliar, there is certainty of comfort in company, and at least the illusion of safety in numbers.


For the less-experienced skippers (the ones Ausp and you seem to continually ignore in your diatribes) - the notion of "safety" provided by the rally is an illusion. _Exactly._

This is the higher risk I've been talking about for this entire thread. And if this illusion is not dealt with by the rally - by either increasing the experience-level for entry, or NOT taking a _laissez faire_ approach to these sailor's safety - that organization is creating a dangerous situation (while making money off of it).



JonEisberg said:


> You keep insisting that the SDR is 'doing it wrong', and yet neither you, nor Neilsen, say with any degree of clarity what the SDR did wrong...


Actually, I've said very clearly, over and over again, what the SDR is doing wrong. I've said it twice now above. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear to you and Ausp without diagrams drawn with a crayon.



JonEisberg said:


> What makes our back and forth on this especially amusing, is our relative positions we've debated in prior "Bluewater vs. Production Boats" threads... I seem to recall you generally taking the position that _it's always the sailor, not the boat_, that matters - and that in general most any production boat is adequate for bluewater voyaging...


Absolutely right. Now if the SDR agreed with you and increased their standard of entry to match your view - we'd be golden. If they're NOT going to do that (especially if there is ANY financial incentive in _not doing so_) then that boat (and its safety equipment) is likely going to have to play a much more critical role...especially under the illusion of safety Nielsen mentions.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Let's go back to the beginning. This thread is way too long for me to take the time to pull every one of your posts out but I recall that you have been pretty consistent.



smackdaddy said:


> No boat/safety inspection, etc. This is pretty typical. But then we look back to distress/rescues in past rallies such as the NARC, etc. - and you have to wonder...
> 
> Is it merely the statistical concentration of this many boats in one rally - and we're simply seeing the standard ratio of distresses to the number of boats? Or is it something else?
> 
> Personally, as a dude that has researched off-shore rescues quite a bit, I'm wondering why these kinds of rallies don't require Safety At Sea training like off-shore racing does. Or why don't they at least enforce ISAF rules?


Click 'greater than' symbol for the entire context.

The consistent thread in your commentary is that safety inspections in general and ISAF rules in particular are the minimum appropriate entry criteria.

Jon and I clearly feel differently. Judgment, skill, and experience are more important than 'stuff' on the boat. Unfortunately your vehemence to the contrary doesn't serve others who may come across this thread later well. Now Jon and I are just a couple of guys that sail the bottom paint off many boats. Apparently our combined experience doesn't give you pause to reflect on our counsel. That's fine. We're just a couple of guys who give back as much as we can to the cruising community. Would you like to see correspondence from Hank Schmitt (one of the best skippers I have had the pleasure to sail with) or Evans Starzinger? The article from the Pardeys didn't make an impression?

Enough is enough. It is one thing to disagree on the merits, and discuss on that basis. I fear this one belongs in OT as a religious discussion - the leap of faith that is necessary to reach the conclusion you espouse can go nowhere else.

IGNORE


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Let's go back to the beginning. This thread is way too long for me to take the time to pull every one of your posts out but I recall that you have been pretty consistent.
> 
> The consistent thread in your commentary is that safety inspections in general and ISAF rules in particular are the minimum appropriate entry criteria.
> 
> IGNORE


You really need to make up your mind on the ignore thing. It's a little silly.

I have been very consistent that the ISAF thing is a very good thing to have in a rally (like with the C1500)...especially if the experience bar to entry is low.

If a rally has a low bar for entry, _and no safety requirements,_ as does the SDR, there's a problem.

You've been very consistent in misunderstanding this very basic premise (only focusing on one side of the issue). But it's good to know you're following along.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I have been very consistent that the ISAF thing is a very good thing to have in a rally (like with the C1500)...*especially if the experience bar to entry is low.*


I suppose this is as good an example as any, as to why you and I will NEVER reach any common ground on this issue... You keep repeating that bolded part, _as if it were true_, or that the SDR's bar is set lower than the 1500's...  If anything, by placing the sole responsibility upon the participants themselves, a good argument can be made that the bar is set higher, by definition, than for those who are willing to cede the decision-making re departure, and prep of their boat, to the Gurus of the 1500...

Your continual insistence that - simply because the SDR had no safety inspection - they are minimally concerned with 'Safety', is quite a stretch... I was not involved in the SDR, so of course can offer no first hand examples of the safety of the fleet being uppermost in the minds of the organizers, so perhaps it's best to hear from someone who actually participated...

By far, the best account I've found from one of the boats who ran into serious trouble, is from the blog of the family aboard NYAPA, the HC 38 that was dismasted... For the few who might still be following this thread, I highly recommend reading their account, linked to below...

Since what happened aboard NYAPA is ostensibly one of the consequences of what the SDR is doing wrong, please feel free to point out how they were "enticed" into doing the rally, examples of their "low experience level", what role "Group Think" played in their particular misadventure, or how a Safety Inspection might have averted the loss of their rig (despite having replaced all of their standing rigging a few months prior to departure).

First, their testimonial:



> I want to extend my heartfelt thanks for all your efforts in making the SDR happen. In our case, we had intended to go to the BVI's on our own and joined the SDR for the social aspect and the communication network set in place while underway. * I don't think we would have joined if the SDR did not offer flexibility. Since John and I both tend to be independent thinkers this was essential for us. With that in mind, we left with the mind set that we were responsible for whatever would come our way and more came our way than we anticipated!*
> 
> It was a great relief to me that the framework for communication was in place and we were able to connect with others and relay what was going on, receive weather information and it was, in general, just encouraging to have that daily communication. *I cannot tell you how grateful I am for this and I thank you for your being firm about the need for backup communications! * We definitely had some communication snafus that we had to work around and through.
> 
> Since our return to the Chesapeake we have been so touched by the outreach of the cruising community, we have experienced nothing but kindness and understanding during a time when we felt pretty horrible at the loss of our rig. We are currently in South Carolina on the fast track for Florida where we will be doing repairs. It looks like the next week is bringing us some warm weather, hallelujah!
> 
> John and I once again extend our heartfelt thanks for all the support of the SDR, we wish you the very best in future rallies and hope our paths cross again some day!
> 
> -Amy Pollard, sv Ñyapa


And, why not, let's hear from the smallest boat in the fleet, the very experienced British couple aboard RUFFIAN:



> The Salty Dawg Rally (SDR) has grown up from a little puppy into a full blown hound. In the Spring of 2013 we headed north with a loose collection of sailors where we found community, camaraderie and and a pool of unsurpassed knowledge. We joined them again in the Fall 2013 rally where we found the same sense of community and the same shared goal safely and successfully crossing oceans, but they had matured into something so much more.
> 
> We watched with horror in 2012 as the ARC fleet departed Las Palmas into shocking heavy weather and again in the Spring of 2013 when they left the BVI's into 100's of miles of no wind and vowed that the usual organised rallies were not for us. The SDR is no 'usual rally'.
> 
> The SDR, through it's generous sponsors, enabled us to have a safe and successful crossing from the BVI's to North America on our 34ft yacht. Had we gone our own way and not had the support of the rally and it's included weather routing from Chris Parker, we would have been battered by a storm that was not forecast by GRIB's or NOAA in a timely fashion.
> 
> With the additional sponsors, the formal and informal gatherings to share information and expertise they were now able to welcome both world cruisers and those relatively 'green' to ocean passages. Having Chris Parker talk to the fleet about the weather we could expect on the journey south and safely routing us through the gulf stream proved to be invaluable and when the going got tough he proved to be a voice of calm and reason.
> 
> If we were to head to America again or indeed if the SDR's were to spread their wings into northern Europe we would, without doubt, join them again for everything they bring to cruising experience.
> 
> Iain and Fiona Lewis, sy Ruffian


Finally, the account from NYAPA... Clearly, a rally that sets such a low bar as to "entice" sailors such as this to set off for Paradise with such a _laissez faire_ approach to safety , has a problem... 

ÑYAPA DISMASTED AT SEA | ABOUT A VOYAGE


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I suppose this is as good an example as any, as to why you and I will NEVER reach any common ground on this issue... You keep repeating that bolded part, _as if it were true_,


As if it were true? Are you serious, Jon? You're right, we will NEVER reach common ground if you're not going to be honest about your position. The bolded part was this:



> *"...especially if the experience bar to entry is low"*


And earlier in this thread when I asked your personal opinion on this bar to entry for the SDR, you said this:



JonEisberg said:


> Well, here's what I would say:
> 
> _Don't do it... *A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...*_


So which is it? Is the bar to entry for the SDR (or even C1500) low for this trip, or is it not?

Personally, I agree with your above quote. It's your (and Ausp's) double-sidedness on this issue that's so confusing - i.e. - it's somehow okay for the SDR to have a standard that's exactly the opposite of what you actually believe. You both either want it both ways, or you're just not willing to stand up for your viewpoint against the SDR (for some "strange" reason).



JonEisberg said:


> or that the SDR's bar is set lower than the 1500's...  If anything, by placing the sole responsibility upon the participants themselves, a good argument can be made that the bar is set higher, by definition, than for those who are willing to cede the decision-making re departure, and prep of their boat, to the Gurus of the 1500...


I don't believe I have said anywhere that the bar for entry to the SDR is significantly higher or lower than the C1500. That's a comparison you keep desperately trying to make. Not me.

They are both low in my opinion. But only one of them provides _some_ level of back-up for that (the C1500 via its ISAF-based standards and inspections).



JonEisberg said:


> Your continual insistence that - simply because the SDR had no safety inspection - they are minimally concerned with 'Safety', is quite a stretch... I was not involved in the SDR, so of course can offer no first hand examples of the safety of the fleet being uppermost in the minds of the organizers, so perhaps it's best to hear from someone who actually participated...


For the millionth time - it is the SDR's low bar to entry _combined with_ the lack of demonstrable safety standards that is the problem. They need to change one or the other. And, unless you're changing your position yet again, you agree, at least, with the bar to entry issue. So, yes, I can easily state my opinion that with this combination - the SDR is not _concerned enough_ with safety.

So, you can TRY to make the argument above that "by definition" the bar for the SDR is set higher due to its laissez faire approach - but here's the problem...it comes back to enticement.

What is FREE worth to most people? If you really want to keep comparing the two, start with comparing the COST OF ENTRY and tell me about the level of overall commitment required on the part of a skipper in one vs. the other. Sorry, Jon, this "by definition" argument of yours doesn't hold up even for a second.

Let's look at the quotes you brought from those blogs for the _real_ benefits of the SDR:

What you bolded:


> I don't think we would have joined if the SDR did not offer flexibility. Since John and I both tend to be independent thinkers this was essential for us.


What you didn't:


> We had intended to go to the BVI's on our own and joined the SDR for* the social aspect and the communication network set in place while underway.*


Social aspect I can understand - but why do "independent skippers" that have no need of outside "gurus" telling them what to do need the communication network of a rally? Is it just the social needs of the lady aboard? Or is it something more (see below)?

What you bolded:


> I cannot tell you how grateful I am for this and I thank you for your being firm about the need for backup communications!


So you're all for the SDR gurus "being firm about the need for backup communications" - but this approach is suddenly bad when the C1500 does likewise on this and many other areas?

Again, you're not being consistent.

What you didn't:


> It was a great relief to me that the framework for communication was in place and we were able to connect with others and relay what was going on, *receive weather information* and it was, in general, just encouraging to have that daily communication.


Hold on to this bolded piece. It's important.

And from the second example...



> In the Spring of 2013 we headed north with a loose collection of sailors where we found community, camaraderie and and *a pool of unsurpassed knowledge.*


Pretty typical expectations of what a rally provides. That last part though - how exactly is that tapped prior to the run? If it's such an important aspect of the rally, how does the less experienced skipper benefit from it prior to the roasted pig and Painkillers? And if "a pool of unsurpassed knowledge" is so important, why is there so much resistance to one of the best pools of this on the planet - the one that the C1500 uses? One rally is very clearly meeting that need. The other? Who knows?

Now Jon...I WANT YOU TO READ THE FOLLOWING QUOTE VERY CAREFULLY...



> *The SDR, through it's generous sponsors, enabled us to have a safe and successful crossing* from the BVI's to North America on our 34ft yacht. *Had we gone our own way and not had the support of the rally and it's included weather routing from Chris Parker*, we would have been battered by a storm that was not forecast by GRIB's or NOAA in a timely fashion.


Is this the independent skipper you're talking about? Seriously? Is there maybe some enticement in there? Then this...



> With the additional sponsors, the formal and informal gatherings to share information and expertise they were now able to welcome both world cruisers *and those relatively 'green' to ocean passages. Having Chris Parker talk to the fleet about the weather we could expect on the journey south and safely routing us through the gulf stream proved to be invaluable and when the going got tough he proved to be a voice of calm and reason.*


Now to the NYAPA thing...



JonEisberg said:


> By far, the best account I've found from one of the boats who ran into serious trouble, is from the blog of the family aboard NYAPA, the HC 38 that was dismasted... For the few who might still be following this thread, I highly recommend reading their account, linked to below...
> 
> Since what happened aboard NYAPA is ostensibly one of the consequences of what the SDR is doing wrong, please feel free to point out how they were "enticed" into doing the rally, examples of their "low experience level", what role "Group Think" played in their particular misadventure, or how a Safety Inspection might have averted the loss of their rig (despite having replaced all of their standing rigging a few months prior to departure).
> 
> Finally, the account from NYAPA... Clearly, a rally that sets such a low bar as to "entice" sailors such as this to set off for Paradise with such a _laissez faire_ approach to safety , has a problem...


I think I'll just let the NYAPA skipper/crew say it for me...



> The biggest regret we have through all of this is we did not heave to immediately and check to see what was going on with our rigging. We payed for this mistake in a big way, yet it could have been much worse so we are also grateful that it didn't include a serious injury or loss of life. When something major happens to your boat like this, it makes sense that other things are going to go also, we weren't completely prepared for this. *Over the years John and I have attended a number of off-shore seminars and the one thing that gets repeated over and over is to have a back up for the back up. Now I get it.* When we lost our parachute anchor we could have cried and we learned the hard way not to skimp on important gear.


Now, _what is the primary point of knowledge they list?_ Their experience you and Ausp seem so smitten with? No - _seminars_. "Now they get it." What if the SDR offered all their participants more of these learning opportunities and safety standards so everyone involved could also "get it".

Look - at the end of the day, here is the SDR enticement I see in all the accounts you list above: Free Weather Routing Services.

This is the crux of all of it in my opinion - for those "independent skippers" (more or less experienced) who don't want to go the route of an expensive, rigid rally like the C1500.

You, the skipper (at whatever level of green you may be), don't have to pay a dime to enter. You can do whatever you want, take your boat in whatever shape it's in, not have anyone (like Jon or Ausp) telling you that you're likely not experienced enough for this run at this time of year, or tell you how to run/equip your boat (apart from the occasional insistence on back-up communications, etc.). You don't have to pay for any expensive upgrades for safety - AND you get FREE weather routing AND the perceived comfort of being in the group (plus other tchatchkies like free mooring, etc.).

This, my friend, is enticement in every sense of the word (as is clearly shown in those quotes you provided above). The problem comes in those less-experienced skippers who are looking for the SDR to "enable" their safety. It's unequivocally lacking in this area.

Think whatever you want about the SDR, but it's undeniable that the USCG reaped the unfortunate rewards of this generously sponsored _laissez-faire_ approach on November 7-8.


----------



## xort

Damn, I shopped all over for a Christmas present of a dead horse and missed this beaut.


----------



## Minnesail

xort said:


> Damn, I shopped all over for a Christmas present of a dead horse and missed this beaut.


But it's been here, waiting for you, the whole time.

Isn't that the real meaning of Christmas?


----------



## xort

Some here will still be beating it well into the new year!


----------



## outbound

So let me understand this. You have two of the most qualified, experienced skippers on a boat with two life rafts and every possible piece of safety equipment. They fall off a wave in conditions not as severe as they experienced in the past on a boat which is the exemplar of the highest, strongest design of its type and it breaks in half.
Smack - don't you appreciate great sailors on a good boat can need rescue. How they handle it and if they survive is a reflection on the sailors not some committee. Spend money on meeting ISAF requirements although I don't race but spend more effort on bringing my skill set up to snuff. As the lubbers say "when you stop learning there better be dirt in your face or there soon will be".


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> So let me understand this. You have two of the most qualified, experienced skippers on a boat with two life rafts and every possible piece of safety equipment. They fall off a wave in conditions not as severe as they experienced in the past on a boat which is the exemplar of the highest, strongest design of its type and it breaks in half.
> Smack - don't you appreciate great sailors on a good boat can need rescue. How they handle it and if they survive is a reflection on the sailors not some committee. Spend money on meeting ISAF requirements although I don't race but spend more effort on bringing my skill set up to snuff. As the lubbers say "when you stop learning there better be dirt in your face or there soon will be".


Of course, I appreciate that. Bernard Stamm is definitely one of the best in the world.

But this example certainly doesn't discount my argument. They had their boat equipped to (at least - and likely beyond) ISAF-equivalent standards...EVEN THOUGH they were the best sailors in the world.

In other words, they fulfilled BOTH standards of preparedness and experience.

To draw the conclusion from your scenario that robust safety standards are not important in a rally...ESPECIALLY when most sailors are FAR, FAR below the experience level of Stamm...makes no sense.

At the end of the day, I _totally agree_ that experience and improved skillset are the ultimate objectives for all of us who sail. But when the SDR throws that out the window with a very low bar to entry for this trip, AND ALSO throws out the safety standards...it's a very bad combo.


----------



## outbound

Smack you are clearly an intelligent man. It clear you would not attempt a voyage unless you felt you, your crew and your boat were well prepared. I'm working toward voyaging with my wife. She has little past experience on sailboats. Mine is out of date. We are both doing a conditioning program over the winter.We hired Jeff and Jean ( training captains)for a week to get our skill set up to par. The boat is set to cross oceans. We try to be self sufficient and safe. It will take 2+years before we will feel comfortable to " bug out". Knowing you through SN I believe you are of like mind. The folks in SDR are like people. Those who are involved are exposed to safety issues by fellow cruisers and staff. Those who would go ill prepared would probably not join the rally if your program was instituted and go anyway. In the words of Jeff Foxworthy " you can't fix stupid". I think that's the main point of the other side of this discussion.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack you are clearly an intelligent man. It clear you would not attempt a voyage unless you felt you, your crew and your boat were well prepared. I'm working toward voyaging with my wife. She has little past experience on sailboats. Mine is out of date. We are both doing a conditioning program over the winter.We hired Jeff and Jean ( training captains)for a week to get our skill set up to par. The boat is set to cross oceans. We try to be self sufficient and safe. It will take 2+years before we will feel comfortable to " bug out". Knowing you through SN I believe you are of like mind. The folks in SDR are like people. Those who are involved are exposed to safety issues by fellow cruisers and staff. *Those who would go ill prepared would probably not join the rally if your program was instituted and go anyway.* In the words of Jeff Foxworthy " you can't fix stupid". I think that's the main point of the other side of this discussion.


I can understand that. I honestly think the primary factor on the other side of the argument is the intense dislike of regulation and the hassle and expense it creates. And I TOTALLY get that - ESPECIALLY for those experienced skippers who have no real need of this kind of oversight. (And I would not be arguing this at all if the bar to entry for the SDR was set for these types of sailors). I too don't want any outside organization "all up in my bidness". I want to learn and prepare just like you're learning and preparing.

But, again, that's the kicker here. I personally don't care one whit what an individual skipper decides to do. He can be as stupid as he wants to be. That's completely on him...right up until he's rescued then we can endlessly debate on SN how he's risking the USCG's lives and wasting taxpayer money.

Indeed, you can't fix stupid.

HOWEVER, when an _organization is making money from pulling together as many boats as possible for this kind of run at this time of year_ AND its standards are "low" - it's a different kettle of honey-badgers. Because the way the SDR has its standards set up currently...they're (potentially) allowing far more stupid to be concentrated in a dangerous place that SOMEONE is going to have to fix, or worse, clean up.


----------



## tempest

Smack, Maybe I missed it. How are they making money..I thought the Rally was free, with sponsorship donating the seminars, weather routing service, dinners etc.?


----------



## smackdaddy

Tempest said:


> Smack, Maybe I missed it. How are they making money..I thought the Rally was free, with sponsorship donating the seminars, weather routing service, dinners etc.?


Yeah, I suppose I need to be careful how I state that (realizing revenue vs. making money vs. making a profit, etc.). I obviously know nothing about their actual finances.

But money seems to definitely be coming into the organization if their sponsorship page is to be believed:

SALTY DAWG RALLY SPONSORS | Salty Dawg Rally



> Sponsorship Levels:
> 
> The SDR already has a strong list of sponsors but more are always welcome. To help designate sponsor levels five categories have been established.
> 
> Admiral - $1500 or more
> Captain - $1000
> Commander - $750
> Lieutenant - $500
> Ensign - $250


On that page you can see 10 Admiral level sponsors (I assume this means at least $15K). Again whether this is all only goods/services value or cash or a combo - who knows? But I have to assume that some amount of cash is involved in all of this since not all the sponsors are necessarily offering goods and/or services.


----------



## tempest

Smack, I can't speak for the SDR, but they way these things (promotional events) usually work is that a sponsor picks up the costs of components of event. For instance; Bluewater Sailing Magazine sponsors ( pays for) Chris Parker's weather forecasts/routing. 

Sponsors can purchase and provide a complete component like above, or contribute a portion of the cost of an event and become a co-sponsor. Obviously they are willing to do that in order to have their brand in front of a targeted market and perhaps personal access to the participants, via seminars, displays, or social events. 

All the sponsors on their list are marketing products or services to this unique population, from rental cars, hotel rooms to marine products. 

It sounds like the Rally organizers simply pull the whole thing together, which is a ton of work. That is probably why they are asking for sponsorship to hire someone part-time to help....it's grown beyond what most people would be willing to donate their time to.


----------



## smackdaddy

Tempest said:


> Smack, I can't speak for the SDR, but they way these things (promotional events) usually work is that a sponsor picks up the costs of components of event. For instance; Bluewater Sailing Magazine sponsors ( pays for) Chris Parker's weather forecasts/routing.
> 
> Sponsors can purchase and provide a complete component like above, or contribute a portion of the cost of an event and become a co-sponsor. Obviously they are willing to do that in order to have their brand in front of a targeted market and perhaps personal access to the participants, via seminars, displays, or social events.
> 
> All the sponsors on their list are marketing products or services to this unique population, from rental cars, hotel rooms to marine products.
> 
> It sounds like the Rally organizers simply pull the whole thing together, which is a ton of work. That is probably why they are asking for sponsorship to hire someone part-time to help....it's grown beyond what most people would be willing to donate their time to.


Yeah, I understand that. One of my businesses is in the marketing realm. So I don't disagree with any of the above. My point is that revenue, on the part of the organizers and the sponsors, is absolutely involved in this equation - and the amount of money is likely dependent on the number of boats involved, creating an incentive to get that number as high as possible (that's marketing).

Whether the resultant cash from these sponsors is to hire a part-timer or buy an island is immaterial in the context of this debate. I'm simply talking about the motivations here - and the responsibilities in light of those motivations.

And, again, to be clear, that's the primary reason I think the rally is a completely different animal than some "stupid skipper" choosing to set out completely on his own. The outside influences and resulting responsibilities are very different.


----------



## svShearwater

JonEisberg said:


> Well, every boat is different, of course, there is
> 
> My friends Justin and Chris have an NKE autopilot on their J-120 SHEARWATER, and yet there are still times when they've chosen to hand steer:
> 
> Shearwater - What 30-40 knots looks like, Porto to Gibraltar - YouTube
> 
> And, as their recent passage from FL to Texas illustrated, there can be times when one has no choice - even with one of the world's finest and most expensive autopilots


Jon,

I'm seriously late to party here, but to set the record straight regarding the autopilot crossing the Gulf. It turned out not to be an internal fuse, but the bushings in the motor that burned up while the pilot struggled to do the impossible. The positive of that is that bushings are easy to carry as a spare and easy to replace underway. Now we know better...

This topic has probably been beat to death, but for our boat, if I wanted a belt & suspenders approach to steering I would simply install two separate autopilots. A vane is just pointless on our boat.

Just to poke the bear... A vane would not have helped much after our autopilot blew crossing the Gulf. We motored a good chunk of the remaining 96 hours.


----------



## flyingwelshman

svShearwater

I really like the name of your boat.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> I can understand that. I honestly think the primary factor on the other side of the argument is the intense dislike of regulation and the hassle and expense it creates. And I TOTALLY get that - ESPECIALLY for those experienced skippers who have no real need of this kind of oversight. (And I would not be arguing this at all if the bar to entry for the SDR was set for these types of sailors). I too don't want any outside organization "all up in my bidness". I want to learn and prepare just like you're learning and preparing.
> 
> But, again, that's the kicker here. I personally don't care one whit what an individual skipper decides to do. He can be as stupid as he wants to be. That's completely on him...right up until he's rescued then we can endlessly debate on SN how he's risking the USCG's lives and wasting taxpayer money.
> 
> Indeed, you can't fix stupid.
> 
> HOWEVER, when an _organization is making money from pulling together as many boats as possible for this kind of run at this time of year_ AND its standards are "low" - it's a different kettle of honey-badgers. Because the way the SDR has its standards set up currently...they're (potentially) allowing far more stupid to be concentrated in a dangerous place that SOMEONE is going to have to fix, or worse, clean up.


The only "stupid" I have seen any evidence of is the jackasses who keep repeating "can't fix stupid". Got to love a straw man, eh?


----------



## outbound

S/v shearwater I'm curious about " carry two autopilots". I was under impression once electronics adequately " proofed" carrying another complete drive set up and a rudder angle sensor sufficed. ?do you think this is wrong? 
Smack sorry for the hijack.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack sorry for the hijack.


Dude, hijack away. It's just a thread.

I'm hoping to meet these guys before they head out for the PacCup.


----------



## svShearwater

outbound said:


> S/v shearwater I'm curious about " carry two autopilots". I was under impression once electronics adequately " proofed" carrying another complete drive set up and a rudder angle sensor sufficed. ?do you think this is wrong?
> Smack sorry for the hijack.


Certainly step 1 would be to have a second drive unit. That is actually not uncommon for short-handed ocean racers. Step 2 would be just extra insurance carrying a second autopilot computer. Having two completely independent* autopilots that way.

Electronics (autopilot computer) shouldn't fail, but they do. Sometimes it is design or manufacturing defects, sometimes you/we do something stupid like get it wet, connect the wiring wrong and pop something, or drop something on it. None of those are likely, but just in case, other than cost there is no downside to a second autopilot.

*independent except they both need electricity and a working rudder.

There is no perfect solution, just a variety of compromises. My point is that for boats where wind vanes don't make sense. Having a backup autopilot is a reasonable thing to consider and will likely cost less than a new wind vane.


----------



## svShearwater

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, hijack away. It's just a thread.
> 
> I'm hoping to meet these guys before they head out for the PacCup.


You going sailing tomorrow? Forecast looks promising. First Icicle race of the year!


----------



## outbound

Thanks - good advice. Have the raymarine with the big arm. Wish. I got the nke. Would you suggest mix or two of the same?
Have had a monitor and a Fleming on prior boats. Actually liked the Fleming better. But agree if the boat's hull speed is >8kts vanes don't work as well as A.P.s especially down wind in seas. Amazing how in the last couple of years A.P. performance has improved.what size nke do you have?
Find in difficult situations going apparent wind rather then course sometimes makes it work less.


----------



## smackdaddy

svShearwater said:


> You going sailing tomorrow? Forecast looks promising. First Icicle race of the year!


We're looking at coming down the next weekend (just got back from vaca and need to give the boys some down time this weekend). I'll let you know.

Are you guys still staying in Austin?


----------



## svShearwater

outbound said:


> Thanks - good advice. Have the raymarine with the big arm. Wish. I got the nke. Would you suggest mix or two of the same?
> Have had a monitor and a Fleming on prior boats. Actually liked the Fleming better. But agree if the boat's hull speed is >8kts vanes don't work as well as A.P.s especially down wind in seas. Amazing how in the last couple of years A.P. performance has improved.what size nke do you have?
> Find in difficult situations going apparent wind rather then course sometimes makes it work less.


Our L&S drive is a type 40 for about 15k pounds and a semi-balanced rudder. The pilots top speed is about 12 knots so far. I haven't tried to push beyond that yet, because I find steering fun at those speeds.

I'm not sure there is a single answer for carrying two same or different pilots. On the one hand you could argue that carrying same makes it all very plug and play. However, if you fully install both pilots beforehand it may not make much difference. There is the argument that if one pilot has some sort of defect then switching to a completely different system/brand would be a good thing.

Mostly it is just a budget question. If your budget can swing 2 NKE autopilots, then that is a pretty strong setup. If you have a Raymarine and can swing an NKE now, then again a pretty strong setup with the added complication of two different systems. Certainly two identical Raymarine systems is the easiest and least expensive option. Not a bad option either.

For me, I will go with first adding a second L&S (NKE) drive unit, then a second NKE computer and gyro compass because I want everything to be plug & play and work on the same system (NKE instruments) easily. I think that is more a matter of preference than anything else.


----------



## outbound

Thanks.fair winds to you and yours


----------



## JonEisberg

Uh-oh... If only they'd performed an ISAF inspection beforehand... 

NARC rally organizer Hank Schmitt, and SAIL magazine editor Charlie Doane were among the crew of 4 who abandoned a $500K 42' catamaran 300 miles east of Norfolk on Tuesday...

City man airlifted off disabled sailboat | SeacoastOnline.com


----------



## smackdaddy

What makes you think they didn't?


----------



## smackdaddy

I think this incident might point more to some design evaluation than anything else...



> The first thing you'll notice about the Alpha 42's sleek lines is the reverse angle, wave piercing bows - the first on a production cruising cat. "Reverse bows basically extend the waterline without adding weight and they reduce pitch," said Tarjan. "Other benefits are a much more comfortable motion at sea and reduced windage. Wave-piercers are also easier to steer and maneuver in waves. I collaborated with Pete Melvin of Morrelli & Melvin for the reverse bows on the 110-foot catamaran that I'm building in collaboration with Wally Yachts [the Aeroyacht 110]. The Alpha 42 is the 'baby version' of the 110-footer, and we've moved the mast further aft to keep the bows buoyant."


...and/or the timing and passage choice for such a new boat. As someone said over at SA - having Hull #1 (if that's what it was) abandoned due to something like this is not great marketing.

*Here's a link to photos of the build.*


----------



## outbound

We'll never know but sounds like boat was thrown backward with rudders turned or even hard over. Sounds like bent rudder posts. No amount of inspection or other pre voyage activity would change that. Carrying an emergency rudder system might have been of benefit but if bent hard over even an emergency set up would not allow meaningful steerage. 
?are there any more details known?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> What makes you think they didn't?


Nah, despite the fact that there is no safety inspection for his NARC Rally, either, I have no doubt Hank Schmitt gives any boat he's taking offshore a VERY thorough going over prior to departure...

Didn't appear to make much difference this time, however... like it would have back in November...


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> We'll never know but sounds like boat was thrown backward with rudders turned or even hard over. Sounds like bent rudder posts. No amount of inspection or other pre voyage activity would change that. Carrying an emergency rudder system might have been of benefit but if bent hard over even an emergency set up would not allow meaningful steerage.
> ?are there any more details known?


The guys over on SA are picking it apart pretty good. But it's still all conjecture. Until Doane writes it up, it will all be guesswork.

In any case, it's a serious black eye for Aero/Alpha.


----------



## smackdaddy

Meanwhile, back on the topic of Rallies Gone Wrong...

It's been pretty quiet on the SDR front. I wonder how long it will take for them to polish off the pig and booze and start the review?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Meanwhile, back on the topic of Rallies Gone Wrong...
> 
> It's been pretty quiet on the SDR front. I wonder how long it will take for them to polish off the pig and booze and start the review?


Well, if history is any guide, these things can sometimes take time... 

For example, I'm still awaiting the Caribbean 1500's "review" of their boats abandoned back in 1999, the more recent tragedy and loss of life involving RULE 62, and the NARC's assessment of the same in 2012...


----------



## smackdaddy

That's a lot of pig-n-booze.


----------



## TomMaine

smackdaddy said:


> Meanwhile, back on the topic of Rallies Gone Wrong...
> 
> It's been pretty quiet on the SDR front. I wonder how long it will take for them to polish off the pig and booze and start the review?


I haven't followed this whole thread(it's epic long ), but I continue to follow some friends and a few boats from the SDR.

Friends that lost their engine and another UK couple we met, each had trying passages. But they never looked back.

They've been "cruising" up a storm! In fact, they've gone through some passages since their SDR passage, that seemed as daunting as the original(great blogs to follow).

It just makes me wonder if the ever-ongoing,'rallys good-rallys bad', forum threads, exist in a vacuum that the SDR and other participants, are not aware of?

What the hell is wrong with them!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

TomMaine said:


> It just makes me wonder if the ever-ongoing,'rallys good-rallys bad', forum threads, exist in a vacuum that the SDR and other participants, are not aware of?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with them!!!


Of course this is a vacuum! What kind of idiots read forums anyway? Heh-heh.

We'll see what the SDR ends up doing.

If nothing else, I guarantee that there are potential ralliers that will read this thread and weigh the pros and cons of the various rallies. To me - that's a good thing. That's really what it's all about. I've learned a lot.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> We'll never know but sounds like boat was thrown backward with rudders turned or even hard over. Sounds like bent rudder posts. No amount of inspection or other pre voyage activity would change that. Carrying an emergency rudder system might have been of benefit but if bent hard over even an emergency set up would not allow meaningful steerage.
> ?are there any more details known?


More information has been posted on the Alpha website...

Had to be one hell of a rogue wave to bring a boat sailing at 8 knots to be immediately forced backwards against her rudders... Sounds like they're very fortunate that huge expanse of picture windows remained intact... 

1.5" tubular stainless rudderstock doesn't exactly sound "massive", to me... However, perhaps the most surprising aspect of this particular boat, to me, is the fact that she carried a pair of _3-BLADE FIXED PROPS_... On a half million dollar performance cruising multihull??? WTF?



> We have very sad news. On route from New York to the Caribbean our Alpha 42 Nr 1 was hit by a big rogue wave. On Monday Jan 13th the US Coast guard received a pick up-call from Capt Hank Schmitt who skippered Be Good Too.
> 
> Capt. Hank Schmitt is a professional delivery captain with over 200,000 ocean miles and over 50 passages along the same route. Hank was carefully chosen by the owner as he is a very experienced catamaran sailor.
> 
> _Schmitt's account :".&#8230;We had just passed the Gulfstream in rough waters sailing on a close reach under a double reefed mainsail at 8 knots with the autopilot engaged. All was well when suddenly we got hit by a big rogue wave that not only stopped the boat but violently pushed us backwards onto our rudders. At that point we realized that both rudders were severely damaged. One rudder spun around the stock, the other rudder reversed against the hull and was jammed forcing the boat to port. Even with the stbd motor at full throttle the boat would only go to stbd. After spending 2 days sailing in a circle our options dwindled as the weather was deteriorating even more. Since we were 300 miles offshore we decided to make the call to be taken off the boat. The boat was very strong and we never felt unsafe. In spite of heavy impacts the boat did not have any structural issues. No monohull or catamaran steering system violently pushed backwards could have survived this. At one point the boat experienced 50 knot winds and 20 foot seas but the wave piercing bows worked great. We feel very sorry for the owners and the yard for the loss of this boat. "_
> 
> We feel very sorry for the loss of this beautiful yacht and are grateful to the men of the US Coast Guard that all 4 crewmen were safely evacuated. Pictures and videos taken by a Jayhawk MH-60 rescue helicopter show the boat perfectly intact. It seems unjustified and is heartbreaking for us to see this labor of more than 2 years abandoned. A salvage company will try to retrieve the boat as soon as conditions permit.
> 
> It should be noted that the rudders of the boat were built of massive 1.5 inch solid stainless round tube welded to a closed framework of 2″ wide by 1/4″ thick stainless bars with (2) vertical and (3) horizontal members. Unfortunately no rudder is designed to suddenly lurch into reverse and have 10 Tons of torque applied to them.
> 
> Anyone interested in reading the official insurance report signed byCapt. Hank Schmitt and more details of the incident or of the construction of the rudders, please contact the builder, Marc Anassis at Alpha Yachts ([email protected])
> 
> Rogue Wave - Aeroyacht


----------



## blowinstink

The video . . .

Portsmouth man rescued from sailboat | Local News - WMUR Home


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> More information has been posted on the Alpha website...
> 
> Had to be one hell of a rogue wave to bring a boat sailing at 8 knots to be immediately forced backwards against her rudders... Sounds like they're very fortunate that huge expanse of picture windows remained intact...
> 
> 1.5" tubular stainless rudderstock doesn't exactly sound "massive", to me... However, perhaps the most surprising aspect of this particular boat, to me, is the fact that she carried a pair of _3-BLADE FIXED PROPS_... On a half million dollar performance cruising multihull??? WTF?


They had just bought the boat planning to retire on it.

Rudders are by far the most fragile part of sailboats and most accidents and boats abandoned had to do with some sort of rudder malfunction.

This was an weird accident in a sense that it is not a vulgar one, I mean ruder being broke with the boat violently thrown backwards by a wave. That can put a huge stress on a rudder that is not designed to take it but the truth is that not many dissemble regularly their rudders for inspection and changing worn parts. I would say that a rudder should be inspected (dismounted) at least all 5 years, even id it does not seem to have any problem and more frequently if an ocean crossing or extensive offshore sailing is to be made.

That is not very expensive on a spade rudder type and certainly it is money well spent.


----------



## 34crealock

Has anyone heard of a monohull with a skeg hung rudder that was pushed backwards and snapped the rudder? How strong is strong enough?


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> They had just bought the boat planning to retire on it.


Damn, hope they haven't sold their house in Indiana yet...

Hindsight's always 20/20, of course, but with retirement ahead of them, what's the rush? Departing NY in the wake of a January blizzard, I think I'd have been inclined to head down the coast, and spend the winter in the Bahamas, for starters... though I'm no big fan of cruising multihulls, one could certainly have a ton of fun poking around the Bahamas in a boat like that...

Charlie Doane has posted his account on his blog, it's a pretty compelling read... Credit the owners, far from being the potential weak link aboard, it certainly sounds like they're made of the Right Stuff, and acquitted themselves admirably, as well... All things considered, it did seem like a pretty damn problematic situation...

HELICOPTER EVACUATION: Abandoning Be Good Too

Two things jump out at me from my initial reading (conceding, of course, that Charlie's account has obviously been written under some duress, and perhaps more hastily than he would prefer, and should not be taken as entirely complete)...

I'm a bit surprised that no decision appears to have been taken, at the first sign of battery charging problems from both the generator, or one of the engines... Not knowing their exact position at that time, but that would have been an immediate deal-breaker for me... Either resolve the issue then and there (especially on an boat without solar, wind, or other means of charging independent of a genset or engine), or go to a Plan B, and divert to the Chesapeake Entrance or wherever, to effect a repair to resolve the issue... Once again, seems very reminiscent of the WOLFHOUND incident a year ago, where they pressed on despite knowing they had a charging issue... (Again, I'd like to acknowledge the possibility that Charlie's write-up may simply be incomplete, or lacking details about this particular issue, or the exact timing of it, etc.)

Secondly... the tiller arms were fixed to the rudder posts _WITH FREAKIN' *SET SCREWS* ???_

WTF???










[/QUOTE]


----------



## PCP

34crealock said:


> Has anyone heard of a monohull with a skeg hung rudder that was pushed backwards and snapped the rudder? How strong is strong enough?


The skeg has nothing to do with it neither it offers protection in this case. When the boat is violently pushed backwards the wheel goes to one side and the force that is made against the rudder blade can be a breaking one, no matter the type of rudder. Boats are not designed to go backwards at full speed, much less the rudders.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SVAuspicious

I'm impressed with everyone aboard based on Charlie's column. 

Sounds like classic Hank from the description. He's a great seaman and a heck of a skipper. Sometimes bad things happen.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that the _PERCENTAGE_ of boats lost in the 2011 NARC Rally was considerably higher... Sorry, but you're better at gymnastics, than math...
> 
> Then, there's the matter of the recent fatalities in both the 1500 and NARC within the past 3 years... *They own that record.*
> 
> So, despite your inability to offer _ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER_ that any of these incidents can be attributed to "Inexperience" (the examples I've cited indicate quite the opposite, as a matter of fact), you continue to insist that issue is somehow unique to the SDR...
> 
> The stated "Bar to Entry" is no lower for the SDR, than for the 1500... Completion of a "Bluewater Passage" for the former, a "Passage of at least 250 miles" for the latter. If anything, the bar seems set lower for the 1500, to me... Unless you can offer evidence that the organizers of the SDR admitted applicants who did not meet those stated qualifications, you really should cease making this assertion... And, as I've alluded to before, Hank shared an anecdote in an email which casts a wholly different light on how 'strict' the 1500 has been in the past, when it came to acceptance of an entry... Dave/Auspicious was copied the same email, he could confirm...
> 
> Also, the NARC does not conduct a 'Safety Inspection', either... But, the SDR "owns" that issue, as well, right? Again, despite your inability to offer _ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER_ that any of the SAR incidents in the SDR were attributable _IN ANY WAY_ to the lack of said inspections, you continue to believe what you want to believe...
> 
> Or, are we to suppose that all those _OTHER_ crews far less experienced than the boats I've cited above - _who successfully completed their passages_ - are the ones that are supposed to be indicative of the problems that the SDR has with "Inexperienced" participants in their rally?
> 
> Seriously, as one wag commented over on SA, you need to get a bigger shovel...


I can't really keep up with your wild spinning of things across all these different rallies. If you don't like the way they are set up, start a thread on them and critique them. This thread is about the SDR. So, let me keep it very simple.

Among all the rallies under discussion, the SDR is the ONLY rally to my knowledge to have the following combination:

1. A low bar to entry for this kind of trip (a single bluewater passage).
2. No mandatory safety regulations (e.g. - ISAF-based, etc.)
3. No safety inspections.
4. No required level of skipper/crew training, and _very_ limited supplemental training opportunities via the rally itself (e.g. - a single 1-day seminar for a limited number of participants).
5. It's free.

Additionally, the SDR is indisputably the ONLY rally to have the following outcome:

*5 SAR cases in 36 hours - resulting in a freakin' Marine Safety Alert from the USCG!!!*

http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/P-DEPT/1_and_2_14.pdf

Now, how ever you want to try to justify the above facts against any other rally by picking and choosing line items - or requiring Bigfootesque "causal proof" of specific items that is not yet available for _anyone_ to provide. Knock yourself out. But none of that matters to the issue of this thread and the above facts.

My point is and has always been that the SDR is, without question, the ONLY rally we've been discussing to have the above combination of protocols and failures. And this is undoubtedly a bad combination any way you try to slice it.

With the *USCG's* making an example of the outcome of the SDR specifically as follows...



> In a recent offshore regatta *[that would be the SDR, not any other rally you mention above]*, numerous sailboats experienced steering system and other failures which required assistance and/or rescue by the U. S. Coast Guard when a weather system stalled offshore creating higher than expected sea states and winds. The Coast Guard responded using an array of assets to render assistance.
> 
> Offshore sailing requires special knowledge, skills, and abilities. Vessel equipment and components must be thoroughly checked before getting underway and periodically while at sea. The offshore domain's remoteness adds a negative dynamic to survivability concerns. Preparation is key to minimizing misfortune.


...AND laying out *"strong recommendations"* that certainly seem to buttress my view (and which are much more in line with the other rallies' protocol), your defense of the SDR status-quo is certainly growing more and more out of touch.

Shovel?


----------



## outbound

Smackie- take a look at the January blue water sailing. Some interesting stuff.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> I can't really keep up with your wild spinning of things across all these different rallies. If you don't like the way they are set up, start a thread on them and critique them. This thread is about the SDR. So, let me keep it very simple.
> 
> Among all the rallies under discussion, the SDR is the ONLY rally to my knowledge to have the following combination:
> 
> 1. A low bar to entry for this kind of trip (a single bluewater passage).
> 2. No mandatory safety regulations (e.g. - ISAF-based, etc.)
> 3. No safety inspections.
> 4. No required level of skipper/crew training, and _very_ limited supplemental training opportunities via the rally itself (e.g. - a single 1-day seminar for a limited number of participants).
> 5. It's free.
> 
> Additionally, the SDR is indisputably the ONLY rally to have the following outcome:
> 
> *5 SAR cases in 36 hours - resulting in a freakin' Marine Safety Alert from the USCG!!!*
> 
> http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/P-DEPT/1_and_2_14.pdf
> 
> Now, how ever you want to try to justify the above facts against any other rally by picking and choosing line items - or requiring Bigfootesque "causal proof" of specific items that is not yet available for _anyone_ to provide. Knock yourself out. But none of that matters to the issue of this thread and the above facts.
> 
> My point is and has always been that the SDR is, without question, the ONLY rally we've been discussing to have the above combination of protocols and failures. And this is undoubtedly a bad combination any way you try to slice it.
> 
> With the *USCG's* making an example of the outcome of the SDR specifically as follows...
> 
> ...AND laying out *"strong recommendations"* that certainly seem to buttress my view (and which are much more in line with the other rallies' protocol), your defense of the SDR status-quo is certainly growing more and more out of touch.
> 
> Shovel?


Tried to be nice a few times, but I gotta say: I really think you don't know what the **** you are talking about.


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Tried to be nice a few times, but I gotta say: I really think you don't know what the **** you are talking about.


Heh-heh. You don't have to be nice, Stink. But everything I listed in that post is fact. I don't know how else to put it.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smackie- take a look at the January blue water sailing. Some interesting stuff.


Will do. BWS was one of the sponsors, correct?


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. You don't have to be nice, Stink. But everything I listed in that post is fact. I don't know how else to put it.


Actually SD, maybe you should reconsider (among other things) the value in being "nice".

Facts huh . . .. Sounds more like crap to me.

The biggest problem I have is that you don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about. You have not participated in a rally and you have not undertaken an offshore passage. The stream of people who do know *a lot* about these things you simply ignore (or worse you glom onto them as "differing opinions" who you disingenuously claim to be your counterparts).

Your "statistics" are not even stated as percentages let alone baseline tested. You are just making stuff up.

Your claim that the standard to participate should be higher is "grounded" in an idiotic premise that participants a) will not go offshore without a rally and b) can be judged by some objective standard (which you haven't articulated). 
You go back and forth between claiming that there is some nefarious hidden profit motive and then arguing the opposite -- claiming that the "real problem" is that the rally is free.

You have no basis to assert that the standards you claim are lacking have *anything* to do with the troubles some participants encountered -- in fact everything we know suggests otherwise.

There is no shortage of dumb sheet on the sailing forums and it is mostly irrelevant or entertaining. The only reason your posts piss me off is that there might just be someone somewhere who actually has some authority who reads you crap and acts upon it. And you have neither sailed offshore nor participated in a rally and you are making all of these assertions about rally participants -- which almost all of the rally participants (and not inconsequentially -- although you seem to miss this -- other offshore sailors)

Despite all that, you just remain belligerent. That is a shame. You lack the qualifications and the facts to advocate for restricting other people's choices regarding rallies -- particularly over their objections. You also seem to lack the judgement necessary to present the sort of nuanced overview this issue requires. Maybe if you look for something other than being "right" you'll have more value.

-M


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Facts huh . . .. Sounds more like crap to me.
> 
> The biggest problem I have is that you don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about. You have not participated in a rally and you have not undertaken an offshore passage. The stream of people who do know *a lot* about these things you simply ignore (or worse you glom onto them as "differing opinions" who you disingenuously claim to be your counterparts).


That's fine if you want to look at it that way. But you have some of _your_ facts wrong. First, though I certainly won't claim to be a Salty Dawg, I have actually undertaken several offshore passages (offshore races and deliveries) - some in fairly sporty conditions. Sure, my total is still a bit shy of 1500 miles and not in the GS, but that's a lot more miles than you just gave me credit for - and apparently far more than is necessary to enter the SDR.

Also, I'm certainly not the only one questioning the SDR. There are several other sailors with far, far more miles than me (and some of my other "counterparts") that are questioning it as well.

If I were the only one disagreeing and questioning, you might have a case. But I'm not. For example, the CG doesn't often single out an event like this in a Marine Safety Alert.



blowinstink said:


> Your "statistics" are not even stated as percentages let alone baseline tested. You are just making stuff up.
> 
> Your claim that the standard to participate should be higher is "grounded" in an idiotic premise that participants a) will not go offshore without a rally and b) can be judged by some objective standard (which you haven't articulated).
> You go back and forth between claiming that there is some nefarious hidden profit motive and then arguing the opposite -- claiming that the "real problem" is that the rally is free.


The conclusions you've made above are yours - not mine. For example, I've always held that the bar for the SDR, for this trip, is too low. Jon has stated the same in this thread. I've just said that it should be higher..._especially due to the combination of factors_ I've listed in my post above. Beyond that bar, whether a) happens or not doesn't really matter in this context (and I certainly haven't said that). Furthermore, I've not specifically laid out what b) needs to be because I don't really know (although I think the Marine Safety Alert has a pretty good list).

On the free thing, the SDR _absolutely_ has a financial incentive to get as many boats as possible into the rally. It is sponsor supported, the financial value of which relies on participation. Nothing nefarious or even hidden about that at all. At the same time, _BECAUSE_ it is free to participants (combined with the other factors I've listed above) it presents a much stronger incentive over other rallies that have a better combination of factors regarding safety.

So, I'm not moving back and forth at all. Both of those things are true.



blowinstink said:


> You have no basis to assert that the standards you claim are lacking have *anything* to do with the troubles some participants encountered -- in fact everything we know suggests otherwise.


I think what you're saying here is what Jon has held forth...that ISAF-based standards and inspections such as those with the C1500, etc. would likely not have prevented the problems these boats faced (steering issues, rigging issues, etc.). Maybe, maybe not. How can you _know_ that? Remember, you're the guy saying this:



blowinstink said:


> Your "statistics" are not even stated as percentages let alone baseline tested. You are just making stuff up.


So what are the numbers here?

Again, I'm looking at the _overall combination_ that is unique to the SDR. You (like Jon with his rally comparisons) are focusing on one thing at a time and trying to disprove that the SDR combo had anything to do with anything. I just don't agree with that approach. I think the combo is relatively dangerous.

Now, when I do make the literal statement that, "ISAF-based rules and safety inspections would have categorically prevented ALL of the problems in the SDR!" - you can call me on it. But I haven't said that.



blowinstink said:


> There is no shortage of dumb sheet on the sailing forums and it is mostly irrelevant or entertaining. The only reason your posts piss me off is that there might just be someone somewhere who actually has some authority who reads you crap and acts upon it. And you have neither sailed offshore nor participated in a rally and you are making all of these assertions about rally participants -- which almost all of the rally participants (and not inconsequentially -- although you seem to miss this -- other offshore sailors)


Well, again, the last part is still not correct. And I certainly don't discount other very experienced off-shore sailors (Jon included) who think that the bar to the SDR is too low. Sure, I disagree with other things, but that's the nature of discussing something complicated like this. We can't all agree simply to make it more relaxing.

The CG has already acted on this with its Marine Safety Alert. And I certainly don't think it was because of my brilliant posts here on SN. Where it goes from here, we'll see. The SDR is still supposed to have their review board soon.



blowinstink said:


> Despite all that, you just remain belligerent. That is a shame. You lack the qualifications and the facts to advocate for *restricting other people's choices regarding rallies -- particularly over their objections. *


More than anything - I think this is what you and others are pissed about. I'm advocating regulation. That pisses A LOT of people off. And I'm okay with that. It doesn't change my stance. I'm able to discuss it without getting angry - and provide the reasons why I think it's necessary in cases like this. That's all I can do. If it makes you angry - then I'm sorry about that. But...



blowinstink said:


> Actually SD, maybe you should reconsider (among other things) the value in being "nice".


What exactly does "being nice" mean to you?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> For example, I've always held that the bar for the SDR, for this trip, is too low. Jon has stated the same in this thread.


Hmmm, perhaps you can refresh my memory... Where did I say that, exactly?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, perhaps you can refresh my memory... Where did I say that, exactly?


Sure. Hang on a mo and I'll grab it...


----------



## smackdaddy

Here you go...from when we were discussing the experience bar for the SDR...



smackdaddy said:


> If a newb came on SN saying "I don't have much off-shore experience, but I'm planning to leave from Newport and head down to the BVIs in November, what should I think about here?"
> 
> Would you really say...
> 
> "If you're going to go - take it seriously. What you don't know you'll learn, what will be will be . . .."





JonEisberg said:


> Well, here's what I would say:
> 
> _*Don't do it... A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...*_


I think you nailed it. I wish the SDR agreed with you.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> More than anything - I think this is what you and others are pissed about. I'm advocating regulation. That pisses A LOT of people off. And I'm okay with that. It doesn't change my stance. I'm able to discuss it without getting angry - and provide the reasons why I think it's necessary in cases like this. That's all I can do. If it makes you angry - then I'm sorry about that. But...


Angry? I just think your uninformed opinion is a menace. As far as I am concerned you have no business having a say in this decision. Numerous people have pointed out the flaws in your oddly strident claims . . .. When I hear anyone who's opinion I respect take up you cause, I'll happily rethink that. Until then . . ..


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Angry? I just think your uninformed opinion is a menace. As far as I am concerned you have no business having a say in this decision. Numerous people have pointed out the flaws in your oddly strident claims . . .. When I hear anyone who's opinion I respect take up you cause, I'll happily rethink that. Until then . . ..


Well, I may not have a say in any decisions, but I have an opinion - just as you do.

You didn't answer my question about what you think "being nice" means. I'm really curious about that.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Here you go...from when we were discussing the experience bar for the SDR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
> If a newb came on SN saying "I don't have much off-shore experience, but I'm planning to leave from Newport and head down to the BVIs in November, what should I think about here?"
> 
> Would you really say...
> 
> "If you're going to go - take it seriously. What you don't know you'll learn, what will be will be . . .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> Well, here's what I would say:
> 
> Don't do it... *A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you nailed it. I wish the SDR agreed with you.
Click to expand...

LMFAO! Damn, I'm not sure which of the following you need to do first, but here's the order I would suggest...

(1) Start with a reading comprehension refresher course 

(2) Read Don Street's advice on the passage from the NE, and his recommendation to bypass Bermuda, which I've already linked to at least once before in this thread:

Don Street's Sailing Routes to the Caribbean | Cruising World

(3) Get yourself a copy of DM 17 - Great Circle Sailing Chart of the North Atlantic Ocean, and study it carefully:










Because, it's obvious you have NO appreciation for the fact that sailing direct to the Islands from *Newport* in November is a _COMPLETELY_ different proposition than the routes sailed by the SDR and 1500, departing from the Chesapeake Bay Entrance...










But, how you've managed to infer that I am equating *"A newbie without much offshore experience"* with the SDR's stated aim of *"a rally comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage."* is _FAR_ beyond my ability to imagine...


----------



## blowinstink

I think Jon's reiteration of the Don Street advice is really valuable -- as is the associated understanding of the fall weather patterns. There is a lot of attention to these issues because the rallies (and so many others) leave at that time of year. I am wondering whether there are similarly well developed views on other common passages (NE to Bermuda -- or NE to Azores in the late spring / early summer for instance). I keep going back to Les Weatheritt and Atlantic Crossings. Other favorite sources? Any good SN threads?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> LMFAO! Damn, I'm not sure which of the following you need to do first, but here's the order I would suggest...
> 
> (1) Start with a reading comprehension refresher course
> 
> (2) Read Don Street's advice on the passage from the NE, and his recommendation to bypass Bermuda, which I've already linked to at least once before in this thread:
> 
> Don Street's Sailing Routes to the Caribbean | Cruising World
> 
> (3) Get yourself a copy of DM 17 - Great Circle Sailing Chart of the North Atlantic Ocean, and study it carefully:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, it's obvious you have NO appreciation for the fact that sailing direct to the Islands from *Newport* in November is a _COMPLETELY_ different proposition than the routes sailed by the SDR and 1500, departing from the Chesapeake Bay Entrance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, how you've managed to infer that I am equating *"A newbie without much offshore experience"* with the SDR's stated aim of *"a rally comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage."* is _FAR_ beyond my ability to imagine...


My, you are a slippery one.

Okay - let's set the context for the above once more (for the purpose of reading comprehension). As I have been doing from the very beginning of this thread, I was talking about the SDR's low bar of experience (especially for this trip at this time of year). Stink said the following:



blowinstink said:


> The more meaningful discussion around the rallys is less about Rally A vs Rally B and more about what sorts of things that aspiring offshore sailors (individually) should be thinking about in advance of their departure. *Where they leave from (Newport vs Norfolk vs Beaufort) is a huge under-discussed point*; what experience level they feel is appropriate is another (you can preach hard rules but you may as well howl at the moon); what equipment another (my boat is smaller than the smallest in either rally . . . what does or should that mean?).


I agreed with him, I thought that was important to the discussion. But I also thought the experience level was just as (if not more) important. So, to keep the discussion focused on the SDR's experience bar, I posed the general question (based on Stink's scenario) because I figured there was no way people around here would advise a relatively inexperienced sailor/poster to head out from the northern east coast toward the Carib in November:



smackdaddy said:


> If a newb came on SN saying "I don't have much off-shore experience, but I'm planning to leave from Newport and head down to the BVIs in November, what should I think about here?"


And you answered thusly:



JonEisberg said:


> _*A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...*_


And now you're pulling out charts and maps and parading Don Street around on a pony to say that the SDR has it right, simply because it departs Hampton?

Okay, then let's get more direct....

*Drawing from his post above, here is what Jon Eisberg is SPECIFICALLY saying to any sailor/poster out there who's thinking about a passage from the northern east coast to the Caribbean in November:

1. A "single bluewater passage" is plenty of experience. Go for it.
2. Leave from Hampton (not Newport) and you'll be fine. It's COMPLETELY different*.*

*"Even though Route 2 on that little map takes me directly through that fluffy orange blob?", says I. "No biggie.", says he.

++++++++++

Like I said earlier, based on what I know of you and your critiques on these forums of those who go out under/unprepared, your above advice seems a bit strange. (Feel free to massage it. I want to make sure I'm getting it right.)

At least you're now on the record saying the SDR is doing it exactly right.


----------



## outbound

Read the BWS article and they make no big deal out of troubles. Can see multiple reasons why this may be. Still think it speaks to our American heritage and the American sailors mentality. Other posters in other threads and this remind us they must put up with licensure and permits to sail their boats. Need for various certificates restrict their ability to cruise. This seems to apply to the EU and Oceana. As Americans we don't face those restrictions. Rather economics restrict us ?Can you get insurance for the passage in absence of documented skilled crew and you may be required to have a certain number of crew ?Are you rich enough to self insure. ?Are you risk aversive and to what degree. Did you choose R.I. to BVI or routes 2,3,or 4. Are you going to do the thornless path or Mona Pass. In short we are free to go where we want, when we want, and how we want. We can be in a rally or not. Even in the rally we can leave when we choose. These freedoms are precious and make us uniquely American. When I was moored in Marion Ma nearby couple would just up and leave for BVI in their Hylas when they thought time was right. Just the two of them by theirselves. We chatted asked how they got to that point. They said "we just do it". Our antecedents and friends have died for that freedom . I'm not prepared to give up on the concept of citizens being free to make their own choices. Sure buyer beware and Smack if you don't want to do the SDR good on you- your choice. I'm still contemplating it. Wife wants us to do Bahamas first and put it off a year. We'll see. That's the fun we have the choice.
We accept some level of personal responsibility and view the captain ( owner) as fully legally responsible for the safety of his (her) craft and all the souls upon her.
If faced with the choice of having the freedom for foolish people doing foolish things to themselves or living in a nanny state where "authorities" restrict my freedom of action as a true American I choose freedom.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> My, you are a slippery one.
> 
> So, to keep the discussion focused on the SDR's experience bar, I posed the general question (based on Stink's scenario) because I figured there was no way people around here would advise a relatively inexperienced sailor/poster to head out from the northern east coast toward the Carib in November:
> 
> And you answered thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> *A newbie without much offshore experience has no business sailing his own boat from Newport direct to the Caribbean in November...*
> 
> 
> 
> And now you're pulling out charts and maps and parading Don Street around on a pony to say that the SDR has it right, simply because it departs Hampton?
Click to expand...

Actually, I have long advocated here, and elsewhere, a departure from the Chesapeake, or south of Hatteras, for those sailing 'typical' cruising boats, and have cited Street's advice numerous times, well before last fall's SDR.

I believe this was my initial post on the subject, posted roughly 2 years before last fall's rally season, in reply to the tragedy that occurred in that year's NARC Rally:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/800819-post24.html



smackdaddy said:


> Okay, then let's get more direct....
> 
> *Drawing from his post above, here is what Jon Eisberg is SPECIFICALLY saying to any sailor/poster out there who's thinking about a passage from the northern east coast to the Caribbean in November:
> 
> 1. A "single bluewater passage" is plenty of experience. Go for it.
> 2. Leave from Hampton (not Newport) and you'll be fine. It's COMPLETELY different*.*


I am saying _NO SUCH THING_, of course... How you've reached either of those conclusions from anything I've posted is completely beyond me, as I suspect it would be for anyone else who might still be following this thread...



smackdaddy said:


> *"Even though Route 2 on that little map takes me directly through that fluffy orange blob?", says I. "No biggie.", says he.


Ahhh, so now we have someone who has never (to the best of my knowledge) sailed off the East Coast, second-guessing the guy who wrote STREET'S TRANSATLANTIC CROSSING GUIDE almost 4 decades ago, and has done the N-S passage between the E coast of the US and Canada 40 times, huh? Hmmm, not so sure I'd be too anxious to add my name to the list right below those of the crew of BE GOOD TOO, as the most recent sailors to have dismissed or questioned Don Street's advice...



smackdaddy said:


> Like I said earlier, based on what I know of you and your critiques on these forums of those who go out under/unprepared, your above advice seems a bit strange. (Feel free to massage it. I want to make sure I'm getting it right.)
> 
> *At least you're now on the record saying the SDR is doing it exactly right.*


_WRONG_, yet again... Only in your own imagination, and requiring a leap of logic as spectacular in its lunacy and resultant failure as Evel Knievel's attempt to jump the Snake River Canyon... 

Seriously, your tendency towards hyperbole, your vivid 'imagination' and continuous miscasting of what others write, your lack of first hand knowledge about certain aspects of this subject, all coupled with your relentless desperation to prove yourself 'right' in this discussion, really does make it all but impossible to pursue any sort of constructive dialogue, here...


----------



## SVAuspicious

Hey guys?


----------



## outbound

Smack- Assume you would leave from Texas to get to BVI and would do the southern coasts of Hispaniola etc. Multiple boats have been lost or gotten into serious troubles especially with land falls. I don't get your argument. If you did that trip you would be assuming some level of risk. You seem a stand up guy and would view the risk as yours and yours alone. ?Why is it different here? SDR doesn't say in any of their paperwork they are assuming any of the risks of the voyage. They may make suggestions but you are deciding to leave or not and when, you decide on your crew, how you prep your boat. This is just like any voyage. Why are you putting things on them that are not theirs? 
Jon has more experience then us both put together. I respect his opinion. But if he sails on my boat before leaving he and I need to decide who is captain. If its him then he is responsible for our safety. He does the routing, he decides when to depart, he reads the gribs and 500mb files.If its me then I am on the hook for those decisions. I would be foolish to ignore Jon and would like to think I would not do anything that would cause him concern. Still if I'm captain its my and only my responsibility. If we are in SDR its still the captains not the rally's responsibility. In fact I can't image a scenario where it would be the Rally's responsibility the way the rally is set up. That's one of its appeals. Jon says he would choose a different path. Read that and Street and there is much merit to their opinions. Now that is something I would like to hear more about.


----------



## smackdaddy

I absolutely used hyperbole. You're right. But I did so to clarify your standpoint...as follows...



JonEisberg said:


> I am saying _NO SUCH THING_, of course... How you've reached either of those conclusions from anything I've posted is completely beyond me, as I suspect it would be for anyone else who might still be following this thread...


Good. I'm glad that's crystal clear. Because, based on everything I know about you, it would mystify me if you were saying that a single bluewater passage was enough experience for this trip at this time of year (even leaving from Hampton).



JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, so now we have someone who has never (to the best of my knowledge) sailed off the East Coast, second-guessing the guy who wrote STREET'S TRANSATLANTIC CROSSING GUIDE almost 4 decades ago, and has done the N-S passage between the E coast of the US and Canada 40 times, huh? Hmmm, not so sure I'd be too anxious to add my name to the list right below those of the crew of BE GOOD TOO, as the most recent sailors to have dismissed or questioned Don Street's advice...


I'm not second-guessing him at all. In fact, as I've said many times in this thread, I wouldn't do any of those routes in November until I have A LOT more experience than I do now.

I BELIEVE WHAT *YOU GUYS* ARE SAYING - that is a big reason I wouldn't do it...and I certainly wouldn't advocate it for less experienced sailors.



JonEisberg said:


> _WRONG_, yet again... Only in your own imagination, and requiring a leap of logic as spectacular in its lunacy and resultant failure as Evel Knievel's attempt to jump the Snake River Canyon...


I saw video of that jump. I really thought he'd bit it when he rolled off the ledge.

Again, hyperbole aside, I kind of figured you didn't think the SDR was "doing it right" in these areas. But you've been pretty squishy on this. Now we know.



JonEisberg said:


> Seriously, your tendency towards hyperbole, your vivid 'imagination' and continuous miscasting of what others write, your lack of first hand knowledge about certain aspects of this subject, all coupled with your relentless desperation to prove yourself 'right' in this discussion, really does make it all but impossible to pursue any sort of constructive dialogue, here...


Like I admitted above - yes, this was an exercise in hyperbole. But without a very clear statement about where you stand on whether the SDR is doing it right or not, it's hard to pursue any sort of constructive dialogue. That's what I was trying to get to. You know where I stand, and _I think_ I now have a better idea where you stand. And it doesn't seem we're all that far apart...and at least not Snake River Canyon apart.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack- Assume you would leave from Texas to get to BVI and would do the southern coasts of Hispaniola etc. Multiple boats have been lost or gotten into serious troubles especially with land falls. I don't get your argument. *If you did that trip you would be assuming some level of risk. You seem a stand up guy and would view the risk as yours and yours alone. ?Why is it different here?* SDR doesn't say in any of their paperwork they are assuming any of the risks of the voyage. They may make suggestions but you are deciding to leave or not and when, you decide on your crew, how you prep your boat. This is just like any voyage. Why are you putting things on them that are not theirs?


This is the crux of the debate Out. Great question. The difference is that if I decide to do the trip and assume all the risk and responsibility on my own - that is my decision, and my decision alone. I, and I alone, determine whether I'm ready or not.

In the case of a rally such as the SDR, it is an outside entity stepping into that equation through their establishing a bar of experience required to take the trip, the perceived risk-reducing benefits of the rally (free weather routing, added experience of others, safety in numbers, etc.), the help in planning, the psychology of trust in an experienced organization to provide better collective decision-making than doing it just on your own...etc.

Additionally, when there is financial incentive for that entity which is reliant on number of participants - everything in the decision process gets much, much cloudier than making those calls for yourself and yourself only.

As I've just told Jon, I TOTALLY believe him when he says it's a dicey proposition to sail that route in November - and I TOTALLY agree that relative newbs (like me) have no business being out there at that time of year. However, the SDR says I can do it based on their experience requirements. As a matter of fact, I'm a veteran cruiser based on their standard for entry.

To understand my position on this, all you have to do is look at the actions taken by the NARC, who _raised_ their standard of experience for entry and participant boat size due to their past problems:



> *After last year we are recommending smaller boats with less experienced crew to head down to the Chesapeake Bay to depart with the caribbean 1500.*


Where is Hank directing these newer sailors and why? The C1500 has all the stuff the SDR does not - all of which is VERY beneficial to newer sailors.



outbound said:


> Jon has more experience then us both put together. I respect his opinion. But if he sails on my boat before leaving he and I need to decide who is captain. If its him then he is responsible for our safety. He does the routing, he decides when to depart, he reads the gribs and 500mb files.If its me then I am on the hook for those decisions. I would be foolish to ignore Jon and would like to think I would not do anything that would cause him concern. Still if I'm captain its my and only my responsibility. If we are in SDR its still the captains not the rally's responsibility. In fact I can't image a scenario where it would be the Rally's responsibility the way the rally is set up. That's one of its appeals. Jon says he would choose a different path. Read that and Street and there is much merit to their opinions. Now that is something I would like to hear more about.


This is another nuanced point - and a very good question. I'm not in any way trying to place culpability on the SDR. That's for the attorneys.

I AM saying that the way the SDR factors are now combined (I listed those above) - is, I think, a dangerous cocktail.

Just as Hank of the NARC has apparently done by pushing these less-experienced sailors to the C1500 (where there is more oversight) - the SDR would do very well to simply increase their bar to entry so that the fleet they assemble already know everything you list above, and, more importantly, know exactly what they're in for.

It really is an easy fix.


----------



## Yorksailor

To summarize:

There are two rallies that encourage sailors to go into the North Atlantic in November, one has higher safety standards than the other but neither meet the standards recently suggested by the USCG or US Sailing for West Coast racing.

Going off shore in November, to a schedule, can have serious consequences beyond the abilities of the crews to handle.

I have no problems with individuals taking risk but they should either not call the USCG for help or they should reimburse the USCG if they and their boats do not meet the standards recommended by the USCG.

My boat meets those standards, including the ability to steer when the rudder falls off, but I never sail to an arbitrary schedule.

Smack should take a course in writing only what is necessary and doing it with brevity.


----------



## smackdaddy

Why on earth would I take a writing course - which imposes an arbitrary schedule and does not adhere to USCG standards?


----------



## ccriders

I hesitate to re-enter this fray at this late date, but do so to make two observations:
If you wish to sail from the east coast to the Carribean for wintering over, you should tell your insurance man to take a flying leap and plan your departure based on real weather conditions and if that means an October departure, then so be it.
Also, if you so wish to make this voyage, choose the departure port that sets you up for the best weather window, which would be farther south that the mouth of the Chesapeake.
If all this means not being part of a regatta/rally then tough chalupas for them. You are going to be going it alone anyway, so why get sucked into the group grope thing?
John


----------



## SVAuspicious

Yorksailor said:


> There are two rallies that encourage sailors to go into the North Atlantic in November, one has higher safety standards than the other but neither meet the standards recently suggested by the USCG or US Sailing for West Coast racing.


There are three or four depending on how you count: The Salty Dawg Rally, the Caribbean 1500, the Caribbean-Bahamas, and the NARC.



Yorksailor said:


> Going off shore in November, to a schedule, can have serious consequences beyond the abilities of the crews to handle.


Which is the point Jon and I keep making - safety is less about "safety" equipment and more about the crews.

The SDR and the NARC are the rallies that have experience requirements of any sort as far as I am aware.



Yorksailor said:


> My boat meets those standards, including the ability to steer when the rudder falls off, but I never sail to an arbitrary schedule.


Have you tried you auxiliary steering offshore? How about if the rudder didn't fall off but is instead jammed full over?



ccriders said:


> Also, if you so wish to make this voyage, choose the departure port that sets you up for the best weather window, which would be farther south that the mouth of the Chesapeake.
> If all this means not being part of a regatta/rally then tough chalupas for them.


You can be part of the SDR and leave from anywhere you want.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Where is Hank directing these newer sailors and why? The C1500 has all the stuff the SDR does not - all of which is VERY beneficial to newer sailors.
> 
> Just as Hank of the NARC has apparently done by pushing these less-experienced sailors to the C1500 (where there is more oversight) - *the SDR would do very well to simply increase their bar to entry so that the fleet they assemble already know everything you list above, and, more importantly, know exactly what they're in for.*


You're a funny guy...  You really don't have a freakin' _CLUE_ what goes on with these rallies, do you?

Yeah, the folks that run the Caribbean 1500 sure did a hell of a job educating this skipper about _EXACTLY WHAT HE MIGHT BE IN FOR_ on that passage, alright... I'll bet he passed their ISAF-based Safety Inspection with flying colors 












smackdaddy said:


> It really is an easy fix.


Well, someone's gotta ask, I suppose...

So, what's your simple fix?


----------



## smackdaddy

So I guess you think Hank is doing those newer sailors in smaller boats a disservice? Maybe you should ping him.

You're getting things mixed up again. I said the SDR should raise it's bar for entry so that the participants already have the experience and education to know what they're getting in for.

I have no idea what that photo is - nor the story behind it - so I can't really say one way or the other.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You're getting things mixed up again. I said the SDR should raise it's bar for entry so that the participants already have the experience and education to know what they're getting in for.


By their own definition, the SDR is for "bluewater sailors who have completed at least one bluewater passage"... I think most reasonable people would consider that anyone who fits the definition "blue water sailor" would already have the experience to know what they're getting in for...

Of course, without the ability to review all of the applications submitted to the SDR, or to have any idea who the organizers might have turned away, it's impossible to know with any real precision exactly where their bar may have been set... But, that sure hasn't stopped you from your incessant braying that it was set too low... 

So, then, where would you place your Imaginary "Bar for Entry", precisely?

Not to mention, have you already forgotten that I've already shown that "Lack of Experience" was unlikely to have been the defining factor aboard the following boats that experienced the most notable difficulties last November? How would your more stringent "bar to entry" likely have alleviated any of these incidents? Do you believe it should have been set high enough to have made the owner of ZULU, for example, ineligible to meet the entry requirements?

*ZULU* - The Alden 54 that suffered the loss of her rudder... Her owner is a member of the New York, Bristol, and Great Harbor Yacht Clubs. She had previously completed the brutal 2011 NARC rally, with no issues... Verdict: "Inexperience" not likely to be a significant issue...

*JAMMIN'* - the Catalina 42 that also lost her rudder... These folks have been full-time cruisers since 2007, starting from the West Coast... They had made the trip back and forth to the Islands a couple of times before...
Verdict: "Lack of experience" not bloody likely to have been an issue...

*LIKE DOLPHINS* - a Catana 47 that was dismasted... Her owners are from freakin' _BELGIUM_, so they have at least one Transatlantic crossing under their belts...
Verdict: I doubt their dismasting was due to a lack of experience...

*NYAPA *- the Hans Christian 38 also dismasted... This year was to be their 3rd time out cruising for an extended period, their first time out was 25 years ago after they were first married... 2nd cruise was a 5 year affair with their 3 daughters, starting on the West coast, thru the Canal and most of the Caribbean, and ending at home in New England, where they worked to replenish the cruising kitty, and refit for another extended cruise...
Verdict: "Lack of experience"??? Seriously???

*WINGS* - the C-38 abandoned after being 'disabled'... Another full-time cruising couple, their home port was Duluth, MN - you know, on that puny bathtub called _Lake freakin' SUPERIOR_ ? They had already made it down to the Bahamas, spent at least a year without ever coming alongside a dock, then had returned to the Chesapeake, where they planned to sail with the SDR...
Verdict: Information on this couple is the hardest to obtain, but I it certainly does not appear they would fit anyone's reasonable definition of "Inexperienced"...

*BRAVEHEART* - the Tartan 4600 that diverted to Beaufort after a crewmember suffered a broken arm...Her owners were veterans of previous Caribbean 1500s, as long ago as 2006...
Verdict: "Inexperienced"? Yeah, OK, if you say so...


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm now in a 12-Step Brevity Program with York - so I'll be "brief"...



JonEisberg said:


> By their own definition, the SDR is for "bluewater sailors who have completed at least one bluewater passage"... I think most reasonable people would consider that anyone who fits the definition "blue water sailor" would already have the experience to know what they're getting in for...


In the 5+ years I've been on this forum, _no one_ has been able to satisfactorily define what "bluewater" really means. And I think most of the sailors on this forum - many of them very, very experienced - are pretty reasonable dudes. Whatever it means, I think _EVERYONE_ (including you from what I recall) is in agreement that one is a very small number.



JonEisberg said:


> Of course, without the ability to review all of the applications submitted to the SDR, or to have any idea who the organizers might have turned away, it's impossible to know with any real precision exactly where their bar may have been set... But, that sure hasn't stopped you from your incessant braying that it was set too low...
> 
> So, then, where would you place your Imaginary "Bar for Entry", precisely?


Higher than it currently is. A place to start might be those who've skippered their own boat on this trip X times (like those ex-C1500ers who founded the SDR).

Hank, or even the CG, might be able to help you out with more detail.



JonEisberg said:


> Not to mention, have you already forgotten that I've already shown that "Lack of Experience" was unlikely to have been the defining factor aboard the following boats that experienced the most notable difficulties last November?


Allow me to point you back to York's post above.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon, I took a harder look at that pic you put up and compared it to _S/V Sequitur_ (the Hunter 49 that sailed the Horn in F10/11 conditions). They do look similarly outfitted:



















So what was your point?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Of course, without the ability to review all of the applications submitted to the SDR, or to have any idea who the organizers might have turned away, it's impossible to know with any real precision exactly where their bar may have been set... But, that sure hasn't stopped you from your incessant braying that it was set too low...
> 
> So, then, where would you place your Imaginary "Bar for Entry", precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> Higher than it currently is. A place to start might be those who've skippered their own boat on this trip X times (like those ex-C1500-ers who founded the SDR).
Click to expand...

I see... So, then, those folks on LIKE DOLPHINS who sailed across the Atlantic, or the Brits who likewise sailed across the Pond, and completed the 2013 SDR aboard the smallest boat in the entire fleet, would not have met the entry requirements...



smackdaddy said:


> Hank might be able to help you out with more detail.


Hank's probably got more pressing issues on his plate at the moment, than be the one to be deciding who should or should not be permitted to venture out into the N Atlantic in Janu... uhhh, I mean November... 

So, then - in summary:

The 6 SAR incidents in last fall's SDR were a clear indication the rally has a 'problem' that must be addressed...

The 'problem' is the result of an excessively "Low Bar" of experience, and the lack of an ISAF Safety Inspection...

However, you are unable to produce _ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER_ that said SAR incidents were due to a lack of experience of the crews (actually, the 'facts' cited above would appear to indicate quite the opposite), or to the lack of a pre-rally safety inspection...

Ergo,, the SDR needs to "Raise the Bar" for future participation, and institute safety inspections and more rigorous "training"...

Have I got that about right? 

In addition, 2 out of over 100 SDR rally boats were abandoned last fall... However, on January 14, 2 boats were also abandoned on the same day, off the mid-Atlantic coast... Now, we don't know for certain how many other sailing yachts might have been offshore in that area on that date, but my hunch would be a number not much greater than _TWO_...

So, there we likely have a percentage close to 100% of boats along the route to the Islands being abandoned... My math skills are pretty rudimentary, but that seems to me to be a rate of failure considerably higher than that of the SDR fleet, no?

So, what's your "easy fix" to that little conundrum?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hank's probably got more pressing issues on his plate at the moment, than be the one to be deciding who should or should not be permitted to venture out into the N Atlantic in Janu... uhhh, I mean November...


You don't really read this stuff do you? Hank already has:

*NARC Regulations*

If you want to taunt and/or question Hank on that based on the Alpha 42 thing - go ahead. You seem to be doing a good job of that kind of thing based on *Charles Doane's Sailfeed Story*:



> I have been most surprised by the comments made by Jon Eisberg, an experienced bluewater sailor I previously had some respect for.


As for the rest of the stuff in your post - however you need to put it together to understand it is fine by me. I think I've been very clear for many pages now.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I took a harder look at that pic you put up and compared it to _S/V Sequitur_ (the Hunter 49 that sailed the Horn in F10/11 conditions). They do look similarly outfitted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what was your point?


My point is that - _in my opinion_ - the manner in which that tender has been stowed is most definitely NOT seamanlike, and would seem to indicate that skipper had little idea of the possible conditions he might encounter on that trip...

If you can't spot the salient distinction between that arrangement, and Michael's, well... I doubt I can help you see the light... 

btw, I mean no disrespect to Michael, I am in awe of his accomplishment, and a voyage sailed in such an exemplary manner...

But your repeated claim that he rounded Cape Horn in F 10-11 conditions is simply not true, and seems typical of your tendency to believe if you just keep repeating one of your 'facts' over, and over, and over again... perhaps that will some day _make_ such an assertion true...


----------



## smackdaddy

I said "sailed the Horn" - just for you (read it again). 

You're welcome to turn your nose up at Michael's approach of coming out of the channels around Ushuaia (if I recall) in relatively moderate conditions to do his round the Horn shot, then coming back in, then back out continuing around toward Isla de los Estados and getting hit with those F10-11 conditions in that area (still the Horn in my book).

As for me, I UNEQUIVOCALLY give it to him.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> You don't really read this stuff do you? Hank already has:
> 
> *NARC Regulations*


LMAO! Ahhh, yes... _FINALLY_ we have a rally organizer who has stateed with absolute clarity *precisely* where the bar should be set:



> *The rally is open to any seaworhty boat with an experienced skipper with a good crew.*


Damn, who knew you didn't even have to be a "Bluewater Sailor" to make it into the NARC? 



smackdaddy said:


> If you want to taunt and/or question Hank on that based on the Alpha 42 thing - go ahead. You seem to be doing a good job of that kind of thing based on *Charles Doane's Sailfeed Story*:


Yeah, frankly I was a bit surprised Charlie singled me out like that...(I'm guessing it was probably my dredging up his old post regarding WOLFHOUND that might have gotten under his skin ) Hell, I thought my take on the whole deal was fairly measured, and I did refrain from second-guessing their final decision to abandon. As the Comments have poured in, I think mine in retrospect seem pretty reasonable, and relatively tame, compared to many...

I posted a lengthy response to Charlie over a week ago, but for some reason was unable to post it to his blog... If you're interested, it can be seen at Sailfeed... Be forewarned: It's pretty long... 

BE GOOD TOO: Answering Critics | Sailfeed



smackdaddy said:


> I said "sailed the Horn" - just for you (read it again).
> 
> You're welcome to turn your nose up at Michael's approach of coming out of the channels around Ushuaia (if I recall) in relatively moderate conditions to do his round the Horn shot, then coming back in, then back out continuing around toward Isla de los Estados and getting hit with those F10-11 conditions in that area (still the Horn in my book).
> 
> As for me, I UNEQUIVOCALLY give it to him.


I'm not turning my nose up at Michael, at all... That's the way the great majority of sailors see Cape Horn these days, after all... I'm in awe of anyone who simply makes it down there, to begin with...

But if I recall correctly, the experience SEQUITUR had with the big weather was in the lee of the Falklands, on their approach to Stanley...Still a wild place to be in such weather, no question - but it's not the same as being off Cape Horn, in a F11 Violent Storm...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> LMAO! Ahhh, yes... _FINALLY_ we have a rally organizer who has stateed with absolute clarity *precisely* where the bar should be set:
> 
> Damn, who knew you didn't even have to be a "Bluewater Sailor" to make it into the NARC?


Good lord. This is like kindergarten. Here is all the text copied from the *NARC Regulations* page I linked to:



> NARC Rules and Regulations
> 
> The rally is open to any professional delivery or nfull time crew.
> 
> The rally is open to any seaworhty boat with an experienced skipper with a good crew.
> 
> Amatuer sailors should contact Hank to see if they qualify.
> 
> *After last year we are recommending smaller boats with less experienced crew to head down to the Chesapeake Bay to depart with the caribbean 1500.*


Again, if you don't like Hank's approach - take it up with him. But at least be honest about what's there.



JonEisberg said:


> But if I recall correctly, the experience SEQUITUR had with the big weather was in the lee of the Falklands, on their approach to Stanley...Still a wild place to be in such weather, no question - but it's not the same as being off Cape Horn, in a F11 Violent Storm...


Okay.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Good lord. This is like kindergarten. Here is all the text copied from the *NARC Regulations* page I linked to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NARC Rules and Regulations
> 
> The rally is open to any professional delivery or nfull time crew.
> 
> *The rally is open to any seaworhty boat with an experienced skipper with a good crew.*
> 
> Amatuer sailors should contact Hank to see if they qualify.
> 
> After last year we are recommending *smaller boats with less experienced crew* to head down to the Chesapeake Bay to depart with the caribbean 1500.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you don't like Hank's approach - take it up with him. But at least be honest about what's there.
Click to expand...

If you were being honest about what's there, you'd admit that Hank's "Bar for Entry" to the NARC is even _MORE_ ambiguous and loosely defined than those for either the SDR, or the Caribbean 1500...

Help us out here... Precisely what does he mean by "experienced skipper", or "a good crew", or "smaller", or "less experienced"?

You know, so we know _EXACTLY_ how much higher the SDR needs to raise their bar, to achieve your "simple fix"...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> If you were being honest about what's there, you'd admit that Hank's "Bar for Entry" to the NARC is even _MORE_ ambiguous and loosely defined than those for either the SDR, or the Caribbean 1500...
> 
> Help us out here... Precisely what does he mean by "experienced skipper", or "a good crew", or "smaller", or "less experienced"?
> 
> You know, so we know _EXACTLY_ how much higher the SDR needs to raise their bar, to achieve your "simple fix"...


You're asking the wrong guy. Only Hank knows that. And he clearly states on that page that _he'll make the call_ if you have any questions on that as an "amateur sailor".

But, at least you're finally acknowledging one of the main problems I've been talking about since the beginning - nebulous standards like "one bluewater passage" being a real issue.

Again, for the hundredth time, one simple fix for the SDR, in my view, is to significantly raise the bar of experience for entry so that the lack of support in the other four areas I've mentioned isn't so much of an issue. There are likely several others.

I really can't explain any more simply for you.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> But, at least you're finally acknowledging one of the main problems I've been talking about since the beginning - nebulous standards like "one bluewater passage" being a real issue.
> 
> Again, for the hundredth time, the simple fix for the SDR, in my view, is to significantly raise the bar of experience for entry so that the lack of support in the other four areas I've mentioned isn't so much of an issue.
> 
> I really can't explain any more simply for you.


One can only marvel at your persistence, in your relentless insistence that the last fall's incidents show that the SDR has issues with the inexperience of their participants that can only be resolved by "raising the bar", safety inspections, more seminars, charging a fee for entry, or whatever...

*All the while, without offering ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the problems experienced by any of the boats involved in SARs were related to the experience level of the crews, or problems likely to have been detected in a pre-departure ISAF safety check...*

There is one, and only one, factor based upon the information we currently have available that all those boats had in common... Namely, that they wound up in the wrong place, at the wrong time, as a result of the timing of their departures and/or the particular routes they chose to sail... Numerous other SDR departed around the time of the 1500, which turned out to be the far better call in hindsight, and made it south of the Stream without any serious difficulty before the secondary front stalled over much of the fleet behind them, and the proverbial sh_t hit the fan...

Sometimes, even the best or most experienced can get it wrong, in the North Atlantic late in the season. We just saw a pretty clear example of that 2 weeks ago, after all... Your refusal to recognize that, your persistence in placing blame or responsibility on entities other than on the individual skippers and crews who undertook their voyages, and your call for "regulation", is sadly misguided, in my view - and seriously undermines the proper notion that offshore sailors _themselves_ are the only ones to be held accountable for their actions...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> *Sometimes, even the best or most experienced can get it wrong, in the North Atlantic late in the season. We just saw a pretty clear example of that 2 weeks ago, after all...* Your refusal to recognize that, your persistence in placing blame or responsibility on entities other than on the individual skippers and crews who undertook their voyages, and your call for "regulation", is sadly misguided, in my view - and seriously undermines the proper notion that offshore sailors _themselves_ are the only ones to be held accountable for their actions...


The bolded part is exactly right. And as York so eloquently implied, _an organization that is encouraging people to head into that at that time of year_ should probably make an effort to "meet the standards recently suggested by the USCG or US Sailing for West Coast racing"...especially if, as you illustrate, the participants are not the best and most experienced sailors.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, the folks that run the Caribbean 1500 sure did a hell of a job educating this skipper about _EXACTLY WHAT HE MIGHT BE IN FOR_ on that passage, alright... I'll bet he passed their ISAF-based Safety Inspection with flying colors


An owner would have to pay extra for me to deliver that boat so I had time to strip that junk off and get the dinghy on the foredeck.



JonEisberg said:


> Hank's probably got more pressing issues on his plate at the moment, than be the one to be deciding who should or should not be permitted to venture out into the N Atlantic in Janu... uhhh, I mean November...


Hank is a friend of mine and we've talked a couple of times since his adventure. I'll reiterate what I said before: Hank is one of the best skippers I know and I'm happy to have sailed with him. Disclaimer: I was a pro-skipper working for Hank's Offshore Passage Opportunities for a couple of years.

The entry requirements for the NARC are new, following the issues in the NARC a couple of years ago. The new rules and--I suspect--the recommendation to less experienced skippers and crew to consider the Caribbean 1500 have more to do with liability than anything else. The NARC, like the SDR, has its roots in the desire to provide an opportunity for supporting a bunch of folks heading in the same direction at the time.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> The bolded part is exactly right. And as York so eloquently implied, _an organization that is encouraging people to head into that at that time of year_ should probably make an effort to "meet the standards recently suggested by the USCG or US Sailing for West Coast racing"...especially if, as you illustrate, they're not the best and most experienced sailors.


So, in other words, the SDR needs to "raise their bar" at least to the level of the 1500 and NARC, 'cause their respective standards and practices have been so eminently successful in the prevention of the losses of both boats, and life, in their respective rallies in recent years, correct?

Or, perhaps not...

What I don't get, is where were you with all your hand-wringing, and calls for greater "regulation", in the wake of those far more tragic events? As far as I can tell, we didn't hear a peep out of you back when the NARC - with its "nebulous" entry requirements, lack of seminars and safety inspections, and perhaps worst of all, being _FREE_ to all participants - "encouraged" sailors to undertake a passage far riskier than the route of the SDR, with the resultant tragic consequences?


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm actually the target demographic now. So, I've grown more interested in it.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sorry Smack, I am with Jon and Dave on this one. I really think it was just a bit of bad luck. As I have said before, though I have not participated in rallies, I think they can actually add a level of safety because it gets people really talking things through and maybe someone forgot what another sailor remembered. 

I do agree with you also though: there is a misconception that boats travelling in a rally will be safer together once they leave the harbor. After 12-24 hours, you wouldn't see another single boat! We left one year for the Tortugas with several other boats. WIthin hours, we were all separated. Twelve hours later, you couldn't even see their nav lights! So the fallacy is that you are safer travelling as a group, which is not the case. 

Still, like Jon, I am not convinced some so-called expert coming on my boat is going to keep me from having problems. The things that happened on the SD were, in my mind, just a lot of bad luck and poor weather forecasting.

Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

Cruisingdad said:


> Sorry Smack, I am with Jon and Dave on this one. I really think it was just a bit of bad luck. As I have said before, though I have not participated in rallies, I think they can actually add a level of safety because it gets people really talking things through and maybe someone forgot what another sailor remembered.
> 
> I do agree with you also though: there is a misconception that boats travelling in a rally will be safer together once they leave the harbor. After 12-24 hours, you wouldn't see another single boat! We left one year for the Tortugas with several other boats. WIthin hours, we were all separated. Twelve hours later, you couldn't even see their nav lights! So the fallacy is that you are safer travelling as a group, which is not the case.
> 
> Still, like Jon, I am not convinced some so-called expert coming on my boat is going to keep me from having problems. The things that happened on the SD were, in my mind, just a lot of bad luck and poor weather forecasting.
> 
> Brian


No worries, Brian. You know me - I have no inherent need to be agreed with.

At least you acknowledge that it's not cut-and-dried. Remember, I've NEVER said that "a so-called expert coming on my boat is going to keep me from having problems". Those are the hyperbolic words that Jon and Ausp keep trying to put in my mouth.

My point has always been that with the newer sailors allowed in via low experience requirements, NOT having some kind of substantive safety back up definitely elevates their overall risk...one of the big reasons being the false perception of safety in numbers. Hank certainly seems to agree with that now since he's directing these folks to the C1500.

So, in this regard, I totally agree with Jon and Ausp. The kinds of safety standards present in the C1500 don't guarantee anything. And maybe the SDR incidents were, in fact, just bad luck.

The difference is, with no real safety standards in place, all the SDR can count on is luck. I've never seen that as good seamanship.


----------



## SVAuspicious

The safety standards of the NARC and SDR are the best there are: experience on the part of the crews. Experienced owners, skippers, and crew will make educated decisions about what is appropriate for them and their boats before heading offshore.


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> My point has always been that with the newer sailors allowed in via low experience requirements, NOT having some kind of substantive safety back up definitely elevates their overall risk...one of the big reasons being the false perception of safety in numbers. Hank certainly seems to agree with that now since he's directing these folks to the C1500.
> 
> The difference is, with no real safety standards in place, all the SDR can count on is luck. I've never seen that as good seamanship.


Well, if you really want to fix it, then you are totally barking up the wrong tree. If you want it fixed, go after the insurance companies.

It baffles me that people are heading to the carrib in winter, from the north, by going out to bermuda and hanging a right. All this just to avoid the dreaded Hurricane Box. I suspect the insurance companies are forcing them to do this.

Instead, I would argue it would be in the insurance companies best interests to outline certain marinas and areas that are acceptable for them to get to during hurricane season. All marinas are not made the same. For instance, many of the new marinas are made of floating concrete docks with heavily reinforced cleats and tall pilings that are set to withstand a Cat III. There are two of them in FMB right now! SO why not quit screwing around with that ridiculous hurricane box and for a small rider allow your boats to go to marinas which you have certified as low risk during hurricane season. That way, they are already well south and prepared for a short run to the islands via the Bahamas and Turks?

TO make my point, can you imagine how many boats would have been lost if the SD or 1500 had been held in Georgetown or the Turks?? Pfft. Zero I bet, and it would have been a hell of a lot more fun of a trip.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> My point has always been that with the *newer sailors allowed in via low experience requirements...*


yeah, keep on repeating that nonsense, perhaps someday you'll get someone else to believe it... 



smackdaddy said:


> The difference is, with no real safety standards in place, all the SDR can count on is luck. I've never seen that as good seamanship.


_WRONG_, yet again... 

If you were organizing an offshore rally to the Islands, what sort of crowd would you prefer have sailing in it?

Those that are willing to assume _TOTAL AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY_ for the preparation of their boat and crew, and make their own decisions regarding the point and time of departure and route?

Or, those willing to pay a substantial fee to sit in a marina, rely on a cursory safety check to spot shortcomings in their preparation, and wait until some Rally Guru gives them the green light, and tells them when it's OK to leave?

Dave has it EXACTLY right:



SVAuspicious said:


> The safety standards of the NARC and SDR are the best there are: experience on the part of the crews. Experienced owners, skippers, and crew will make educated decisions about what is appropriate for them and their boats before heading offshore.


----------



## JonEisberg

Cruisingdad said:


> TO make my point, can you imagine how many boats would have been lost if the SD or 1500 had been held in Georgetown or the Turks?? Pfft. Zero I bet, and it would have been a hell of a lot more fun of a trip.
> 
> My opinions.
> 
> Brian


Hmmm, not so sure about that one...

Remember, the most recent loss of a boat, and a life, during the 1500, occurred on approach to the Abacos...

Are you suggesting a rally begin in a place like Georgetown? The logistics of that would be ridiculously complex, for starters... That route entails far more time, no less risk, and can be often be a much tougher sail dead upwind, than the offshore route down with generally better sailing angles from Hatteras...

Hope you're not thinking of starting such a rally, I don't think there would be much profit in that one...


----------



## SVAuspicious

Cruisingdad said:


> It baffles me that people are heading to the carrib in winter, from the north, by going out to bermuda and hanging a right. All this just to avoid the dreaded Hurricane Box. I suspect the insurance companies are forcing them to do this.


I'm more than happy to blame a lot of silly things on insurance companies but I don't think this is one. The issue is getting far enough East fast enough so that when getting far enough South for the trades to kick in you don't have to get any further to windward.

I call it aiming for Bermuda and missing. *grin*

From the mouth of the Chesapeake sail as close to 135 true as possible to 65W, then turn right and head South. Nothing to do with insurance or hurricane boxes, everything to do with wind.


----------



## blowinstink

Cruisingdad said:


> It baffles me that people are heading to the carrib in winter, from the north, by going out to bermuda and hanging a right. All this just to avoid the dreaded Hurricane Box. I suspect the insurance companies are forcing them to do this.


I don't think for a second that this routing is a result of insurer policy (anymore than I think people decide to go / no go based on the existence of rallies or rally policy). This trip is a right of passage for so many that to contextualize it as either a regulatory matter or a risk management issue is silly. That said, discussion of the weather and routing issues -- and past failures -- has great value. When I first became obsessed with this stuff (15 years ago?) the most influential writing was Coles' Heavy Weather Sailing which is nothing more than a compendium of histories and analysis. It would have been easy to argue from those histories: no one should sail south across the Bay of Biscay in the fall (or to Caribbean from the Northeast US) or we should have equipment regulations in place to prevent those tragedies. At a time when opinions were more measured, if for no other reason than you could not simply click "reply", no such arguments were made. It is worth remembering that this whole absurd endeavor is about doing something that is illogical to almost everyone else . . . by your own choice and on your own terms. Put me in the city and ask me about policy and I will tell you all about the positive value of regulations and insurance policy . . . I sail to leave that behind. Don't judge the distance I travel by the speed your car travels or the risks I take by your own fears or insurance regulations. We joke about the endless definitions of bluewater . . . please add: "beyond your control". If a rally helps someone who wants that accomplish it -- I am all for it.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Experienced owners, skippers, and crew will make educated decisions about what is appropriate for them and their boats before heading offshore.


Now that last part I agree with. And that's been my point for a very long time. Unfortunately, the SDR currently has a very nebulous and minimal measure of what constitutes an "experienced" owner/skipper.


----------



## outbound

Curious why the insurance companies play that way? Surely they do risk analysis or base their decisions on claims made. Few of us are prepared to write off a major asset like a 40-50' boat. Realize we are a small market but considerable funds are involved.
With the June to November rule what's your best advice.
Be curious about others thoughts.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> If you were organizing an offshore rally to the Islands, what sort of crowd would you prefer have sailing in it?
> 
> Those that are willing to assume _TOTAL AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY_ for the preparation of their boat and crew, and make their own decisions regarding the point and time of departure and route?


Absolutely this group...then when something went wrong I could just blame it all on them and get off scot-free.

Okay, seriously, this group IF they're experienced enough to actually be able to do all that EFFECTIVELY. Being _willing_ to take full responsibility certainly doesn't mean being _able_ to do it effectively. Any 18 year old can illustrate that maxim for you pretty easily. A single bluewater passage certainly leaves a lot of gray area in your statement above.



JonEisberg said:


> Dave has it EXACTLY right:


_Partially_ right. I do absolutely agree with his experience angle. Just not on his SDR spin.

Remember, the problem you guys have is that IF all these participants in the SDR were eminently experienced and qualified owners/skippers/crew - why did the USCG feel compelled to issue a Marine Safety Alert _because of the SDR_? They usually don't do that if they think it was just "bad luck".


----------



## smackdaddy

Paulo posted this over in the racing forum. These are the findings of a panel investigating the loss of the _S/V Uncontrollable Urge_ in the 2013 Islands race.

Somewhere around 100 boats participating, one boat in the fleet loses a rudder, drifts toward lee shore in big swell and waves, skipper waits to call for assistance, boat gets too close to shore for anyone to help, crew abandons and one drowns, boat is rolled onto beach in the breakers.

I think it has some significant ramifications to this SDR discussion. Check it:



PCP said:


> The report and the recommendations regarding 2013 Islands Race Tragedy was published:
> 
> summary of the panel's finding:
> 
> *Panel Findings:
> 1. The accident was caused by the failure of the vessel's rudder while sailing off a lee shore.
> 
> 2. The emergency rudder preparations on Uncontrollable Urge were not adequate for the conditions in which the original rudder failed, despite the efforts of the crew.
> 
> 3. The panel believes that if the skipper of Uncontrollable Urge told the USCG they were in distress initially when the rudder broke the USCG would have responded by sending help immediately. Even if assistance from the USCG was not needed it would have increased their options for rescue.
> 
> 4. Help from the race boats would have given Uncontrollable Urge additional options for rescue.
> 
> 5. The flight time for the USCG the night of the Islands Race was 50 minutes for the helicopter to be on the scene and another 60 minutes to ready hoist operations and pull the crew to safety. Before the USCG arrived the crew of Uncontrollable Urge had to be self-sufficient.
> 
> 6. By the time the skipper of Uncontrollable Urge asked for assistance from other racers the vessel was one mile from the shore. Other race boats that could have responded with assistance were a considerable distance downwind and it is unlikely that those vessels would have been able assist Uncontrollable Urge due to her proximity to the lee shore.
> 
> 7. The course of Uncontrollable Urge after the rudder failure was almost entirely dictated by the wind and swell direction. Her position was always moving towards the Island.
> 
> 8. None of the emergency steering methods tried by the crew of Uncontrollable Urge worked in the conditions. The requirement of OSR 4.15.1 b) is "crews must be aware of alternative methods of steering the yacht in any sea condition in the event of rudder loss. At least one method must have been proven to work on board the yacht". The crew of Uncontrollable Urge assumed that since they had success steering Columbia 32C hull #1 off of Newport Beach, Calif. in 10 knots of wind using just the sails they would be able to steer Uncontrollable Urge in the conditions they found off of San Clemente Island during the Islands Race.
> 
> 9. The crew of Uncontrollable Urge found that even with the engine at full throttle none of the emergency steering measures gave them enough directional stability to counteract the leeway generated by the large sea state. If no methods of emergency steering have been tried prior to a rudder failure there is no way to know if the emergency steering method will work in any sea condition.
> 
> 10. Four of five Spinlock deck vests failed to work properly, allowing the flotation chamber to pull over the wearer's head to one side of the body. The deceased was found floating face down with the flotation chamber pulled over his head. Given that the crew had to swim through large surf to reach the shore this was a life threatening failure.
> 
> 11. OSR Category 3 is defined as "Races across open water, most of which is relatively protected or close to shorelines". US Sailing prescribes "that Category 2 races are of extended duration along or not far removed from shorelines, where a high degree of self-sufficiency is required of yachts but with the reasonable probability that outside assistance would be available for aid in the event of serious emergencies". While the Islands Race has a rated distance of 129.5 nautical miles the northwest corner of San Clemente Island is 75 miles from San Diego Buoy #1 and therefore in inclement conditions help is not readily available.
> 
> Panel Recommendations:
> 
> 1. Vessels that race offshore should have adequate rudders so that heavy weather sailing conditions do not cause them to break. This may require plan approval or an inspection from a naval architect or marine surveyor.
> 
> 2. Crews should be aware of how to contact the Coast Guard or other vessels and to indicate the amount of assistance required. The US Sailing Safety at Sea Course should address how to communicate clearly with the USCG and other race vessels in case of distress. A broken rudder should be considered an emergency situation in heavy seas and high winds. Specifically, sailors should understand when a Mayday or PAN PAN urgency transmission is justified. Crews must be realistic about their level of danger.
> 
> 3. US Sailing should recommend that all race boats post near the VHF clear directions on how to communicate when the vessel is in distress. Some VHF instruction manuals have specific language on how to communicate when the vessel is in distress that skippers and crews should read.
> 
> 4. Skippers and crews need to be aware of methods of rendering assistance to other vessels, including providing skills and advice, providing tools, acting as a communications relay, towing, and transfer of crews.
> 
> 5. When sailors are in a life threatening situation, they should seek and pursue all possible options for assistance, including accepting assistance from other vessels.
> 
> 6. The US Sailing Safety at Sea Committee should recommend that the Offshore Special Regulations Category 0, 1, and 2 replace 4.15.1 b) "crews must be aware of alternative methods of steering the yacht in any sea condition in the event of rudder loss. At least one method must have been proven to work on board the yacht. An inspector may require that this method be demonstrated" with language that states yacht's emergency steering shall be constructed to the same or greater strength standard as required for the yacht's primary steering and that can be deployed in any weather condition.
> 
> 7. Organizing Authorities of offshore races could offer the option to boat owners to submit a video of their emergency rudder deployment on their boat in lieu of OSR 4.15.1 b) "An inspector may require that this method be demonstrated". A video of the man overboard practice could also be required.
> 
> 8. Safety tethers need a quick release that will work in any condition. The cutter, knife, or shackle that requires both hands to release is not a viable option.
> 
> 9. Several crew members experienced problems when the inflation chamber of the life jacket was pushed over their heads, causing asymmetrical buoyancy. The panel recommends that Spinlock and other manufacturers examine the design of their inflating vests and consider making the inflation chamber more secure to the harness.
> 
> 10. The Organizing Authorities for the Islands Race, Newport Harbor Yacht Club and San Diego Yacht Club should designate the Islands Race as an OSR Category 2 race.*
> 
> Full report:
> 
> http://media.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=21870


----------



## Shockwave

Sailing as a participant with the company of others in a sanctioned event does not guarantee safety. The ultimate responsibility for safety lies with the skipper and crew.


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, I think we should leave the Uncontrollable Urge incident findings over on the racing threads and not here. If you want to discuss them, I would be happy to join you over there


----------



## smackdaddy

That's cool with me. I just think there are a lot of things in that panel's findings that are very applicable here. And, as I've always said in this thread, the scrutiny and process that follows an incident in the organized racing side of sailing should be equally applied to the organized cruising side of sailing.


----------



## Gadagirl

Should we all scratch the date of this event into the skin of our forearms as to never forget?

It is my understanding that when the Salty Dawg Rally was formed, it was between a few seasoned 1500 cruisers. “Seasoned” meaning they had participated for several years and had paid good money each year to the “for profit” event. They had gained all the knowledge they were ever going to gain from the seminars. There were no hard feelings toward the 1500, lots of praise for having participated, lots of good memories and strong bonds towards those they met. It was just very practical that “graduates” developed, and it was time for them to leave the nest. 
In other words, there was a couple of cruisers that felt confident enough to “buddy boat” on down to the BVI. Without paying out a substantial amount of their cash for an education they had already acquired. Or paying to have safety standards checked by others, since their lives depended on it because they had lived aboard for the past 9+ (?) years. I was told year one that it was not for newbies or uninitiated. It was a rally for seasoned sailors, organized more for the camaraderie than as “hand holding” event that you’d like it to become. Not for profit. They shared dinners, stories, advice, while preparing. They had weather service. Each year it grew and there were more boats involved. 
What is so wrong with having choices? The 1500 for the more intrepid needing the education and support, or the Salty Dawg that offers less of that and geared more toward the confident and seasoned sailors. OMG! You must stay awake nights thinking of those that partake in neither, go off on their own accord! All while you are unable to control or sanction! 
Could your energies be better put to use by trying to force your standards in….. Perhaps our school systems, our medical system, the VA? How about giving a go at making America join the metric system? That’s a standard that’s used worldwide except here! What’s to become of the 12 year old caring for her siblings while her parents are at work until 2 am? The list could go on.
But really? Really? You have been going on and on and on and on about an annual migration that involves a small number of people. That’s what’s most important to you? Really? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Do you just want us to acknowledge and validate your point? Would you like a form letter to our state representatives asking for legislation? A hug? A smack? What? What do you want? Across the board standards for boaters in the ocean? Really? 
Stop the madness! Step away from the keyboard! Help a struggling child and then Go Sailing! 
I meant this in the most loving way. My hand to god


----------



## smackdaddy

Gada, if the SDR adopts _*your wording*_ for the bar to entry:



Gadagirl said:


> ...A few seasoned 1500 cruisers. "Seasoned" meaning they had participated for several years and had gained all the knowledge they were ever going to gain from the seminars. For "graduates", and it was time for them to leave the nest.


Instead of *"one bluewater passage"* being that bar...I'm happy to leave it. That would be the best, simplest fix. No "regulation" required at all.

Until then...


----------



## Gadagirl

Perhaps you should contact them and discover what their vetting process is first hand. They'll either accept or deny you? You'll either join or not? Maybe start your own unique rally using your standards and rules? I don't know why you are so adamant on insisting 1 sailing rally adopt and pacify your personnel standards.


----------



## smackdaddy

Gadagirl said:


> Perhaps you should contact them and discover what their vetting process is first hand. They'll either accept or deny you? You'll either join or not? Maybe start your own unique rally using your standards and rules? I don't know why you are so adamant on insisting 1 sailing rally adopt and pacify your personnel standards.


Sure. I'll send an email to them asking for an explanation - though I think that info will likely come out in the review they said they'll conduct, and I doubt they'll want to go into it publicly until that review is done.

In the mean time, I'm not real sure why this discussion gets on your toes so much. There are always at least two sides to an issue. Why are you adamant I not talk about this side of it?


----------



## Gadagirl

Because you go on angrily condemning and coming off as a control freak.

Could you not contact many of them privately through their blogs or FB and enquirer about their experiences or thoughts? Get some private first hand accounts? 

Where are all of those participants? Not commenting here because they are off on their cruise, enjoying life. We are stuck in the frozen north, caught up in the Rallies Gone Wrong Vortex, arguing with you about how they chose to go. But guess what they all went and we didn't.

If you're truly just trying to protect the naive and innocent then there are better causes that could use your talents and energy. Seriously. Maybe you could start a rally that follows your rules and raises sailing to your perceived higher standards of passage making. But continuing and insisting that your ideas of passage making should be enforced, or made a minimum standard is similar to trying to force a specific religion on a given population. It has the same effect. No consensus. 

Better to live and let live. If they screw up badly you can always say "I told you so."


----------



## JonEisberg

Gadagirl said:


> Should we all scratch the date of this event into the skin of our forearms as to never forget?
> 
> It is my understanding that when the Salty Dawg Rally was formed, it was between a few seasoned 1500 cruisers. "Seasoned" meaning they had participated for several years and had paid good money each year to the "for profit" event. They had gained all the knowledge they were ever going to gain from the seminars. There were no hard feelings toward the 1500, lots of praise for having participated, lots of good memories and strong bonds towards those they met. It was just very practical that "graduates" developed, and it was time for them to leave the nest.
> In other words, there was a couple of cruisers that felt confident enough to "buddy boat" on down to the BVI. Without paying out a substantial amount of their cash for an education they had already acquired. Or paying to have safety standards checked by others, since their lives depended on it because they had lived aboard for the past 9+ (?) years. I was told year one that it was not for newbies or uninitiated. It was a rally for seasoned sailors, organized more for the camaraderie than as "hand holding" event that you'd like it to become. Not for profit. They shared dinners, stories, advice, while preparing. They had weather service. Each year it grew and there were more boats involved.
> What is so wrong with having choices? The 1500 for the more intrepid needing the education and support, or the Salty Dawg that offers less of that and geared more toward the confident and seasoned sailors. OMG! You must stay awake nights thinking of those that partake in neither, go off on their own accord! All while you are unable to control or sanction!


Few things he's written in this thread demonstrate a greater lack of understanding about how these rallies operate, and the genesis of the SDR, than the following written a few dozen posts ago:



smackdaddy said:


> And if "a pool of unsurpassed knowledge" is so important, why is there so much resistance to *one of the best pools of this on the planet - the one that the C1500 uses?* One rally is very clearly meeting that need. The other? Who knows?


I wonder if he could share with us, precisely who comprises one of "the best pools of knowledge on the planet" that defines the Caribbean 1500? And, where were they a few years ago, "clearly meeting the needs" of those under their wing, when one of the boats in their flock foolishly entered Oregon Inlet in heavy seas less than a day out of Hampton, or when RULE 62 was lost with one of her crew a week later?

Now, Rick Palm obviously has a good deal of experience on this route, and I have nothing but respect for Andy Schell, who certainly made the right call last fall with the weather and the time of their departure... But they are presumed to comprise one of the most knowledgeable, experienced pools of bluewater sailing talent on Earth? Seriously?

What he completely fails to appreciate, is how much of the 1500's "knowledge pool" was diluted with the formation of the SDR... The entry list for the first 2 years of the SDR is filled with veterans of multiple 1500s like Bill and Linda Knowles... Boats like the Hylas 70 ARCHANGEL, the former "flagship" of the 1500, bolted immediately for the SDR, as did the very experienced crew of the Tayana 64 CELEBRATION... In short, there was a massive shift of experience and talent between the respective fleets of the 1500 and SDR, with the exodus of so many of the 1500's stalwarts and veterans... But, that sure hasn't kept him from railing incessantly about their "low bar to entry", or "casual approach to safety"...

Anyway, thanks for joining the fray, good to see someone else has had it with some of this blather...


----------



## Gadagirl

Yes but wouldn't that be almost a natural human progression? A bunch of experienced vets, move on to create something different? As I said. What's wrong in having a choice geared toward your experience level? Not every body wants to stay at the shallow end of the pool. Eventually we learn to like and respect the deep end.


----------



## smackdaddy

Gadagirl said:


> Because you go on angrily condemning and coming off as a control freak.


First, I'd be very interested for you to demonstrate where I've been angry. Second, a control freak is not usually one who is expressing an opinion, but the one who is telling another to _stop_ expressing an opinion. You see how that works?



Gadagirl said:


> We are stuck in the frozen north, caught up in the Rallies Gone Wrong Vortex, arguing with you about how they chose to go. But guess what they all went and we didn't.


So who's angry again?



Gadagirl said:


> Maybe you could start a rally that follows your rules and raises sailing to your perceived higher standards of passage making. But continuing and insisting that your ideas of passage making should be enforced, or made a minimum standard is similar to trying to force a specific religion on a given population. It has the same effect. No consensus.
> 
> Better to live and let live. If they screw up badly you can always say "I told you so."


Remember, I agreed with _your_ definition of to the standards of passage above for the SDR.

Sorry - you're not making a lot of sense here.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Few things he's written in this thread demonstrate a greater lack of understanding about how these rallies operate, and the genesis of the SDR, than the following written a few dozen posts ago:
> 
> * Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
> And if "a pool of unsurpassed knowledge" is so important, why is there so much resistance to one of the best pools of this on the planet - the one that the C1500 uses? One rally is very clearly meeting that need. The other? Who knows?*
> 
> I wonder if he could share with us, precisely who comprises one of "the best pools of knowledge on the planet" that defines the Caribbean 1500?


Jon, yet again, you misunderstand. See that word "uses". Here is that pool of knowledge that the C1500 draws from and provides to its participants:

Regulations/Constitution | Documents & Rules | ISAF | World Sailing | Official Website : ISAF Regulations Index

That's years and years of knowledge compiled by the best in the world - and it's completely unaffected by whomever might or might not leave the C1500.

You and Gada are going in big huffy circles.

*Use Gada's - and now your - description of who left and created the SDR as the standard of entry for the SDR: C1500 (or equivalent) veterans...and send the newbs to the C1500.* Debate over.

Seems to be good enough for Hank. Why aren't you taking him to task?

(PS - If I couldn't understand what someone was saying, I'd call it blather too.)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, yet again, you misunderstand. See that word "uses". Here is that pool of knowledge that the C1500 draws from and provides to its participants:
> 
> Regulations/Constitution | Documents & Rules | ISAF | World Sailing | Official Website : ISAF Regulations Index
> 
> That's years and years of knowledge compiled by the best in the world - and it's completely unaffected by whomever might or might not leave the C1500.
> 
> You and Gada are going in big huffy circles.
> 
> *Use Gada's - and now your - description of who left and created the SDR as the standard of entry for the SDR: C1500 (or equivalent) veterans...and send the newbs to the C1500.* Debate over.


Well, speaking of "going around in big huffy circles", I believe we are still waiting for you to provide *a single shred of factual evidence* that your "easy fix" would have averted any of the problems of the boats abandoned or that required assistance in the SDR last fall...

Or, for that matter, why that awesome Pool of Knowledge that the 1500 draws from didn't result in the prevention of similar losses of boats, or life, in previous editions of the 1500?

By the way, could you please cite for us, the list of "newbs" that participated in the SDR, that should have been directed to the 1500, instead? Surely you must have a pretty good idea who did and did not belong in that fleet, since you keep referring to it as being a virtual given, no?

round and round we go...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, speaking of "going around in big huffy circles", I believe we are still waiting for you to provide *a single shred of factual evidence* that your "easy fix" would have averted any of the problems of the boats abandoned or that required assistance in the SDR last fall...
> 
> Or, for that matter, why that awesome Pool of Knowledge that the 1500 draws from didn't result in the prevention of similar losses of boats, or life, in previous editions of the 1500?
> 
> By the way, could you please cite for us, the list of "newbs" that participated in the SDR, that should have been directed to the 1500, instead? Surely you must have a pretty good idea who did and did not belong in that fleet, since you keep referring to it as being a virtual given, no?
> 
> round and round we go...


As I've told you before, this kind of proof you're insisting on is a red herring. It's equivalent to saying that safety regulations in the aircraft industry are ineffective or unnecessary because a plane crashed. What you're asking for doesn't matter.

Any way you try to spin it, you can't get away from the _fact_ that the SDR had 5 SAR incidents - _which resulted in the USCG's Marine Safety Alert._ If what actually happened is proof enough for the USCG, it's certainly proof enough for me. So you can keep on insisting - but it doesn't matter.

As for the "newbs" - I'd say, just as you have said in this thread - that anyone with only a single "bluewater passage" under their belt is definitely a newb when sailing in this part of the ocean at this time of year. We'll see what other information comes out.


----------



## Shockwave

Pretty narrow definition.



smackdaddy said:


> As for the "newbs" - I'd say, just as you have said in this thread - that anyone with only a single "bluewater passage" under their belt is definitely a newb when sailing in this part of the ocean at this time of year.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Pretty narrow definition.


You're right. It is. But that's the problem with the SDR's stated bar to entry. What does that really mean?

A single bluewater passage being a circumnavigation or an ocean crossing is very different than a 3-4 day run 100 miles off the coast.

If what they mean by their definition is the former, then 100+ boats is a hell of a lot of boats that meet pretty narrow definition.


----------



## Shockwave

Kinda the same......

"To join a World Cruising Club rally, you will need a seaworthy boat. We don't define the type of boat, but we do set some limits on boat length (see the FAQs in the rally pages), and we expect you and your boat to have completed an offshore passage in the year before the rally."

Note: the only passage requirement for the ARC is to get to St Lucia ~500 miles.

Look, there are folks who have sailed more and folks that have sailed less but if someone wants to go sailing and chooses to join a rally it's all on them.

What happened in the SDR could just as easily have happened in the Carib 1500. Sometimes, we as sailors are unlucky.

I have this feeling you might have said no to Laura Dekker?



smackdaddy said:


> You're right. It is. But that's the problem with the SDR's stated bar to entry. What does that really mean?
> 
> A single bluewater passage being a circumnavigation or an ocean crossing is very different than a 3-4 day run 100 miles off the coast.
> 
> If what they mean by their definition is the former, then 100+ boats is a hell of a lot of boats that meet pretty narrow definition.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Kinda the same......
> 
> "To join a World Cruising Club rally, you will need a seaworthy boat. We don't define the type of boat, but we do set some limits on boat length (see the FAQs in the rally pages), and we expect you and your boat to have completed an offshore passage in the year before the rally."
> 
> Note: the only passage requirement for the ARC is to get to St Lucia ~500 miles.


Yes. But the second you start comparing rally against rally, you need to compare the other factors beyond that standard to entry (cost, safety standards, etc.) . Compare those of the C1500 and SDR and you see some striking differences (I laid them out earlier in this thread).

You can't just take one thing in isolation in these comparisons.



Shockwave said:


> Look, there are folks who have sailed more and folks that have sailed less but if someone wants to go sailing and chooses to join a rally it's all on them.


I totally agree with you. That choice of whether to join a rally or not is all on them. But I can virtually guarantee that if _the rally organization_ encouraging these big groups of sailors to hit the GS in winter has problems like this (necessitating a USCG Marine Safety Alert) - and is not seen to be policing itself to counteract such problems...it makes for a lot of interest from outside parties. Just look at the Farrallones race tragedy aftermath.



Shockwave said:


> LWhat happened in the SDR could just as easily have happened in the Carib 1500. Sometimes, we as sailors are unlucky.
> 
> I have this feeling you might have said no to Laura Dekker?


That's true - luck has something to do with it. Good seamanship has a lot to do with it as well. You can't always rely only on luck.

At 13? Yes, I would have definitely said no. At 20, I might consider going out with her.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon,

You keep wanting "proof" that these SDR incidents wouldn't have happened with safety standards/inspections in place. Here's a more rational way to look at it...

If the rudder failures were, as you imply, on boats that had very experienced owners/skippers/crews - find out when they last dropped and inspected their rudders and related components. In your experienced opinion - how often and when should this be done? And did they do it within those parameters? And if not, what are your thoughts about those sailors and the outcome?


----------



## Shockwave

At the end of the day, when you drop the dock lines you are on your own. The differences in the rally's is of no consequence. The choice to go with a rally is no different then sailing to the islands on your own. If you get in trouble will someone come? Maybe, maybe not. There are no guarantees when sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> At the end of the day, when you drop the dock lines you are on your own. The differences in the rally's is of no consequence. The choice to go with a rally is no different then sailing to the islands on your own. If you get in trouble will someone come? Maybe, maybe not. There are no guarantees when sailing.


Now this is absolutely true.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, yet again, you misunderstand. See that word "uses". Here is that pool of knowledge that the C1500 draws from and provides to its participants:
> 
> Regulations/Constitution | Documents & Rules | ISAF | World Sailing | Official Website : ISAF Regulations Index
> 
> That's years and years of knowledge compiled by the best in the world - and it's completely unaffected by whomever might or might not leave the C1500.


Your faith in ISAF is very cute.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Your faith in ISAF is very cute.


So are my pants!

Actually, read paragraph 1.02.1 in the ISAF regs. I think you'll like it.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> So are my pants!
> 
> Actually, read paragraph 1.02.1 in the ISAF regs. I think you'll like it.


I do love it and enjoy quoting it all the time  Yet people continually want to try and carve away at this core concept.........

Incidentally the ocean had 1.02.1 clearly defined long before ISAF added it


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> So are my pants!
> 
> Actually, read paragraph 1.02.1 in the ISAF regs. I think you'll like it.


While we are reading try ISAF regs try 1.01.1.

It is my issue with the regs being the last say on safety for rallies.

They were never intended as such. There are some differences between shorthanded offshore cruising, and offshore racing.

I agree that yes they are however a great reference for cruisers, and a good starting point for safety. We have used them thus ourselves, but have deviated when we have found, researched and evaluated what believe to be a better solution.


----------



## smackdaddy

I agree with you. I'm currently outfitting our boat using the OSR Cat 1 regs...with many deviations. For example, I'm not going to replace our coated lifelines, and we are carrying a PLB in our ditch bag (and also have SPOT, DSC, etc.) but will likely not have an EPIRB or SART-Tx for our trip. I'll also have a coastal life raft - not off-shore. So I'm doing what I think makes sense for us - but using ISAF as the standard.

That's why I like what the C1500 is doing - using the ISAF as a go-by, not just blindly applying them as-is. It's a good approach.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I agree with you. I'm currently outfitting our boat using the OSR Cat 1 regs...with deviations. For example, I'm not going to replace our coated lifelines, and we are carrying a PLB in our ditch bag (and also have SPOT, DSC, etc.) but will likely not have an EPIRB or SART-Tx for our trip. I'll also have a coastal life raft - not off-shore. So I'm doing what I think makes sense for us - but using ISAF as the standard.
> 
> That's why I like what the C1500 is doing - using the ISAF as a go-by, not just blindly applying them as-is. It's a good approach.


Yeah we got stung on the lifelines. We do like to be involved club sailing from time to time and so our perfectly fine coated lifelines had to go


----------



## vtsailguy

Interesting. Here's my perspective, and it's one from someone that if getting ready to take their first offshore passage with the Carib 1500 this year.

First is I don't understand the comparison with people saying this one is better etc etc. to my knowledge, they are both probably using the same weather services and although Carib makes a call for the fleet, they still say in big letters "it's the captains decision to leave" - just like the SDR..

Second, both have had issues. If I recall, didn't a woman die in the Carib a few years ago? Both I think are inherently, and equally dangerous. In the SDR you check your own safety, in the Carib, some guy comes on and sniffs around for 15 minutes.

Lastly, I think the potential for risk in the Carib is much much higher. You can take your ship on a 1500 mile offshore passage and your only experience has been lake sailing. The safety course is actually only recommended, not required. That leaves you with a massive massive experience gap. You are praying that they make the weather call right. At least in the SDR you have taken one offshore passage.

Then again, there is always delivery captains


----------



## smackdaddy

vtsailguy said:


> Interesting. Here's my respective, and it's one from someone that if getting ready to take their first offshore passage with the Carib 1500 this year.
> 
> First is I don't understand the comparison with people saying this one is better etc etc. to my knowledge, they are both probably using the same weather services and although Carib makes a call for the fleet, they still say in big letters "it's the captains decision to leave" - just like the SDR..
> 
> Second, both have had issues. If I recall, didn't a woman die in the Carib a few years ago? Both I think are inherently, and equally dangerous. In the SDR you check your own safety, in the CRib, some guy comes on and sniffs around for 15 minutes.
> 
> Lastly, I think the potential f risk in the Carib is much much higher. You can take your ship on a 1500 mile offshore passage and your only experience have been lake sailing. The safety course is actually only recommended, not required. That leaves you with a massive massive experience gap. You are praying that they make the weather call right. At least in the SDR you have taken one offshore passage.
> 
> Then again, there is always delivery captains
> 
> Three boys, 200 sq ft of fiberglass, tropical beaches
> www.sailingwithkids.net


VT - you're way off. Here's the standard of entry for the C1500:

"To join a World Cruising Club rally, you will need a seaworthy boat. We don't define the type of boat, but we do set some limits on boat length (see the FAQs in the rally pages), and we expect you and your boat to have completed an offshore passage in the year before the rally."

Preparing

So, it's roughly the same as the SDR, with more clarification that it be _your boat_ and be within the past year. So, your statement that:



> Lastly, I think the potential f risk in the Carib is much much higher. You can take your ship on a 1500 mile offshore passage and your only experience have been lake sailing. The safety course is actually only recommended, not required. That leaves you with a massive massive experience gap.


Is pretty seriously flawed. And because the C1500 requires equipping the boat to their ISAF-based standard, along with a safety inspection - this "massive, massive experience gap" is definitely addressed in what I think is a very common sense way. It is not in the SDR.

So, again, if you're going to compare rallies, at least be accurate.

ALL THAT SAID....if you are speaking from personal experience, and all you have is lake sailing experience, and the C1500 knew this and let you in anyway...then that's a different matter completely that deserves some follow up.


----------



## vtsailguy

Once you get the terms and conditions, they are somewhat more specific (I have them in my hand).

You are not required to have completed an offshore passage, you are required to have completed a 250nm cruise. It doesn't need to be offshore. You'll probably rack up those miles in the coastal trip to get to Portsmouth, VA.

The ISAF is a red herring. Any captain is going to make sure they have the appropriate safety equipment.

The inspection is also a red herring, it doesn't always even happen (two different captain's experiences):



> "However, we are told that this year, we are to inspect our own vessels and have our crew sign the safety inspection. I am extremely disappointed with this last minute change ... This is one of the touted benefits of rally participation that I signed up for and it is just done away with without any explanation! I know that other captains were looking forward to this as was I, not only to have three other trained eyes looking over our preparations, but to learn from one another different and possibly better ways of making our boats safe and ready for ocean passages. But my crew and I go through the safety checklist checking each and every item before signing it and turning it in."


and



> The event organizers had distributed a "required equipment list" and all boats were expected to have the items. Compliance was checked during the safety inspections, but not necessarily rigorously. For example, we said our compass had been adjusted and had a deviation table, but we didn't have to show the deviation table (which didn't actually exist).


The bottom line is both are a bunch of boats heading off for a long passage, and both using virtually identical weather services. Arguably, there is more offshore experience associated with the crews of the SDR than the Carib 1500.


----------



## smackdaddy

Then yeah - I'd say that's a problem. If they are advertising one standard publicly, then reducing those standards on the applications T&Cs, then in reality once you're in with lack of inspections - that ain't cool. It's actually worse than the SDR*.

*Potentially. Now it will be interesting to see what the detail in the SDR's application T&Cs was.

On this, though...



vtsailguy said:


> The ISAF is a red herring. Any captain is going to make sure they have the appropriate safety equipment.


When you take a cross-section of 100+ boats doing that (or any) big-offshore run, I can virtually guarantee you that this is not true.


----------



## vtsailguy

I don't really see it as a troublesome "bait and switch". Things are never implemented as they are planned.

Again, I don't think there is much difference between these two rallies. The SDR got bad press this year because of accidents, several years ago it was Carib's turn.

You go in the big sea, you take a big risk.


----------



## smackdaddy

vtsailguy said:


> You go in the big sea, you take a big risk.


This I agree with. At the end of the day, it will good to follow your report on your C1500 experience in your blog. Give us a heads up when the time comes.


----------



## vtsailguy

Sure will, whether I do the Carib or get a Delivery Cap....


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> Now this is absolutely true.





smackdaddy said:


> This I agree with. At the end of the day, it will good to follow your report on your C1500 experience in your blog. Give us a heads up when the time comes.


Wait! You're not going to try to stop him from going???? What if he is tricked by the weather routers; or follows the pack; or takes an ill equipped boat; or expects the organizers to save him from himself??? Smack! How can you allow this happen??? We count on you to do so much more than this . . . after all, this isn't just a conversation on a dock, it is Sailnet! Do you know how many people you are influencing???



God I love this thread, I mean I hate this thread (I love this thread!!!).


----------



## vtsailguy

Be nice...


----------



## blowinstink

vtsailguy said:


> Be nice...


SD knows I am just teasing (though he and I have a date to revisit what the meaning of "nice" might be ).

Vt I think your plans are a pretty normal participant's / prospective participant's view of the rallies and your description of the entry requirements consistent with what I have heard and read. Smack's reaction to those plans was the sort of measured response we normally see from him . . .. I'd delete but I wouldn't want to deny him the tongue lashing he is no doubt pounding out for me . . . 

I am also looking forward to hearing more about your plans as they develop.


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Wait! You're not going to try to stop him from going???? What if he is tricked by the weather routers; or follows the pack; or takes an ill equipped boat; or expects the organizers to save him from himself??? Smack! How can you allow this happen??? We count on you to do so much more than this . . . after all, this isn't just a conversation on a dock, it is Sailnet! Do you know how many people you are influencing???
> 
> 
> 
> God I love this thread, I mean I hate this thread (I love this thread!!!).


Heh-heh. I think, _on the face of things_, he was very smart choosing the C1500. So what's there to argue about?

I'm actually waiting for you and Jon and Gada and Ausp to start haranguing VT for foolishly spending so much money on the C1500, when the "exact same quality SDR" is free. Hmm.

I don't really care what an individual chooses to do. As I've said all along, I care what _organizations_ who are enticing those individuals out into that big ocean in rallies and thereby realizing revenue from that enticement are doing. That changes the stakes.

I really do think it sucks that the C1500 says one thing in public and another behind the scenes. That deserves some follow up.

Would any of the SDR participants be willing to share their application T&Cs?

(PS - You still haven't answered the question of what your definition of "nice" really is.)


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> I don't really care what individual choose to do - as I've said all along - I care what _organizations_ who are enticing those individuals out into that big ocean and thereby realizing revenue from that enticement are doing.


Do you feel "enticed" Vt? (you can ask yourself that in your best Davy Jones / Pirates of the Carib voice if you like)


----------



## vtsailguy

Cost is interesting

Carib 1500
Entry $1500
Crew entry $500
Safety gear $400 (i'd argue some of the higher standards are not ultimately useful)

SDR
zero

Delivery Captain
Capn $3000

The Carib 1500 gets close to the Delivery Captain. Maybe the best option is to get a captain and then do the SDR


----------



## smackdaddy

vtsailguy said:


> Cost is interesting
> 
> Carib 1500
> Entry $1500
> Crew entry $500
> Safety gear $400 (i'd argue some of the higher standards are not ultimately useful)
> 
> SDR
> zero
> 
> Delivery Captain
> Capn $3000
> 
> The Carib 1500 gets close to the Delivery Captain. Maybe the best option is to get a captain and then do the SDR


You may be onto something. And I KNOW Jon and Ausp would be all over that!


----------



## Shockwave

How about getting the boat ready by; going through all the systems, spending time sailing it, developing an understanding of weather and sail the boat to the islands without joining a rally or hiring a captain?

Isn't it better know the through hulls/hoses/clamps are in good order, the rig is stout, the engine runs and charges with clean fuel and the sails are robust enough for the required passage.

Is knowledge so intimidating?



vtsailguy said:


> Cost is interesting
> 
> Carib 1500
> Entry $1500
> Crew entry $500
> Safety gear $400 (i'd argue some of the higher standards are not ultimately useful)
> 
> SDR
> zero
> 
> Delivery Captain
> Capn $3000
> 
> The Carib 1500 gets close to the Delivery Captain. Maybe the best option is to get a captain and then do the SDR


----------



## jameswilson29

Shockwave said:


> How about... sail the boat to the islands without joining a rally or hiring a captain?
> 
> Is knowledge so intimidating?


That was my question 14 months ago: Why Pay to Go On a Rally?: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/94625-why-pay-sail-rally.html

Apparently, you get a T-shirt and the camaraderie of other dorks...


----------



## smackdaddy

jameswilson29 said:


> That was my question 14 months ago: Why Pay to Go On a Rally?: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/94625-why-pay-sail-rally.html
> 
> Apparently, you get a T-shirt and the camaraderie of other dorks...


Don't forget the roasted pig and painkillers - which typically turns dorks into raging dorks with gas.


----------



## jameswilson29

smackdaddy said:


> Don't forget the roasted pig...


Are we talking about dinner, or the sunburned First Mate?


----------



## vtsailguy

Shock, I think you miss something.

You can have an offshore boat. I have.
You can have lots of knowledge. I think I have.

There is no substitute for experience. If you are going offshore, you need offshore experience before you are responsible to a boat and crew. The way to get that is limited. Crew on other boats, hire cap's, etc etc.

When it's 20' seas and 40 knot wind, you need the experience heavy seas to safely make it through.

Knowledge is the easy part.

Three boys, 200 sq ft of fiberglass, tropical beaches
www.sailingwithkids.net


----------



## smackdaddy

vtsailguy said:


> Shock, I think you miss something.
> 
> You can have an offshore boat. I have.
> You can have lots of knowledge. I think I have.
> 
> There is no substitute for experience. If you are going offshore, you need offshore experience before you are responsible to a boat and crew. The way to get that is limited. Crew on other boats, hire cap's, etc etc.
> 
> When it's 20' seas and 40 knot wind, you need the experience heavy seas to safely make it through.
> 
> Knowledge is the easy part.
> 
> Three boys, 200 sq ft of fiberglass, tropical beaches
> Sailing with Kids


VT - I think what he was saying is that a 1500-mile crank through the Gulf Stream (especially in winter) is an _incredibly steep_ learning curve when it comes to obtaining experience. It's like getting off the couch and hitting Mt. McKinley for a first climb.

This is the real disconnect on these particular rallies and their bar to experience. It's straight into the deep end for many sailors that likely don't have enough gradually-gained experience to deal with it if things get stinky.

Wouldn't it be much better to work up a few thousand miles over many smaller offshore passages in various conditions - than just get one single passage under your belt, then rally southward into what will likely be 20' seas and 40 knot winds...for many days on end?


----------



## Shockwave

40 knots is a good bunch of breeze and you're probably wise to step up to the 2.2 but it's not allot if you throttle back.


----------



## vtsailguy

Absolutely smack, the irony is that the gulf presents some of huge most challenging sailing on the east coast, and it's the first thing you hit!


----------



## Group9

vtsailguy said:


> Absolutely smack, the irony is that the gulf presents some of huge most challenging sailing on the east coast, and it's the first thing you hit!


In 1987, when I was in my twenties, me and four of my buddies learned why you don't cross the gulf stream with a north wind.

We were young, and tough, and ready to go, and we took a Morgan 38 foot from Ft. Lauderdale to Bimini in a 20 knot north wind. To this day, it is still the most miserable time I have ever had in a sailboat. I didn't think we were going to die, but I would have been okay if we had I was puking my guts up so bad.

Think 12 foot waves, so steep that when we hit the bottom of the crest, the waves would wash over the boat back to the mast and past. When we finally got to Bimini (we crossed at night), and had to wait for light to go in the tricky channel there, I actually thought about jumping in and trying to swim to Bimini, just to get on some dry land.

It really is as bad as they say. I've been in much higher wind, and much higher waves, father offshore, that weren't nearly as uncomfortable. It looked and felt like we were in a giant washing machine.

On the other hand, I've made that crossing, and didn't even spill my Coke can sitting on the cockpit seat beside me, when I did what the people who know, said to do.


----------



## davidpm

Yorksailor said:


> My boat meets those standards, including the ability to steer when the rudder falls off, but I never sail to an arbitrary schedule..


Which standards specifically that you know of that were not followed?
Where is the list that you used to fit out your boat?


----------



## aeventyr60

jameswilson29 said:


> Are we talking about dinner, or the sunburned First Mate?


If the current crop of newbies is any indication it will be the latter.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon,
> 
> You keep wanting "proof" that these SDR incidents wouldn't have happened with safety standards/inspections in place. Here's a more rational way to look at it...
> 
> If the rudder failures were, as you imply, on boats that had very experienced owners/skippers/crews - find out when they last dropped and inspected their rudders and related components. In your experienced opinion - how often and when should this be done? And did they do it within those parameters? And if not, what are your thoughts about those sailors and the outcome?


Well, glad to see you're finally coming around to realizing that the SAR incidents last fall were not necessarily related to "inexperience", nor that the 1500's Safety Inspection would have done anything to avert them 

As far as inspection rudders and such, that's a difficult question to answer... I would guess that the Alden 54 ZULU was of a vintage where the integrity of the rudder could be a ticking clock, that boat is probably close to 25 years old... Who knows if the rudder has ever been pulled, or rebuilt? All I know is that I'm feeling a lot better about the underbody of my own 40 year old boat, having replaced both the keel and gone with an overbuilt rudder with an oversized Nitronic 50 shaft about 10 years ago... I figure I'm good to go, for awhile...

However, as we have recently seen, should Hank Schmitt have dropped and split open the rudders on the brand new Alpha 42, prior to her maiden voyage? Maybe so... 

And, it's worth noting that the HC 38 NYAPA that was dismasted, had just had all new standing rigging fitted last summer. Go figure...

Only serves to highlight one of the defining characteristics of sailing offshore - _You just never know..._


----------



## JonEisberg

vtsailguy said:


> Once you get the terms and conditions, they are somewhat more specific (I have them in my hand).
> 
> You are not required to have completed an offshore passage, you are required to have completed a 250nm cruise. It doesn't need to be offshore. You'll probably rack up those miles in the coastal trip to get to Portsmouth, VA.
> 
> The ISAF is a red herring. Any captain is going to make sure they have the appropriate safety equipment.
> 
> The inspection is also a red herring, it doesn't always even happen (two different captain's experiences):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "However, we are told that this year, we are to inspect our own vessels and have our crew sign the safety inspection. I am extremely disappointed with this last minute change ... This is one of the touted benefits of rally participation that I signed up for and it is just done away with without any explanation! I know that other captains were looking forward to this as was I, not only to have three other trained eyes looking over our preparations, but to learn from one another different and possibly better ways of making our boats safe and ready for ocean passages. But my crew and I go through the safety checklist checking each and every item before signing it and turning it in."
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The event organizers had distributed a "required equipment list" and all boats were expected to have the items. Compliance was checked during the safety inspections, but not necessarily rigorously. For example, we said our compass had been adjusted and had a deviation table, but we didn't have to show the deviation table (which didn't actually exist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is both are a bunch of boats heading off for a long passage, and both using virtually identical weather services. Arguably, there is more offshore experience associated with the crews of the SDR than the Carib 1500.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for posting that, perhaps it will quiet some folks around here down a bit...

I had some firsthand knowledge from a few years ago of how cursory their safety inspection could be, and how shortly prior to departure they were sometimes conducted, barely leaving enough time to make a trip to the Hampton West Marine store before closing in order to attempt to rectify some shortcoming...

But this is the first I've heard that some inspections were not conducted at all... I can only wonder whether the boat that Hank turned away from the NARC years ago due to his concern about its readiness to make the passage, was ever inspected before setting sail with the 1500 fleet...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks very much for posting that, perhaps it will quiet some folks around here down a bit...
> 
> I had some firsthand knowledge from a few years ago of how cursory their safety inspection could be, and how shortly prior to departure they were sometimes conducted, barely leaving enough time to make a trip to the Hampton West Marine store before closing in order to attempt to rectify some shortcoming...
> 
> But this is the first I've heard that some inspections were not conducted at all... I can only wonder whether the boat that Hank turned away from the NARC years ago due to his concern about its readiness to make the passage, was ever inspected before setting sail with the 1500 fleet...


Quiet me down? As if.

Honestly, it is troubling to hear about this on the C1500. I'm going to poke around on that a bit. As I said above, advertising one thing on your site, then doing another behind the scenes is not cool at all.

Even so, to me, the inspections aren't as much of a big deal as the ISAF-based safety standards. Those are a great guidepost to getting yourself and your boat ready for a passage. You just can't "know" all that stuff on your own, especially early on in your endeavors. It's a great list to go by. And because it's "mandatory" (or at least advertised to be so) - you'll likely do it.

Anyway, I'm glad we've not stopped talking about it. We're learning new things.

(PS - Jon, was it you or Ausp that was bemoaning my dangerous participation in these threads in the chat rooms?)


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> However, as we have recently seen, should Hank Schmitt have dropped and split open the rudders on the brand new Alpha 42, prior to her maiden voyage? Maybe so...


I expect there was some intended sarcasm in your comment Jon.

Perhaps it is because of my time as a naval architect under contract to the US Navy but I'm a big fan of weld inspection after fabrication. Ordinary imagery or better dye penetrant inspection or better yet x-ray is good. Statistically significant destructive testing is about the best you can do. There really aren't all THAT many welds on a recreational fiberglass boat. The factory humored me and took a lot of pictures of welds that would not be available for visual inspection later.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Even so, to me, the inspections aren't as much of a big deal as the ISAF-based safety standards. Those are a great guidepost to getting yourself and your boat ready for a passage. You just can't "know" all that stuff on your own, especially early on in your endeavors. It's a great list to go by. And because it's "mandatory" (or at least advertised to be so) - you'll likely do it.


Too bad the WCC's online "shop" doesn't show the publications they recommend, I'd be curious to see what makes their list...



smackdaddy said:


> (PS - Jon, was it you or Ausp that was bemoaning my dangerous participation in these threads in the chat rooms?)


Not me, I've never done the chat room thing... All my "bemoaning" has been done right here, for all to see...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Not me, I've never done the chat room thing... All my "bemoaning" has been done right here, for all to see...


That's why I love you man. Mano-a-mano or nothing. So I wonder who the back-room whiner was? Anyway...



JonEisberg said:


> Too bad the WCC's online "shop" doesn't show the publications they recommend, I'd be curious to see what makes their list...


Your research skillz suck...

http://www.worldcruising.com/Carib1500/safety-usa.aspx

http://www.worldcruising.com/CMS/CM...USA_2014_Safety_Equipment_Regulations_ENG.pdf

This is always the kicker, though, that I KNOW goes unaddressed much of the time (based on my off-shore racing)...



> Each crew member must be fully conversant with the operation of all safety equipment carried and know its stowage positions.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Your research skillz suck...
> 
> Safety USA
> 
> http://www.worldcruising.com/CMS/CM...USA_2014_Safety_Equipment_Regulations_ENG.pdf


Actually, I was referring to this, from their site:



> There are some great books full of advice on maintaining your boat and her systems, so do some shopping. We'll provide suggestions in the Rally Handbook, or visit our Shop.


Browsing through the books available for purchase from their shop, I really don't see much of anything relative to offshore seamanship or heavy weather sailing, beyond one of Nigel Calder's books... Understandable that it features British publications, but I think it speaks volumes that one of their offerings is something titled THE RYA BOOK OF BUYING YOUR FIRST SAILING CRUISER, but a classic such as Adlard Coles' HEAVY WEATHER SAILING seems nowhere to be found...

I still find many of the WCC's Requirements truly perplexing, such as having a handheld VHF, or navigational charts for the rally route, being categorized merely as "Recommendations"...


----------



## smackdaddy

Doh! My humblest apologies on errant assumption regarding your skillz.

So, on the "recommendations" - am I understanding you correctly that you think these should be "requirements"? 

Interesting.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So, on the "recommendations" - am I understanding you correctly that you think these should be "requirements"?
> 
> Interesting.


Well, for a rally that has a list stipulating certain items as being "required" gear, I'm surprised that neither of those are considered to be such, yes...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, for a rally that has a list stipulating certain items as being "required" gear, I'm surprised that neither of those are considered to be such, yes...


I actually think wording on this distinction is quite good:



> The regulations are in two sections:
> 
> Section One - Mandatory Safety Equipment Requirements
> This equipment must be carried and all items will be sighted during the safety equipment inspection prior to the start. Failure to comply may lead to disqualification from the Rally.
> 
> Section Two - Recommended Safety Equipment
> Whilst equipment in this section is not mandatory the organisers strongly suggest that all the recommendations in this section are complied with. The Safety Equipment Officer will be available to discuss points made in this section during his inspection.


Sure lots of potential loopholes and squish, but I'd say it's pretty clear the recommendations are not something a prudent skipper should ignore.

Again, you well know by now that I think this is a very responsible approach on the face of things. The troubling thing is if vtsail is correct in that these requirements are dismissed in the T&C.

I'm trying to get my hands a copy of that to confirm.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - I found it:

http://www.worldcruising.com/Office/Content/event_docs_C1500/C1500_2012_Regulations_Pack.pdf

So, vt, as to your statement that one could qualify by sailing 250 miles on a lake, I'm going to have to assume that someone at WCC specifically told you that. Because WCC is more specific than that in its language:



> C1500-5. QUALIFYING CRUISE
> Each yacht (and at least the skipper and one crew) must have completed a *qualifying cruise* of 250 nautical miles in the twelve months preceding the start.


True, whether a "cruise" _qualifies_ is up to WCC. But, up front, they've stated that this cruise/passage needs to be "off-shore":



> To join a World Cruising Club rally, you will need a seaworthy boat. We don't define the type of boat, but we do set some limits on boat length (see the FAQs in the rally pages), and we expect you and your boat to have completed *an offshore passage* in the year before the rally.


So, again, this T&C language is not inconsistent as they've stated what a "qualifying cruise" is on the website - then repeated that (more generally, yes) in the T&C - with specific distances being determined for each rally.

All that said, if your only experience was 250 miles in a lake and they accepted you - or specifically told you that they would accept such a person...it's a different matter.

So - did they tell you something like this? Or are you just reading the T&C more generally?


----------



## vtsailguy

smackdaddy said:


> So, vt, as to your statement that one could qualify by sailing 250 miles on a lake, I'm going to have to assume that someone at WCC specifically told you that. Because WCC is more specific than that in its language:
> 
> True, whether a "cruise" _qualifies_ is up to WCC. But, up front, they've stated that this cruise/passage needs to be "off-shore":
> 
> All that said, if your only experience was 250 miles in a lake and they accepted you - or specifically told you that they would accept such a person...it's a different matter.
> 
> So - did they tell you something like this? Or are you just reading the T&C more generally?


Not quite. I mentioned a couple of things, one is that all of my experience to date has been on the Great Lakes, AND that the act of getting one's boat to Portsmouth, VA is likely going to involve 250+ nm.


----------



## smackdaddy

I was checking in to see how the SDR was progressing with their board review of the rescue debacle - and didn't see anything. However, they are looking for more cash!

The Salty Dawg Rally



> *SALTY DAWG RALLY - SUPPORTERS AND MEMBERSHIPS*
> A note for all Salty Dawgs from rally founders Linda and Bill Knowles, s/v Sapphire:
> 
> We would like to thank all the current and past Salty Dawgs, our sponsors, volunteers and everyone who has contributed to the success of the Salty Dawg Rally. We have grown beyond our wildest dreams. We want to make sure the Rally keeps growing, but with growth also comes increased workloads and operating expenses. Our sponsors and many Dawgs have donated lots of benefits to those who have become Dawgs but not enough money to cover the growing expenses...


Obviously, I'm fine with their becoming more like the WCC rallies if they also up the ante on the safety side accordingly.

Maybe that's what their board is really getting at after last year. They're just not specifically laying that out yet. Nothing good is really free, right?


----------



## JonEisberg

Some excellent, eloquent perspective from the smallest boat in the SDR fleet...

A friend posted this on another forum, portions of an email he received from a British couple aboard RUFFIAN, a Rival 34... Typical Brits, no whinging allowed, no seeking of someone else to blame, they just get on with sailing with a cheerful and positive outlook, and accept that sometimes bluewater voyaging can turn into a bit of a crapshoot...

Iain's remarks are in quotes, I've left some of Tom's comments interspersed, as well... And, I've taken the liberty to bold what I feel is the single most important point to be taken away from the events of last fall:

""So I've ready stated that I'd never participate in a rally and safety is my main concern; so why did Ruffian participate in the SDR? To put it simply the SDR increased the safety of the passage. As part of registering, and I use the word registering instead of participating on purpose, you are given access to detailed weather routing by Chris Parker and this is the primary reason why I registered. Having access to this additional source of information and his extensive knowledge of the weather systems that are at work off the east coast of the US gave me another level of safety above that of pulling gribs at sea. Without registering with the SDR we simply could not afford to use the service that Chris offers and indeed we wouldn't have missed it as we have never had the experience of a professional router on Ruffian. In addition the SDR does not prescribe a fixed start date, nor start or end location, therefore everything about the voyage is up to me."

Iain goes onto their second SDR passage, November 2013.

""After listening and watching the weather webcast and pulling our gribs we thought we'd have southerly winds of 20 - 25 knots for the first 3 days and this would then very quickly switch around to the north 25-30 knots until the end of the forecast. Ruffian would then be so far east and south we would expect to be encountering the effects of the Azores high and the trade winds meaning that the breeze would gradually shift from north to east giving us a reach south to the BVI's. Ultimately this is exactly what we got.

Now none of the above sounds particularly difficult but if you mix it with not having done a big passage at sea for a few months and the effects of the Gulf Stream and a few squalls then you realize that it's not going to be a walk in the park. Even we underestimated how difficult the first few days would be, in the first 60 hours we were constantly on deck, constantly wet and hand steered all the time. I think that we lived through this (although at one point I did get really quite worried and wanted to bail out) as we cut our teeth racing yachts around the English Channel, a seriously challenging place to sail a yacht. To date this offshore passage is still the most difficult that we have completed.""

Iain and his wife Fiona, also a veteran ocean racer of decades, don't take this passage lightly. It's a big one and will always have it's risks of lot's of breakage and worse. He doesn't blame the SDR,&#8230;

""In reverse order let us deal with my opinion about why no blame for ANYTHING that happened should be leveled at the SDR.

The SDR simply provides a non prescriptive framework for you to put together all the components to make a successful ocean passage, but it doesn't take any of the responsibility away from the skipper in ensuring that he, his boat, and his crew is ready to sail offshore. There are no kit inspections, no kit requirements (with the exception of the ability to report your position), no experience prerequisites (with the exception that the skipper must self declare that he and his boat have sufficient experience), there is no fixed start date and no fixed start or end location, so with all this flexibility and the responsibility and indeed the decision sitting with the skipper whether he feels it is safe or not to go to sea how can anything be levelled at the SDR? Remember they are simply providing a framework to complete the passage not a guarantee that you'll be ready for it.""

So why the criticism? He lists several reasons, here's a few.

""Many people, their relatives and friends, do not like living with the decisions that they make and saying 'we were sent out' takes the responsibility away from the skipper and into the hands of a 3rd party, in this case the SDR. Let's face it though, no-one left into the forecast weather with a gun against their heads, no-one had to leave and the wider community needs to realize that we all take responsibility for our decisions.

The criticism perhaps comes down to bad communication from the SDR to the wider community and the community understanding exactly what the SDR does and more importantly does not offer. *The SDR gives a simple framework where everything rests with the skipper. If everyone 'out there' realises that everything that happens to every boat on the ocean is down to the skipper then we would all be in a better place.""*

Well said. With 200 boats out at once in those conditions -which must be expected on that passage anytime of the year- Iain feels breakage onboard boats WILL happen. And don't we know that?

I much appreciated the time my friend Iain took to send me his experience. He sums his 2 SDR's up here,&#8230;

""On one final note, would I do the SDR again? On balance I absolutely would as it continues to enable me to increase the safety of my vessel while at sea with the weather routing that it provides and takes away none of my responsibility to make sure that the crew and boat are ready to go to sea and I am happy with the conditions I will encounter."

Humble folks, he doesn't even mention that they lost their engine early on last November, and sailed the entire SDR. Iain and Fiona out of Newcastle UK on RUFFIAN, their Rival 34', in Rockport Harbor last summer.










A friend and two time participant critiques the Salty Dawg Rally; Two thumbs up!

Here's a link to their blog... It's a good one:

The yin and yang of the world of offshore sailing. | A little boat and a big ocean.


----------



## smackdaddy

Good write up. I'm glad they had way more experience than required by the SDR to participate. Looks like they would have been in real trouble had they been single-passage newbs.


----------



## B.J. Porter

I did the SDR rally in 2012 to get to the BVI's. IMHO it did increase the safety of our trip for several reasons...

- Chris Parker detailed and personalized weather routing
- Daily checkins and position tracking; someone with a clue was watching me.
- Chance to meet, greet and swap ideas with other skippers more experienced than me.
- Daily weather briefings and discussions shoreside as the departure date approached.

The SDR is pretty loose with dates. In 2012 there was some weather out there. The organizers, whose boat is similar in performance character to mine, opted to wait a bit. Some people did not, they all arrived safely but they took a pasting off shore.

Some of the early ones had to go then, it was the skipper's call and they were fully informed on weather. The reason some "had" to go was a matter of crew schedules. They had bodies on board with plane tickets back from the BVI's that had to be back for day jobs. That situation adds a heck of a lot of risk.

But there is no set departure, no one tells you you have to leave before you are ready. And there is no exhaustive check list of equipment you must have, no matter how impractical it might be for your boat (you try and find a way to mount a manual bilge pump in my center cockpit!).

The other understanding is this rally is not for first timers. Now the question becomes how much experience is enough?

When I did it I'd made one 1000+ mile trip, albeit as skipper on my own boat delivering from Florida to RI. And a few overnight sails, RI to Maine, Maine the Chesapeake, etc. My wife and kids had only done the latter.

Was that enough? Maybe, we had no problems but we never saw more much more than 30 knots on our trip to the BVI's, and that only in short squalls. I felt comfortable doing it but I was very edgy about the weather and went with the much more conservative late start with most of the fleet. A few more thousand miles later and I'm not sure I'm any safer now than I was then, but I tend to be conservative.

When you do the rally they tell you "You are the skipper of your boat, you make the calls." I am comfortable with that. Given the size of the rally and some of the snot they did hit < 5% of the fleet breaking things isn't too bad.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Good write up. I'm glad they had way more experience than required by the SDR to participate. Looks like they would have been in real trouble had they been single-passage newbs.


I think any "single-passage newb" could have been in real trouble whether they were participating in the Salty Dawg Rally, the Caribbean 1500, or making the passage on their own... 

Another account of the trouble a presumably experienced delivery crew encountered on a large, high quality, well found yacht - the Alden 54 ZULU...

Trouble aboard Zulu in the Gulf Stream | Cruising World


----------



## jameswilson29

Rather ironic that the purported value of joining the rally - the weather routing service - is made necessary because of the schedule imposed by the rally itself. That is called circular reasoning.

It is abundantly clear that folks join these rallies because they feel safer in the herd, a questionable rationale.


----------



## B.J. Porter

jameswilson29 said:


> Rather ironic that the purported value of joining the rally - the weather routing service - is made necessary because of the schedule imposed by the rally itself. That is called circular reasoning.
> 
> It is abundantly clear that folks join these rallies because they feel safer in the herd, a questionable rationale.


The weather routing service is valuable weather you are sailing by your self or in a rally. Of course you can subscribe to Chris Parker on your own, or you can sign up for the rally and get it for free. I found his attention to you during the rally to be excellent.

As far as the schedule goes, THAT is generally set by people's insurance companies and geographic restrictions. The rallies tend to go at the first opportunity with clear weather after the insurance companies wave the "All Clear" on the hurricane season. In other words _they are heading down the same time that people would head down anyway_; after hurricane season and before winter really kicks in.

The exact dates are picked around the weather and no one is required to sail by them.

As far as "herd mentality" we took about eight days and a little to get from Hampton to the BVI's. For four of those days we didn't see a single boat. After the first few hours we never saw more than one boat at once.

However we talked to boats every day on the SSB, my wife answered some medical questions for a rally member, and someone was watching for us and other boats in trouble. There would have been other boats reachable in a short time if we or others needed help.

Sure, we could do it ourselves without the rally. We could even do checkins with things like the Mobile Maritime Service or other similar nets. And pay for weather routing. No question on that. But organizing in a group tends to be a bit more...organized, and provides better coverage when other people are watching your back.

There were also a number of significant financial benefits to joining the rally when we got to the BVI's, from savings in stores and fuel to free or discounted moorings.

When we cross the Pacific this year it will be with the Pacific Puddle Jump, a "Rally" in the sense that people are heading in the same direction at roughly the same time. SSB nets are done with checkins, but people leave from all over the West coast of central and South America over a window of 2-3 months and arrive via all sorts of routes.

Is it a "herd" mentality to join the radio checkins and take advantage of the Bond Exemption services offered to rally participants?


----------



## smackdaddy

jameswilson29 said:


> Rather ironic that the purported value of joining the rally - the weather routing service - is made necessary because of the schedule imposed by the rally itself. That is called circular reasoning.
> 
> It is abundantly clear that folks join these rallies because they feel safer in the herd, a questionable rationale.


But the argument is that you, the skipper, are the one responsible for making the call to leave...even though there are events, etc. planned on the other end. Do you really want to miss the roast pig and Painkillers just because you were too afraid to leave with everyone else?

You're right - it's questionable rationale to be sure.

I think the SDR is going to institute some changes in regards to safety. I think that's what their cry for more money is all about (at least I hope that's what it's about). You don't get to be the target of a USCG Marine Safety Alert and maintain the status quo.


----------



## TomMaine

JonEisberg said:


> Another account of the trouble a presumably experienced delivery crew encountered on a large, high quality, well found yacht - the Alden 54 ZULU...
> 
> Trouble aboard Zulu in the Gulf Stream | Cruising World
> 
> Thanks for posting that, Jon. I wondered what happened to that boat. Rudders scare me. Supposedly you shouldn't have that problem with an Alden boat.
> 
> Iain's review was quite long and he dislikes regulated rally's for the same reason many do.
> 
> Another plus for him with no start time in the SDR, is he can leave when it suits his boat(smaller, slower) and their sailing abilities. In the case of his first SDR, he left quite early for these reasons below;
> 
> "When Ruffian went north with the SDR the previous Spring we again used a similar strategy and elected to leave 'early' in a weather window that suited us and most importantly made our own decision. The rest of the 'fleet' were waiting in the Caribbean for stronger winds to carry them north but we, because we are a small boat and are happy to work hard at making her sail, were more than happy with a forecast of <10kts of wind for the first 5 days. This proved to be the right decision as when we were 300 miles south west of Bermuda the weather router urged all vessels to be in port within 4 days. Many of the boats that left after us diverted to Bermuda whilst we happily sailed into Beaufort, NC and anchored well before any bad weather hit."


----------



## B.J. Porter

smackdaddy said:


> But the argument is that you, the skipper, are the one responsible for making the call to leave...even though there are events, etc. planned on the other end. Do you really want to miss the roast pig and Painkillers just because you were too afraid to leave with everyone else?
> 
> You're right - it's questionable rationale to be sure.
> 
> I think the SDR is going to institute some changes in regards to safety. I think that's what their cry for more money is all about (at least I hope that's what it's about). You don't get to be the target of a USCG Marine Safety Alert and maintain the status quo.


The amount of ignorance about how these events work and about the level of competence of the skippers involves is surprising.

FWIW...most of the events are on the front side of the rally. Secondly, the rally events in the destination are spaced out quite far from the estimated arrival dates, some 1-2 weeks after the slowest boats are likely to arrive. Unlike the 1500, SDR boats arrive all over the place in the USVIs and then tend to migrate towards the places that are offering rally deals.

Nobody is rushing to arrive at a pig roast, the suggestion is stupid and insulting...you should know better Smackdaddy!

The "cry for money" is because the rally has gotten so large.

Bill and Linda Knowles, the organizers, are cruisers themselves and really nice people that started this with a small group of friends. With the rally grown beyond all expectations organizing it has become a more than full time job for them...I do not think this is what they set out to do with their retirement - run a rally as unpaid volunteers instead of cruising themselves. It would make some sense that they might want to hire some help to off load the work, I know I would in their shoes.

I don't know what safety changes they are thinking. One of the appeals of the SDR is the lack of a required equipment list and mandatory inspections since the Carib 1500 lists didn't always make sense for all boats. The SDR does provide a lot of information and seminars to prepare people, though they do not have the whole money making year round seminar structure setup like the 1500 does. Perhaps they will be updating the recommendations and making them a bit more firm in their suggestions.

A better idea would be a more thorough screening of skippers and crew though, I do not know how this was done effectively for 200 boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> But the argument is that you, the skipper, are the one responsible for making the call to leave...even though there are events, etc. planned on the other end. Do you really want to miss the roast pig and Painkillers just because you were too afraid to leave with everyone else?


A bit ironic that that sort of incentive would be far more likely to apply to participants who had paid $2K or more to participate in the Caribbean 1500, no?

One of the biggest gripes I've heard from participants in the 1500 in 2011 that departed behind schedule, was that the Awards Party had already been held, and the organizers already packed up and departed, by the time the slowest 20% or so of the fleet had arrived in the BVIs...

The "SDR Finale Party" last year, on the other hand, was scheduled for November 21... A FAR looser 'schedule', with a much greater allowance for the inevitable delays that many of the participants would be likely to encounter...



smackdaddy said:


> I think the SDR is going to institute some changes in regards to safety. I think that's what their cry for more money is all about (at least I hope that's what it's about). *You don't get to be the target of a USCG Marine Safety Alert and maintain the status quo.*


Hmmm, guess I must have missed the part where the CG has 'targeted' the organizers of the SDR, specifically...



> The Coast Guard strongly recommends that *owner/operators of offshore sailboats* ensure proper maintenance and repair of their critical mechanical systems to reduce the possibility of failure during stressed operating conditions.


Emphasis mine 

I'm still trying to figure out what took the CG so long, why they never issued a similar Safety Alert in the wake of, say, the 2011 NARC - which featured a far higher percentage of boats being abandoned, and the death of one sailor...


----------



## smackdaddy

B.J. Porter said:


> The amount of ignorance about how these events work and about the level of competence of the skippers involves is surprising.


No one should be surprised by my level of ignorance.



B.J. Porter said:


> FWIW...most of the events are on the front side of the rally. Secondly, the rally events in the destination are spaced out quite far from the estimated arrival dates, some 1-2 weeks after the slowest boats are likely to arrive. Unlike the 1500, SDR boats arrive all over the place in the USVIs and then tend to migrate towards the places that are offering rally deals.
> 
> Nobody is rushing to arrive at a pig roast, the suggestion is stupid and insulting...you should know better Smackdaddy!


Lighten up dude. It was a joke.



B.J. Porter said:


> Bill and Linda Knowles, the organizers, are cruisers themselves and really nice people that started this with a small group of friends. With the rally grown beyond all expectations organizing it has become a more than full time job for them...I do not think this is what they set out to do with their retirement - run a rally as unpaid volunteers instead of cruising themselves. It would make some sense that they might want to hire some help to off load the work, I know I would in their shoes.


I've never said anything about the Knowles being anything but nice people. I've only said that the SDR has a dangerous combination of a low bar to entry and a laisseiz faire approach to safety. They really need to fix that.



B.J. Porter said:


> I don't know what safety changes they are thinking. One of the appeals of the SDR is the lack of a required equipment list and mandatory inspections since the Carib 1500 lists didn't always make sense for all boats.


I fully understand that that's one of the main appeals. But it's also one of the main dangers - especially for new skippers with only a single blue water passage under their keels.



B.J. Porter said:


> The SDR does provide a lot of information and seminars to prepare people, though they do not have the whole money making year round seminar structure setup like the 1500 does. Perhaps they will be updating the recommendations and making them a bit more firm in their suggestions.
> 
> *A better idea would be a more thorough screening of skippers and crew though, I do not know how this was done effectively for 200 boats.*


PRECISELY! This has been my point throughout this entire thread. If you're not going to have safety standards, at least make sure the skippers joining your rally are experienced enough to have them themselves.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, guess I must have missed the part where the CG has 'targeted' the organizers of the SDR, specifically...


As usual, you must have. Go read the thing. What rally do you think they're referring to?


----------



## Shockwave

By this logic SDR should only allow those who've sailed to the Caribbean or Bermuda a few times on their own?



smackdaddy said:


> I'm glad they had way more experience than required by the SDR to participate.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> By this logic SDR should only allow those who've sailed to the Caribbean or Bermuda a few times on their own?


Actually, I think that would be a great solution. After all, the SDR was born through cruisers who'd done the WCC rallies (i.e. - had that level experience behind them) - but wanted less oversight - precisely because they had the requisite experience.

Why on earth would they then accept skippers into their rally with relatively little experience AND do away with oversight? How is that logical?

Just as Hank is doing with the NARC - pointing less experienced skippers and crews to the C1500 (because of its safety standards) - the SDR should require a high level of experience particular to that trip at that time of year.

Why not? Because their numbers might shrink?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> PRECISELY! This has been my point throughout this entire thread. If you're not going to have safety standards, at least make sure the skippers joining your rally are experienced enough to have them themselves.


Yet again, you would go about "making sure" all skippers are "experienced enough" precisely _HOW_ ?

Submit each one to a polygraph test, to ensure any and all information they've provided about their prior experience in their application form is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Again, we're still awaiting the evidence that any of the SARs or other incidents last fall were due to the inexperience of skippers or crews, or lack of a pre-departure safety inspection by rally organizers... Does anyone seriously believe that the 1500's safety inspection would have detected a potential problem with ZULU's rudder, for example ?



smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> Hmmm, guess I must have missed the part where the CG has 'targeted' the organizers of the SDR, specifically...
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you must have. Go read the thing. What rally do you think they're referring to?
Click to expand...

Oh, well... perhaps someone else can point out to me where in that document the CG is ascribing any responsibility for the preparation of the yachts participating in the SDR to the rally organizers themselves...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, I think that would be a great solution. After all, the SDR was born through cruisers who'd done the WCC rallies (i.e. - had that level experience behind them) - but wanted less oversight - precisely because they had the requisite experience.
> 
> Why on earth would they then accept skippers into their rally with relatively little experience AND do away with oversight? How is that logical?
> 
> Just as Hank is doing with the NARC - pointing less experienced skippers and crews to the C1500 (because of its safety standards) - the SDR should require a high level of experience particular to that trip at that time of year.
> 
> Why not? Because their numbers might shrink?


Please, once and for all... Explain to us why participation in the SDR should require a higher "level of experience" than that for the 1500? _They're both sailing the same damn passage, for chrissake !!!_ 

If you're gonna insist yet again that it's the Safety Inspection that makes all the difference, that's simply delusional... Especially, after it's already been demonstrated numerous times in this thread how cursory and haphazard said inspections can be, how they have sometimes not even been carried out, or even that a boat that Hank Schmitt turned away from his NARC Rally for safety concerns, was taken under the wing of the 1500, no problem...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yet again, you would go about "making sure" all skippers are "experienced enough" precisely _HOW_ ?


Jon - I have to believe that you're not this easily confuddled. A very simple starting place would be this:

1. You've done the C1500 at least 2 times. (how many times had the Knowles done it?)
2. You've skippered this same passage at this same time of year at least 4 times.
3. You've completed at least 2 offshore (200 miles out or more) passages of 1(X) days or more in duration - or a crossing of 2(X) days or more in duration - within the past 2 years.

It's not that hard. The rest of it is simply quibbling over the actual numbers.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Please, once and for all... Explain to us why participation in the SDR should require a higher "level of experience" than that for the 1500? _They're both sailing the same damn passage, for chrissake !!!_


I've done so many times in this thread. One has pretty stringent safety standards. The other doesn't.

I understand you personally don't want to make that connection so you can leave things open-ended in your mind. But facts is facts.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I've done so many times in this thread. One has pretty stringent safety standards. The other doesn't.
> 
> I understand you personally don't want to make that connection so you can leave things open-ended in your mind. But facts is facts.


And, for the umpteenth time, regarding "the facts" that indicate that those "stringent safety standards" of the 1500, if applied to the SDR fleet, would have made _any difference whatsoever_ in what occurred last November?

Where are they to be found, again, so that we can "make that connection"?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> And, for the umpteenth time, regarding "the facts" that indicate that those "stringent safety standards" of the 1500, if applied to the SDR fleet, would have made _any difference whatsoever_ in what occurred last November?
> 
> Where are they to be found, again, so that we can "make that connection"?


Jon, you keep trying to do all these logical gymnastics. And you're obviously getting winded. As you well know, it's impossible to do what you umpteenthedly insist on (which is why it makes absolutely no sense to umpteenthedly insist on it).

But one thing you can very easily do is this: compare the number of rescues between the two rallies last year. Did the one _with_ "stringent safety standards" or the one _without_ have the most problems - compelling the USCG to issue the MSA?

Again, very simple facts that require no logical gymnastics whatsoever.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, you keep trying to do all these logical gymnastics. And you're obviously getting winded. As you well know, it's impossible to do what you umpteenthedly insist on (which is why it makes absolutely no sense to umpteenthedly insist on it).


And yet, I've already cited dozens of posts ago, there is much evidence to indicate that inexperience was not likely to have been a factor with any of the SDR skippers that ran into trouble... Nor, does it appear remotely plausible that events such as the loss of a rudder on that Alden, or the loss of a brand-new rig on the HC 38, might have been averted by the 1500's vaunted safety inspection...

Seems odd, that so much evidence currently exists on one side of the argument, yet seems non-existent in support of the opposite  Why should "the facts" in support of your argument remain "impossible" to determine, one would think at least a couple might have surfaced by this time, no?



smackdaddy said:


> But one thing you can very easily do is this: compare the number of rescues between the two rallies last year. Did the one _with_ "stringent safety standards" or the one _without_ have the most problems - compelling the USCG to issue the MSA?
> 
> Again, very simple facts that require no logical gymnastics whatsoever.


Apples to oranges... Again, the "fact" that, for the most part, the two fleets departed 2 days or more apart from each other, and encountered entirely different weather systems in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream, appears to be lost on you... Quite simply, in 2013 the 1500's router made the better call than Chris Parker, who had made the better call 2 years previously... Even the best, they win some, and lose some... However, the SDR boats that chose to depart Hampton earlier than most, and sailed in the same weather as the 1500, experienced no serious problems, or required any outside assistance...

Hell, sometimes even a weather forecasting dumbass like me manages to concur with those who guessed right 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1114166-post36.html


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> And yet, I've already cited dozens of posts ago, there is much evidence to indicate that inexperience was not likely to have been a factor with any of the SDR skippers that ran into trouble... Nor, does it appear remotely plausible that events such as the loss of a rudder on that Alden, or the loss of a brand-new rig on the HC 38, might have been averted by the 1500's vaunted safety inspection...
> 
> Seems odd, that so much evidence currently exists on one side of the argument, yet seems non-existent in support of the opposite  Why should "the facts" in support of your argument remain "impossible" to determine, one would think at least a couple might have surfaced by this time, no?


Well, if you're trying to make the point that experience has nothing to do with whether or not you'll have breakages and require rescue on a difficult passage - I suppose I could see that. Though the conclusion you're drawing from that setup is seriously out there (hence the pink leotard).

Experience, as has been proven pretty much across the board, is critically important to being safe at sea. So are standards of safety. You obviously believe otherwise. I'll leave you to trying to convince the world that experience and safety standards don't really matter. Because you'll never convince me.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Experience, as has been proven pretty much across the board, is critically important to being safe at sea. So are standards of safety. You obviously believe otherwise.


Experience as has been discussed thoroughly in this thread and elsewhere is not guaranteed by what you are calling 'safety standards'.

Experience is experience, got to get it hard way.


----------



## TomMaine

B.J. Porter said:


> A better idea would be a more thorough screening of skippers and crew though, I do not know how this was done effectively for 200 boats.


I doubt they would go to a regulated rally, at this point. They've grown exponentially because(I suspect) people like you and friend Iain, like the SDR mission. From their website posted in 2014 ;

"The Salty Dawg Rally is a grassroots, non-profit organization, comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage. There is no formal inspection of each boat, since it is the responsibility of each skipper to have proper safety equipment and to ensure that the vessel is prepared for the passage. It is each skipper's responsibility to decide the course and whether or not to set out for the passage. The Rally, with an emphasis on safety, communication, camaraderie and fun, opens the door to new friends and experiences while cruising various areas in the Caribbean."

It will be interesting to see if they're growth continues. I especially enjoyed the radio check ins online last November, by a warm fire.


----------



## Shockwave

So you would deny a newb the opportunity to sail with and learn from those more experienced in the SDR because they lack experience? You feel they should go it alone, make a few passages to the Caribbean before they are allowed to enter the SDR because you feel the "inspection process" of the SDR is not up to your standard?

I fail to follow your logic but hey "it's the interweb thingy", does logic have to be logical?



smackdaddy said:


> Actually, I think that would be a great solution. After all, the SDR was born through cruisers who'd done the WCC rallies (i.e. - had that level experience behind them) - but wanted less oversight - precisely because they had the requisite experience.
> 
> Why on earth would they then accept skippers into their rally with relatively little experience AND do away with oversight? How is that logical?
> 
> Just as Hank is doing with the NARC - pointing less experienced skippers and crews to the C1500 (because of its safety standards) - the SDR should require a high level of experience particular to that trip at that time of year.
> 
> Why not? Because their numbers might shrink?


----------



## SVAuspicious

jameswilson29 said:


> Rather ironic that the purported value of joining the rally - the weather routing service - is made necessary because of the schedule imposed by the rally itself. That is called circular reasoning.


Not quite. The schedule, for many cruisers, is mandated by insurance underwriters and the 1 Nov hurricane box restrictions. Look back in history and you'll see people used to build up in Norfolk and Hampton for a 1 Oct release. The underwriters changed the rules and now it is 1 Nov.



JonEisberg said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as Hank is doing with the NARC - pointing less experienced skippers and crews to the C1500 (because of its safety standards) - the SDR should require a high level of experience particular to that trip at that time of year.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna insist yet again that it's the Safety Inspection that makes all the difference, that's simply delusional... Especially, after it's already been demonstrated numerous times in this thread how cursory and haphazard said inspections can be, how they have sometimes not even been carried out, or even that a boat that Hank Schmitt turned away from his NARC Rally for safety concerns, was taken under the wing of the 1500, no problem...
Click to expand...

I wish y'all would quite quoting this person.

Hank sends less experienced people to the C1500 to maintain the integrity of the NARC as a high end experience, to keep opportunities available for members of OPO, and to shift potential liability to the WCC. It has nothing to do with suggesting a safety net (which doesn't exist) in another event.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Experience as has been discussed thoroughly in this thread and elsewhere is not guaranteed by what you are calling 'safety standards'.
> 
> Experience is experience, got to get it hard way.


I've never said - _*anywhere*_ - that experience guarantees safety. That's the completely asinine conclusion Jon keeps trying to stuff down my posts.

I have _absolutely said_ - _and will ALWAYS say_ - that the lack of experience combined with the lack of good safety standards is a very bad thing. And increasing both is a great, and common-sensical, way to avoid disasters.

Are we clear yet?


----------



## tommays

Why back in 1982 i was at club med in the Bahamas and there were many sailboats that made it over from ? Florida or wherever that needed to hire help when they got there just to anchor safely.

The lack of fitness and skill astounds me to this day


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> So you would deny a newb the opportunity to sail with and learn from those more experienced in the SDR because they lack experience?


Not at all. If they really wanted to do a rally, I'd do exactly as Hank is doing and point them to the C1500...without hesitation.



Shockwave said:


> You feel they should go it alone, make a few passages to the Caribbean before they are allowed to enter the SDR because you feel the "inspection process" of the SDR is not up to your standard?


What "inspection process" are you talking about? I don't think the SDR has one.

As for going it alone - that's completely their call. What we're talking about here is joining an organized, revenue-generating rally. If there is one rally that will accept that newb, and generate revenue off that newb, yet not provide a good deal of safety support - and another that will do exactly the same, but provide a good deal of safety support - I'll recommend the latter. Every time.



Shockwave said:


> I fail to follow your logic but hey "it's the interweb thingy", does logic have to be logical?


If you believe experience and safety standards are import to safety at sea, it's all very logical. If you don't, I can see how none of it makes any sense.


----------



## smackdaddy

TomMaine said:


> I doubt they would go to a regulated rally, at this point. They've grown exponentially because(I suspect) people like you and friend Iain, like the SDR mission. From their website posted in 2014 ;
> 
> "The Salty Dawg Rally is a grassroots, non-profit organization, comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least one blue water passage. There is no formal inspection of each boat, since it is the responsibility of each skipper to have proper safety equipment and to ensure that the vessel is prepared for the passage. It is each skipper's responsibility to decide the course and whether or not to set out for the passage. The Rally, with an emphasis on safety, communication, camaraderie and fun, opens the door to new friends and experiences while cruising various areas in the Caribbean."
> 
> It will be interesting to see if they're growth continues. I especially enjoyed the radio check ins online last November, by a warm fire.


I agree with you Tom.

Honestly, I think they'll definitely continue to grow. It's obviously a very good "value". But I also suspect they'll make some changes to the way they do things. If they don't, especially in the face of the USCG MSA, and they have another incident - things will be not so good.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Experience, as has been proven pretty much across the board, is critically important to being safe at sea. So are standards of safety. You obviously believe otherwise. *I'll leave you to trying to convince the world that experience and safety standards don't really matter.* Because you'll never convince me.


Aw, c'mon, smack - I think anyone who may have bothered to have read what I've posted since joining Sailnet would realize I've never advocated such nonsense... Hell, my very first post ever here, was a longwinded screed railing against the lack of experience demonstrated by the skipper of RULE 62, and the substitution for reliance on electronic gizmos for good old fashioned seamanship, in the fatal accident that occurred in the 1500 a few years ago. In this thread, I think I've been arguing rather the point that chall03 just made, that something like a safety inspection can never be a substitute for, or make up for a lack of experience...



Shockwave said:


> So you would deny a newb the opportunity to sail with and learn from those more experienced in the SDR because they lack experience? You feel they should go it alone, make a few passages to the Caribbean before they are allowed to enter the SDR because you feel the "inspection process" of the SDR is not up to your standard?
> 
> I fail to follow your logic but hey "it's the interweb thingy", does logic have to be logical?


Nah, the way I understand it, a newb must first make the passage TWICE before with the 1500, to have sufficient experience to 'go it alone' and accept the sort of responsibility that comes with sailing in the SDR... That would seem to ignore the possibility that for many cruisers, a trip to the Caribbean might be a once in a lifetime cruise with their own boat, but what the hey... I guess those folks will simply be SOL, and have to accept they'll just have to Pay to Play under the guidance of the 1500...

Because, their safety standards are so "stringent", after all, and their Safety Inspectors place such a high premium on the sort of stuff that might _really_ matter, in a gale in the Gulf Stream, or hundreds of miles offshore...

For example, their eminently sensible prohibition against carrying no more than one 5 gallon jerry can on deck, per every 2 feet of boat length... Only 20 jerry cans allowed on the deck of a 38-footer in the 1500, any more than that might compromise _SAFETY_, after all...


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, funny thing is I've met too many people that get the bug, buy a boat and go sailing. Experience? No, but a desire to learn and open to guidance, they've sailed to Bermuda, Florida, the Caribbean, and around the world. So again, why deny them an opportunity to sail with SDR? Maybe they'll pick up a tip or two? This doesn't meet with your approval?

Maybe you've read about some of these folks, they have blogs and all, Bumfuzzle's? Of course the real sailors openly laughed at them all the way around the marble. Must suck to be the Bumfuzzles, I bought them a pizza just because I liked their moxie.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Aw, c'mon, smack - I think anyone who may have bothered to have read what I've posted since joining Sailnet would realize I've never advocated such nonsense... Hell, my very first post ever here, was a longwinded screed railing against the lack of experience demonstrated by the skipper of RULE 62, and the substitution for reliance on electronic gizmos for good old fashioned seamanship, in the fatal accident that occurred in the 1500 a few years ago. *In this thread, I think I've been arguing rather the point that chall03 just made, that something like a safety inspection can never be a substitute for, or make up for a lack of experience...*


Well that's good. Things were starting to sound pretty weird. So we're in complete agreement as I've never said a safety inspection can "substitute or make up for a lack of experience".

But it certainly seems you're still saying that since a safety inspection can't make up for the lack of experience, that it's okay to organize a rally of sailors where BOTH inexperience and lack of safety standards are okay? And this makes sense how?



JonEisberg said:


> Nah, the way I understand it, a newb must first make the passage TWICE before with the 1500, to have sufficient experience to 'go it alone' and accept the sort of responsibility that comes with sailing in the SDR... That would seem to ignore the possibility that for many cruisers, a trip to the Caribbean might be a once in a lifetime cruise with their own boat, but what the hey... I guess those folks will simply be SOL, and have to accept they'll just have to Pay to Play under the guidance of the 1500...
> 
> Because, their safety standards are so "stringent", after all, and their Safety Inspectors place such a high premium on the sort of stuff that might _really_ matter, in a gale in the Gulf Stream, or hundreds of miles offshore...
> 
> For example, their eminently sensible prohibition against carrying no more than one 5 gallon jerry can on deck, per every 2 feet of boat length... Only 20 jerry cans allowed on the deck of a 38-footer in the 1500, any more than that might compromise _SAFETY_, after all...


Again, if I'm reading you right, you're criticizing the C1500 for not having a high enough safety standards - then turning around and saying that it's okay for the SDR to have virtually none at all for their newbs? And this makes sense how?

Actually, in the scenario you just laid out where the C1500 is woefully inadequate, it seems there's a great opportunity for a rally like the SDR to "do safety right" for their newbs. I'd certainly get behind that.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> I wish y'all would quite quoting this person.


Auspicious - do you whine this much in real life?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack, funny thing is I've met too many people that get the bug, buy a boat and go sailing. Experience? No, but a desire to learn and open to guidance, they've sailed to Bermuda, Florida, the Caribbean, and around the world. So again, why deny them an opportunity to sail with SDR? Maybe they'll pick up a tip or two? This doesn't meet with your approval?
> 
> Maybe you've read about some of these folks, they have blogs and all, Bumfuzzle's? Of course the real sailors openly laughed at them all the way around the marble. Must suck to be the Bumfuzzles, I bought them a pizza just because I liked their moxie.


I have always liked and admired the Bumfuzzles. But to my knowledge, they never joined an organized rally. In fact, they detested them from what I recall.

And that's the difference here. In a rally, _the organization_ is making the determination of who is or is not qualified to go. And they are encouraging/facilitating things via free weather routing, perks, parties, pigs, etc.

That's a very different calculus than deciding to head out on your own.

I don't care what an individual does. Not at all. It's all on them and they know it.

I _do care_ what an _organization_ does if it puts itself in the above determinate position, sets up a dangerous combination of low experience for entry and virtually non-existent safety standards, and generates revenue off a herd mentality endeavor while not accepting or taking any responsibility.

Again, that's why I'd recommend those newbs to the C1500 (just like Hank). They may not be perfect - but they're a hell of a lot better.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> I don't care what an individual does . . . blah blah blah.
> 
> I _do care_ what an _organization_ . . . does blah blah blah
> 
> Again, that's why I'd recommend . . . blah blah blah


I don't care what smackdaddy says.

I don't care what smackdaddy does.

I don't care what smackdaddy recommends.

Does anyone care what I care about???

Can we talk about sailing again now?


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> I don't care what smackdaddy says.
> 
> I don't care what smackdaddy does.
> 
> I don't care what smackdaddy recommends.
> 
> Does anyone care what I care about???
> 
> Can we talk about sailing again now?


Sure. Talk about sailing.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> But it certainly seems you're still saying that since a safety inspection can't make up for the lack of experience, that it's okay to organize a rally of sailors where BOTH inexperience and lack of safety standards are okay?


I'm gonna guess that you are probably the ONLY person in this thread who thinks such nonsense is an accurate characterization of the argument I've been making throughout 

B.J. was right, your lack of understanding about what really takes place with these rallies is stunning... time to put up, or shut up:

You keep tossing around the term 'Newbs" to describe many of the SDR participants. What's your basis for describing them as such? Have you seen the application forms submitted to the organizers? Do you have any evidence that Bill and Linda admitted participants whose qualifications did not meet the guidelines laid out in their mission statement?

Again, where is the evidence that the problems encountered by any of the SDR fleet was due to either inexperience, or "lack of safety standards"? What safety standard, in particular, would have likely averted any of the problems that occurred?

Why haven't the "stringent safety standards" of the 1500 averted abandonments of boats sailing under their watchful eye in the past, or prevented a recent loss of life? Why didn't the organizers wave off the foolhardy attempt by one of their own "newbs" to enter Oregon Inlet in very dangerous conditions a few years ago, less than 100 miles after the fleet's departure, for example?

Look, I posted the email from Iain on RUFFIAN because he expresses as eloquently as anyone, that the ultimate safety standard is most properly the responsibility of the skipper of each boat, and no one else. The organizers of the SDR make that abundantly clear... In a sense, the 1500 is more for those looking for easy answers - "Just tell me what gear I need aboard to make the trip safely..." - whereas the attitude of the SDR is like that of a teacher who challenges a student to find the answers for themselves... Which student is likely to benefit more, in the end? I doubt many of these "newbs" of yours are stupid. I'm guessing all appreciate the challenge and the risks such a passage entails, and have done their due diligence in preparing their boats and crews accordingly, knowing that the burden of doing so rests on their shoulders, and theirs alone... Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, time to bring it...

You keep trying to imply that the SDR has what amounts to a cavalier attitude towards safety, simply because they do not perfom inspections. I think nothing could be further from the truth, especially after having met Bill and Linda in June of the year of the first SDR, when they were just in the formative planning stages. If anything, I think they've performed a terrific service on behalf of many sailors who would otherwise go it alone instead of writing the sizeable check for the 1500, and that by putting together the package that comprises the SDR, weather routing and all the rest, have actually increased the safety of sailors who are gonna be heading south anyway, whether there are organized rallies, or not...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I'm gonna guess that you are probably the ONLY person in this thread who thinks such nonsense is an accurate characterization of the argument I've been making throughout


Then why on earth are you supporting it in this case Jon? Just because you know these people?


----------



## B.J. Porter

smackdaddy said:


> Then why on earth are you supporting it in this case Jon? Just because you know these people?


He's not, you are reading it that way.

What he IS supporting is the following:

- There is no evidence to suggest that the losses that occurred in the SDR were a result of inexperience by the skippers and/or crew.

- There is no evidence to suggest that the losses that occurred in the SDR would have been prevented by a safety inspection or required equipment as per the 1500

- There is no evidence to suggest that the SDR allowed skippers with insufficient experience to participate.

Therefore blaming the SDR rally for the losses because of lack of safety requirements and inexperienced skippers is not appropriate.

I think that sums up his position.


----------



## smackdaddy

B.J. Porter said:


> He's not, you are reading it that way.
> 
> What he IS supporting is the following:
> 
> - There is no evidence to suggest that the losses that occurred in the SDR were a result of inexperience by the skippers and/or crew.
> 
> - There is no evidence to suggest that the losses that occurred in the SDR would have been prevented by a safety inspection or required equipment as per the 1500
> 
> - There is no evidence to suggest that the SDR allowed skippers with insufficient experience to participate.
> 
> Therefore blaming the SDR rally for the losses because of lack of safety requirements and inexperienced skippers is not appropriate.
> 
> I think that sums up his position.


Look, BJ you can't have it both ways. The USCG thought enough of this SDR incident to specifically point it out in a MSA. John Harries wrote a very good article regarding the problems with the SDR ("Salty Dawg Rally - What The Hell?"), Charlie Doane wrote a couple of articles (here's a highlight from "WEATHER WINDOW ROULETTE: Races and Rallies and Rolling the Dice")...



> Which brings us to Exhibit B: the Salty Dawg Rally. This loosy-goosey Caribbean 1500 breakaway group, which prides itself on not really sailing to a schedule, somehow managed to miss the weather window that Andy took advantage of.


Did you guys notice that? Is he laying it all on the skipper like you guys are arguing is the implied case here? No. Think about that.

...and others like Mike Hixenbaug, Peter Nielsen, etc. Granted, much of their focus was on weather and the herd-mentality (there are obviously many problems here) - but they cdertainly don't speak glowingly of the SDR.

To argue that because "there is no evidence" nothing needs to change is seriously weak. Here is the evidence:

1. The SDR allows entry to skippers that Jon (and I think most very experienced sailors) would consider not ready for a fall trip like this - based purely on their inexperience.
2. There is little to no structured safety oversight in the SDR - the impact of which is vastly compounded if the skipper has little experience.
3. The free weather routing and group-think aspects of the rally place the skipper in a unique environment where the dynamics of individual decision-making can easily be impaired.
4. Too many of these participants kept the USCG very busy - so much so they saw fit to issue a MSA after the incident.

Now you can certainly disagree with me. I'm used to that. But I don't see how you're so comfortable telling all the above very smart, very capable people that they're off-base and have "no evidence" for what they're saying. These are guys I respect.

That's what's so weird about this thread. Had this been the story of an individual guy who had a single bluewater passage behind him setting out on this trip at this time of year then hitting the EPIRB in these conditions when stuff started to break - Jon would hammer him, and so would many others. I have absolutely no doubt about that. But because its the SDR - everyone gets a pass?

Why?


----------



## paperbird

Wow - it's still going and still no one is really listening to each other. Certainly no one is changing anyone's mind. Not to put words in peoples mouths (one of the common grenades being thrown back and forth), but here are my overly simplified interpretations of the 2 sides:


Rallies create a herd mentality and provide a false sense of security and safety to sailors who might otherwise not be capable of safely completing an offshore voyage. As such rallies should be held to a higher standard. They should either demand a satisfactory, proven level of prior offshore experience, stringent safety inspections, or both. Rallies should potentially be subject to some level of regulation to ensure those higher standards.


No single rally is any better or worse than any other. Rallies offer a valuable service that many sailors, both new and experienced alike, value. Depending on the rally, some of those include weather forecasting/routing, opportunities to learn from others, checklists, inspections, social gatherings, radio checkins, position tracking and offshore voyaging advice. Rallies should be free to offer whatever they want to whomever they want using whatever business model they choose.

At the risk of eliminating an ongoing source of entertainment, can the two sides simply agree to disagree? And instead concentrate on constructive comments that might actually help people learn?

My take-aways:


Sailors are ultimately responsible for their own boats, their own decisions and the safety of their crews. Sailing alone or in a herd doesn't change that bottom line.
There is no substitute for experience. Gaining that experience is hard. Take courses, sail with others, incrementally go further, or just jump in a boat and go around the world.
Insurance companies rules drive poor decisions. Don't let them.
The Atlantic and the Gulf Stream in the fall are risky places that should never be taken lightly.
Rallies are what they are. If you don't like them, don't join them. But let others make their own decisions.
If you strongly believe rallies (some or all) are a disservice to the sailing community, do something about it. Talk to rally organizers and convince them to change their policies. Offer to help them do so. Prove you are sincere by participating.


----------



## TomMaine

"Sailors are ultimately responsible for their own boats, their own decisions and the safety of their crews. Sailing alone or in a herd doesn't change that bottom line"

That's a good one. It's been an amazing adventure!


----------



## Shockwave

I bet both rally's require a waiver of responsibility and they both state the decision to sail is solely at the descretion of the captain.

The organization does NOT decide, the skipper decides.

That is where your argument falls apart.



smackdaddy said:


> I have always liked and admired the Bumfuzzles. But to my knowledge, they never joined an organized rally. In fact, they detested them from what I recall.
> 
> And that's the difference here. In a rally, _the organization_ is making the determination of who is or is not qualified to go. And they are encouraging/facilitating things via free weather routing, perks, parties, pigs, etc.
> 
> That's a very different calculus than deciding to head out on your own.
> 
> I don't care what an individual does. Not at all. It's all on them and they know it.
> 
> I _do care_ what an _organization_ does if it puts itself in the above determinate position, sets up a dangerous combination of low experience for entry and virtually non-existent safety standards, and generates revenue off a herd mentality endeavor while not accepting or taking any responsibility.
> 
> Again, that's why I'd recommend those newbs to the C1500 (just like Hank). They may not be perfect - but they're a hell of a lot better.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Charlie Doane wrote a couple of articles (here's a highlight from "WEATHER WINDOW ROULETTE: Races and Rallies and Rolling the Dice")...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us to Exhibit B: the Salty Dawg Rally. This loosy-goosey Caribbean 1500 breakaway group, which prides itself on not really sailing to a schedule, somehow managed to miss the weather window that Andy took advantage of.
> 
> ...That is: if you are determined to sail in a group offshore, you should understand that a group of people can make a bad decision as easily as an individual can (see, e.g., the U.S. Congress), and that it therefore might be wise to join a group that enjoys some adult supervision.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, speaking of "sailing to schedules", or "missing weather windows"...

I'm guessing that swipe about the value of some "adult supervision" might have been a tad less gratuitious, had those words been written after his little helicopter ride in mid-January of this year...


----------



## smurphny

There is only one pertinent question: Do rallys lead to poor and dangerous decisions? There must be data to confirm or deny whether there is any statistical difference between rally participants and a comparative number of those who venture offshore without a rally. My guess is that there is no meaningful difference. I'd also guess that rally participants are basically more prepared and experienced than the average sailor. Picking one incident like this to come to any conclusion can be misleading. There is certainly pressure to follow the crowd but does it actually result in a significant additional number of really bad decisions? There is often pressure about when to depart and any number of opinions. Most people I know are pretty good at making their own decisions.


----------



## smackdaddy

smurphny said:


> There is certainly pressure to follow the crowd but *does it actually result in a significant additional number of really bad decisions*? There is often pressure about when to depart and any number of opinions. Most people I know are pretty good at making their own decisions.


Over time? Absolutely. Haven't you heard of all the studies regarding the effect of peer pressure on decision-making?

The SDR is pretty new - 3 years old I think. And it's grown very quickly now claiming to be the "Dominant Cruising Rally on U.S. East Coast". What do the current numbers say about the SAR-incidents-to-#partipants-to-time ratio of the SDR specifically? Pretty high? Will those numbers get better or worse if nothing changes?

Again, you could also compare the same stats for the C1500 for the number of years it's been in operation. I don't know what that number would be, but I think it would be hard to argue that the SDR's current trend is better than the C1500's.

++++++



JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, speaking of "sailing to schedules", or "missing weather windows"...
> 
> I'm guessing that swipe about the value of some "adult supervision" might have been a tad less gratuitious, had those words been written after his little helicopter ride in mid-January of this year...


Yeah, I'll let you fight that battle with him. I know you guys have your issues.



Shockwave said:


> I bet both rally's require a waiver of responsibility and they both state the decision to sail is solely at the descretion of the captain.
> 
> The organization does NOT decide, the skipper decides.
> 
> That is where your argument falls apart.


Everyone says that. But have a look at the aftermath (and continuing issues) following the Farrallones Race tragedy.


----------



## JonEisberg

B.J. Porter said:


> He's not, you are reading it that way.
> 
> What he IS supporting is the following:
> 
> - There is no evidence to suggest that the losses that occurred in the SDR were a result of inexperience by the skippers and/or crew.
> 
> - There is no evidence to suggest that the losses that occurred in the SDR would have been prevented by a safety inspection or required equipment as per the 1500
> 
> - There is no evidence to suggest that the SDR allowed skippers with insufficient experience to participate.
> 
> Therefore blaming the SDR rally for the losses because of lack of safety requirements and inexperienced skippers is not appropriate.
> 
> I think that sums up his position.


Thanks, B.J.... You just saved me a lot of typing - which would have been all for naught, anyway 



smackdaddy said:


> Look, BJ you can't have it both ways. The USCG thought enough of this SDR incident to specifically point it out in a MSA.


Still waiting for you to point out where the CG says the organizers bear any responsibility for what happened last November, or that those SARs were in any way a result of the manner in which the SDR is organized or managed...



smackdaddy said:


> John Harries wrote a very good article regarding the problems with the SDR ("Salty Dawg Rally - What The Hell?")


And, he specifically stated this, which you continue to ignore at your convenience:



> While I particularly singled out the Salty Dawg because of what happened this year, I believe that everything I wrote in this post applies equally to all rallies, including the 1500.





smackdaddy said:


> Charlie Doane wrote a couple of articles (here's a highlight from "WEATHER WINDOW ROULETTE: Races and Rallies and Rolling the Dice")...
> 
> Did you guys notice that? Is he laying it all on the skipper like you guys are arguing is the implied case here? No. Think about that.


Well, speaking of wanting to "have it both ways", it's laughable that you should cite both Harries and Doane in support of your position... Because, they are coming from opposite sides of the fence in in terms of the benefits of "adult supervision" for rally participants...

Doane is lauding the excellent call of the 1500's weather router to "set his ducks loose upon the waters" when they did... Presumably by relying on "adult supervision", he means someone other than each individual skipper making the call on when to go:



> This, I think, says something about group psychology. That is: if you are determined to sail in a group offshore, you should understand that a group of people can make a bad decision as easily as an individual can (see, e.g., the U.S. Congress), and that it therefore might be wise to join a group that enjoys some adult supervision.


Harries strenuously disagrees with this position...



> I also think that rallies, together with overly controlling weather routers, have, over the years, eroded the basic decision making and risk management skills of offshore sailors by propagating the illusion that someone off the boat can be responsible for said boat's safety.


So, while Harries sees very deep and fundamental flaws in the notion of organized rallies to the Caribbean in the fall (as I do, as well), he obviously comes down firmly in favor of one of the guiding principles of the SDR - namely, that each skipper, and no one else, is solely responsible for making their own decisions and preparations for the passage...

It's remarkable, your refusal to see the fundamental - and quite likely only - reason why the SDR fleet was the one to experience trouble last fall... _THE MAJORITY OF THE PARTICIPANTS PICKED WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE WRONG DAMN TIME TO LEAVE..._ In passagemaking, that happens sometimes  No doubt about it, the 1500's router made a better call than Chris Parker, apparently, and the weather did not develop as Chris had predicted...

So, where was Charlie Doane, calling for more "adult supervision", in the wake of the 2011 NARC debacle? Oh, wait - that rally had the adult supervision provided by Susan Gennett of RealWeather, who gave them the green light to sail off into what turned into Tropical Storm Sean... Then, in the unseemly aftermath of that tragedy, the effort was made to shift the blame to Herb Hilgenberg...



smackdaddy said:


> ...and others like Mike Hixenbaug, Peter Nielsen, etc. Granted, much of their focus was on weather and the herd-mentality (there are obviously many problems here) - but they cdertainly don't speak glowingly of the SDR.


Again, you obviously have no clue regarding the sort of 'herd mentality' that can arise wherever sailors may gather prior to making an offshore passage. As I've already explained hundreds of posts ago, travel back to Beaufort, NC 25 years ago... before fingertip access to Passageweather on your iPad, before the Weather Channel, the daily routine of the informal gathering of cruisers waiting to jump off for the islands revolved around the Offshore/High Seas forecast broadcast 4 times daily... Clusters of skippers would gather to listen around the few boats that might have even been equipped with SSB, and the "So, what do you think?" conversation that followed would be an example of 'group think' at its finest...



smackdaddy said:


> To argue that because "there is no evidence" nothing needs to change is seriously weak. *Here is the evidence:*
> 
> 1. The SDR allows entry to skippers that Jon (and I think most very experienced sailors) would consider not ready for a fall trip like this - based purely on their inexperience.


Uhhh, and your "evidence" for that assertion would be ???

Congrats, that may be the most laughable, nonsensical use of "facts" you've yet to make in the course of this thread... 

Seriously, you should think about lightening up on this Crusade of yours against the SDR... I swear, you'll probably encourage some folks around here to be secretly hoping it's the 1500 fleet that gets their butts kicked next fall, just to prove how wrongheaded your position is...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks, B.J.... You just saved me a lot of typing - which would have been all for naught, anyway
> 
> Still waiting for you to point out where the CG says the organizers bear any responsibility for what happened last November, or that those SARs were in any way a result of the manner in which the SDR is organized or managed...
> 
> And, he specifically stated this, which you continue to ignore at your convenience:
> 
> Well, speaking of wanting to "have it both ways", it's laughable that you should cite both Harries and Doane in support of your position... Because, they are coming from opposite sides of the fence in in terms of the benefits of "adult supervision" for rally participants...
> 
> Doane is lauding the excellent call of the 1500's weather router to "set his ducks loose upon the waters" when they did... Presumably by relying on "adult supervision", he means someone other than each individual skipper making the call on when to go:
> 
> Harries strenuously disagrees with this position...
> 
> So, while Harries sees very deep and fundamental flaws in the notion of organized rallies to the Caribbean in the fall (as I do, as well), he obviously comes down firmly in favor of one of the guiding principles of the SDR - namely, that each skipper, and no one else, is solely responsible for making their own decisions and preparations for the passage...
> 
> It's remarkable, your refusal to see the fundamental - and quite likely only - reason why the SDR fleet was the one to experience trouble last fall... _THE MAJORITY OF THE PARTICIPANTS PICKED WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE WRONG DAMN TIME TO LEAVE..._ In passagemaking, that happens sometimes  No doubt about it, the 1500's router made a better call than Chris Parker, apparently, and the weather did not develop as Chris had predicted...
> 
> So, where was Charlie Doane, calling for more "adult supervision", in the wake of the 2011 NARC debacle? Oh, wait - that rally had the adult supervision provided by Susan Gennett of RealWeather, who gave them the green light to sail off into what turned into Tropical Storm Sean... Then, in the unseemly aftermath of that tragedy, the effort was made to shift the blame to Herb Hilgenberg...
> 
> Again, you obviously have no clue regarding the sort of 'herd mentality' that can arise wherever sailors may gather prior to making an offshore passage. As I've already explained hundreds of posts ago, travel back to Beaufort, NC 25 years ago... before fingertip access to Passageweather on your iPad, before the Weather Channel, the daily routine of the informal gathering of cruisers waiting to jump off for the islands revolved around the Offshore/High Seas forecast broadcast 4 times daily... Clusters of skippers would gather to listen around the few boats that might have even been equipped with SSB, and the "So, what do you think?" conversation that followed would be an example of 'group think' at its finest...
> 
> Uhhh, and your "evidence" for that assertion would be ???
> 
> Congrats, that may be the most laughable, nonsensical use of "facts" you've yet to make in the course of this thread...
> 
> Seriously, you should think about lightening up on this Crusade of yours against the SDR... I swear, you'll probably encourage some folks around here to be secretly hoping it's the 1500 fleet that gets their butts kicked next fall, just to prove how wrongheaded your position is...


Okay, if you want to keep using quotes, Harries sums up "my Crusade" very nicely:



> *I really encourage everyone, and particularly those with less ocean experience, to stay away from these rallies in the fall. *


Bingo.

And, if those less experienced people _insist_ on doing it - listen to Doane, and pick one where you can get all the "adult supervision" you possibly can:



> Exhibit A: the Caribbean 1500...[whose] approach is admirably reality-based.
> 
> -not-
> 
> Exhibit B: the Salty Dawg Rally. This loosy-goosey Caribbean 1500 breakaway group...


Sounds like we're all on the same page. Oh, and these guys have a clue.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, if you want to keep using quotes, Harries sums up "my Crusade" very nicely:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really encourage everyone, and particularly those with less ocean experience, to stay away from these rallies in the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more..

Get back to us when you can demonstrate that any of the distressed SDR skippers possessed insufficient ocean experience...

Here's a few leads to help begin your search, 2 of the boats that lost rudders, and one that was dismasted:

Blog | ABOUT A VOYAGE

S/V Jammin Peoples Adventure

Trouble aboard Zulu in the Gulf Stream | Cruising World



smackdaddy said:


> And, if those less experienced people _insist_ on doing it - listen to Doane, and pick one where you can get all the "adult supervision" you possibly can:


Hmmm, you _really_ don't want to address how all that top-flight "adult supervision" afforded by the NARC worked out in 2011, do you?

Or, what do you suppose the surviving family and friends of Laura Zekol think of the 1500's "adult supervision" the year before?


----------



## B.J. Porter

JonEisberg said:


> I couldn't agree more..
> 
> Get back to us when you can demonstrate that any of the distressed SDR skippers possessed insufficient ocean experience...
> 
> Here's a few leads to help begin your search, 2 of the boats that lost rudders, and one that was dismasted:
> 
> Blog | ABOUT A VOYAGE
> 
> S/V Jammin Peoples Adventure
> 
> Trouble aboard Zulu in the Gulf Stream | Cruising World
> 
> Hmmm, you _really_ don't want to address how all that top-flight "adult supervision" afforded by the NARC worked out in 2011, do you?
> 
> Or, what do you suppose the surviving family and friends of Laura Zekol think of the 1500's "adult supervision" the year before?


Is the "More adult supervision" what leads to dangerous groupthink and a herd mentality?

Skippers...looking to be told what to do?

In 2012 the 1500 left early and took some pounding. A couple of our guys left a day or two after them and took more, the rest of us held off for about a week. We had already decided we were leaving later, and were happy when the SDR on the whole leaned towards leaning later and not getting pasted.

Had I been in the 1500 and they said "Go Now" I am not sure I would have. But maybe I might, and not enjoyed the consequences of not following my own mind.


----------



## Yorksailor

Jon and Smack need to put their debate on hold and put things to a practical test. Next November one should join the 1500 and the other the SDR and then write about their experience!


----------



## JonEisberg

Yorksailor said:


> Jon and Smack need to put their debate on hold and put things to a practical test. Next November one should join the 1500 and the other the SDR and then write about their experience!


LOL! Good idea... 

Despite my misgivings about these rallies in general, I have to admit I've really enjoyed the few times I've spent in Hampton at the time the 1500 was getting underway. In 2011, I was at Bluewater Yachting Center waiting to depart as TS Sean churned offshore with everyone else, and it really was a lot of fun... Good group of people, the sense of camaraderie was palpable, and a gained a greater measure of respect for the appeal of these things for many folks...

But when the time finally came to depart at the end of the week, we went our own separate way, heading pretty much due E, while the 1500 fleet all headed down the beach to cross the Stream off Hatteras. We were headed for Antigua, so getting as much easting in the bank was more critical for me, and I wanted to keep Bermuda in reach as a bail out option anyway on that trip. Which we wound up doing, when the development of another tropical system loomed on the horizon... We wound up encountering 2 boats in St George's from the 1500, and both were very unhappy with the waypoints they'd been given for their Stream crossing... but it was the first trip for both of them, and I'm not sure they really appreciated what a slog getting thru the Stream can sometimes turn out to be... Also, by diverting to Bermuda, they would be missing the big 1500 after-party at Nanny Cay, and I think they were a bit pissed at the realization they weren't gonna get their money's worth that year 

This illustrates one big difference between the 2 rallies for me. The 1500 gurus have always seemed to favor running down the beach and crossing the Stream at Hatteras. I've done that, and it can work fine in the right situation, but it definitely poses some risk, and I've always been a bit surprised that the "adult supervision" running one of these cattle drives endorses it 

Bill Knowles of the SDR, on the other hand, is a big proponent of what he calls "riding the curve", and heading E out of the Bay, and trying to stay well above the rhumb line to be well positioned for the final leg of the trip, when one inevitably encounters tradewind conditions that can often make for a tough beat into Tortola the last few days for those sailing a rhumb line course. This, too, can pose some risk, as you'll generally be crossing the Stream deeper into your weather window, and in a region where the precise location of the Stream is often difficult to pinpoint, and it does put you closer to the region of known gale development between the Chesapeake and Bermuda... But, all things considered, I think Bill's recommended strategy is the better way to go, and Don Street concurs...

If I were taking my own boat to the islands at that time, I'd seriously consider signing up with the SDR like the crew on RUFFIAN did. Quite simply, the benefits are too good to pass up... But there's a good chance I might decide to leave from Beaufort/Morehead, instead, and it's nice that the SDR affords that flexibility to choose both the time and point of your departure... Only real hesitation I'd have about the SDR, somewhat oddly, is a result of one of their few real 'safety requirements' - namely, their requirement for a daily radio check in. If you're singlehanding, that can often be a real PITA, sometimes the timing can be very inconvenient. (Although, I do believe the SDR affords a fair amount of flexibility re roll call/check in times) One of the reasons I've never used Herb other than just listening to him, it can be incredibly time consuming, and many times it's simply more important to just be sailing the damn boat 

2011 was the first year that the WCC took over the 1500 from Steve Black, and there were definitely some teething problems, and considerable griping about some of the changes made from those who had done the rally previously... Splitting the fleet up between Bluewater and Hampton town docks was a mistake, really creating 2 separate 'camps', and the folks at Bluewater had to travel to the hotel in Hampton for the planned events, etc.  But one very shrewd move the 1500 has done since, IMHO, was hiring Andy Schell and his wife Mia to run the show. I have a lot of respect for Andy, he's shown very good judgement, their decision to leave when they did this year seems a clear demonstration, and I think the 1500 is now in very good hands with he and Mia serving as the "adult supervisors" of the fleet...


----------



## Yorksailor

As always a well written and thought out response from Jon...Which side will Smack take?

ps. I am sitting on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal and may have to postpone our planned Pacific crossing and move the boat to San Diego. Has anyone done the trip northwards from Panama?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, you _really_ don't want to address how all that top-flight "adult supervision" afforded by the NARC worked out in 2011, do you?
> 
> Or, what do you suppose the surviving family and friends of Laura Zekol think of the 1500's "adult supervision" the year before?


Okay, so we're finally getting down to it. You agree that less experienced sailors ("newbs") should avoid the fall rallies. Good. We don't have to argue that one anymore.

Beyond that issue comes the "adult supervision" thing. And the bottom line is this: if it's not good enough make it better (like Andy and Mia seem to be doing according to you - or by "riding the curve" if that presents less risk as you lay out).

OR - do away with rallies altogether.

But don't let less experienced sailors into "loosey goosey" rallies where there's little to none.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> This illustrates one big difference between the 2 rallies for me. The 1500 gurus have always seemed to favor running down the beach and crossing the Stream at Hatteras. I've done that, and it can work fine in the right situation, but it definitely poses some risk, and I've always been a bit surprised that the "adult supervision" running one of these cattle drives endorses it


I don't usually go quite E - I like 120 - 135T wind permitting to cross the GS as close to perpendicular as possible.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, so we're finally getting down to it. You agree that less experienced sailors ("newbs") should avoid the fall rallies. Good. We don't have to argue that one anymore.


Uhhh, I'm pretty certain I've never argued otherwise...



smackdaddy said:


> Beyond that issue comes the "adult supervision" thing. And the bottom line is this: if it's not good enough make it better (like Andy and Mia seem to be doing according to you - or by "riding the curve" if that presents less risk as you lay out).
> 
> *OR - do away with rallies altogether.*


Even if the supposed "lack of experience" is not a demonstrable factor? Well, that's prudent, I suppose...

Oh, dear... But if the Adult Supervision of the 1500 were ever to disappear, how on earth would all those Newbs ever gain the requisite experience of 2-4 C1500 passages under their belts, before they will be 'permitted' to make the trip on their own? 



smackdaddy said:


> But don't let less experienced sailors into "loosey goosey" rallies where there's little to none.


You be sure to let us know when that happens, OK?

Pretty depressing, how comfortable we Americans have become with our cradle-to-grave Nanny-statism , that so many of us are willing to characterize _the placement of full responsibility for the preparation and safe completion of an ocean voyage SOLELY on the shoulders of the skipper_ as a "loosey-goosey" attitude...

Yeah, we've always got to leave some wiggle room for the lawyers and 'regulators', right?


----------



## Yorksailor

Smack stop writing and tell us which rally you are going to join...

After all you are 4 times as experienced as Jon...well you have written 4 times as much...Is that the same thing?


----------



## chall03

I have found the perfect rally for Smack and all Newbs.

Bluewater sailing at it's safest with the skipper being able to negate all repsonsiblitity.

The BFS Rally. ( That is Big Friggin Ship)










Sevenstar - Yacht Transport over Seven Seas | Amsterdam

You can drink the rum punch when you get there and if there is a storm someone does the sailing for you and you can sue sue sue.........

Or you could just go sailing, watch your own ass, join a rally if you like or not....all the while knowing that you are responsible.

These are the ONLY two options.

There is no in between, no i'm responsible but they should be responsible for making sure I know that I am responsible.

BFS or BFS.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yorksailor said:


> Smack stop writing and tell us which rally you are going to join...
> 
> After all you are 4 times as experienced as Jon...well you have written 4 times as much...Is that the same thing?


I have right at 1500 off-shore miles. All of those have been on distance races and/or return deliveries crewing/driving other people's boats. Therefore, I consider myself on the "newb"-end of the experience scale.

In other words, I'm the perfect candidate for the SDR. I qualify.

Now, I personally can't stand the idea of a rally. BUT, if I were to do one at this point in my experience, I would - without hesitation - do the C1500 (even with the steep price tag). No freakin' way would I do the SDR (even though it's free).

Why? Safety.

I race off-shore, so I'm used to equipping and sailing to ISAF OSR (usually Cat 2) standards. My opinion is that if you're not willing to learn those standards (or equivalent) and bring yourself, your crew, and your boat up to them (or at least very close) - you shouldn't be out there. Period. The C1500 would "help" me get there (just like any racing Organizing Authority - OA - would), with "adult supervision" I'd happily accept - because it makes sense. The SDR wouldn't.

You have to pay to play. But most people are very, very tempted by a free lunch. And the SDR is essentially offering that via its "this is cruising not racing" mentality...even though you're in exactly the same stretch of water and same potential conditions as an off-shore race would be.

Do ISAF regs "guarantee nothing will go wrong"? Of course not. Only a complete moron would draw that conclusion - or need proof that lack of experience increases risk and causes big problems. But I could very, very easily join the SDR with a dangerously ill-equipped boat and crew and give it a whirl (e.g. - they don't know if I really have a life raft or not). Sure, in the end, it legally would be on me if we all ended up in the water - not them. But they are absolutely _fostering_ this possibility and risk by the way they have things set up as the "Organizing Authority". That's fundamentally what Harries decries I think. And any racing OA that tried that would be shut down in a heartbeat (that's what I personally think the USCG's MSA was about - a shot across the bow).

Would I do the trip myself apart from a rally at my current level of experience? Well, I almost have our boat up to Cat 1 standards (maybe Cat 2+). So I'm getting there. But there is no way I'd attempt that run in Oct/Nov...rally or not. I completely believe and agree with Jon's and Harries' advice on this. I would want to try it first in a much mellower time of year - just to get the boat completely shaken down, learn the routes, etc. (Maybe a couple of times before trying it in the fall.) For me to try to jump into that trip with such small and volatile weather windows - rally or not - would be stupid. I know that.

Yet, again, I qualify.

So, in the end, I'm all about working my way up slowly, learning everything I can from those who know - especially racers who understand the benefits of standards. I'm in no hurry to jump in over my head - even if a particular rally tells me I can and offers me lots of freebies to do so and grow their numbers. I'm the skipper. I'll make my own decision.


----------



## B.J. Porter

smackdaddy said:


> I have right at 1500 off-shore miles. All of those have been on distance races and/or return deliveries crewing/driving other people's boats. Therefore, I consider myself on the "newb"-end of the experience scale.
> 
> In other words, I'm the perfect candidate for the SDR. I qualify.
> 
> Now, I personally can't stand the idea of a rally. BUT, if I were to do one at this point in my experience, I would - without hesitation - do the C1500 (even with the steep price tag). No freakin' way would I do the SDR (even though it's free).
> 
> Why? Safety.
> 
> I race off-shore, so I'm used to equipping and sailing to ISAF OSR (usually Cat 2) standards. My opinion is that if you're not willing to learn those standards (or equivalent) and bring yourself, your crew, and your boat up to them (or at least very close) - you shouldn't be out there. Period. The C1500 would "help" me get there (just like any racing Organizing Authority - OA - would), with "adult supervision" I'd happily accept - because it makes sense. The SDR wouldn't.
> 
> You have to pay to play. But most people are very, very tempted by a free lunch. And the SDR is essentially offering that via its "this is cruising not racing" mentality...even though you're in exactly the same stretch of water and same potential conditions as an off-shore race would be.
> 
> Do ISAF regs "guarantee nothing will go wrong"? Of course not. Only a complete moron would draw that conclusion. But I could very, very easily join the SDR with a dangerously ill-equipped boat and crew and give it a whirl (e.g. - they don't know if I really have a life raft or not). Sure, in the end, it legally would be on me if we all ended up in the water - not them. But they are absolutely _fostering_ this possibility and risk by the way they have things set up as the "Organizing Authority". That's fundamentally what Harries decries I think. And any racing OA that tried that would be shut down in a heartbeat (that's what I personally think the USCG's MSA was about - a shot across the bow).
> 
> Would I do the trip myself apart from a rally at my current level of experience? Well, I almost have our boat up to Cat 1 standards (maybe Cat 2+). So I'm getting there. But there is no way I'd attempt that run in Oct/Nov...rally or not. I completely believe and agree with Jon's and Harries' advice on this. I would want to try it first in a much mellower time of year - just to get the boat completely shaken down, learn the routes, etc. For me to try to jump into that trip with such small and volatile weather windows - rally or not - would be stupid. I know that.
> 
> Yet, again, I qualify.
> 
> So, in the end, I'm all about working my way up slowly, learning everything I can from those who know - especially racers who understand the benefits of standards. I'm in no hurry to jump in over my head - even if a particular rally tells me I can and offers me lots of freebies to grow their numbers. I'm the skipper. I'll make my own decision.


What makes you think my vessel was not safely equipped? You seem to ASSume that doing the SDR makes you a fly by night hack. This is not the case.

By your own description you do NOT qualify since you don't know how to equip your boat.

Again your ignorance shows. The SDR does help you get safely set up IF YOU ASK FOR HELP. There are plenty of people that will happily answer questions and help you out. But since the skippers are all supposed to have done at least one long passage they should have some idea how to do it. There were a lot of discussions, presentations, seminars and talks and plenty of opportunity to implement changes in your boat from what you've learned.

What they do NOT do is require a safety inspection and flunk you if you disagree with how they think things should be done. Because the onus is on you, the skipper, to be properly prepared.

I'm not sure where you get this "half the SDR fleet was inexperienced and clueless newbs" thing from.


----------



## smackdaddy

B.J. Porter said:


> What makes you think my vessel was not safely equipped? You seem to ASSume that doing the SDR makes you a fly by night hack. This is not the case.
> 
> By your own description you do NOT qualify since you don't know how to equip your boat.
> 
> Again your ignorance shows. The SDR does help you get safely set up IF YOU ASK FOR HELP. There are plenty of people that will happily answer questions and help you out. But since the skippers are all supposed to have done at least one long passage they should have some idea how to do it. There were a lot of discussions, presentations, seminars and talks and plenty of opportunity to implement changes in your boat from what you've learned.
> 
> What they do NOT do is require a safety inspection and flunk you if you disagree with how they think things should be done. Because the onus is on you, the skipper, to be properly prepared.
> 
> I'm not sure where you get this "half the SDR fleet was inexperienced and clueless newbs" thing from.


Acutally, yes, I do qualify.

BJ - that's where the big disconnect is in this whole debate. You guys who are much more experienced LOVE the SDR precisely because of your experience. That's why the thing was started in the first place.

At the same time, its standard for entry (a single "bluewater passage") is WAY below what any of you would consider sufficient for this kind of trip for an individual on his own. Does the rally aspect really bridge this gap that effectively - with a single safety seminar?

The solution is simple - up that entry standard so it becomes a non-issue. Nothing else needs to change.

(PS - You actually just made the case for this in your post.)



B.J. Porter said:


> I'm not sure where you get this "half the SDR fleet was inexperienced and clueless newbs" thing from.


Where did I say that?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> At the same time, its standard for entry (a single "bluewater passage") is WAY below what any of you would consider sufficient for this kind of trip.
> 
> The solution is simple - up that entry standard so it becomes a non-issue. Nothing else needs to change.


The philosophical difference we are all having here Smack is around that phrase 'entry standard'.

No argument from me that your boat should have just about everything on it that ISAF demands and then some.

But in implementing an 'entry standard' whether you mean to or not, you are shifting some of the responsibility. Your saying the organisers should be responsibile for making sure your responsible.

I understand why your saying it. Yes it fits with the culure that is part and parcel of offshore racing. It is however at odds with the philosophy that pervades blue water cruising.

My issue is that you are trying to make those of us that don't believe in the ISAF culture as blindly as you do to be subject to it, cause you think ( with your self confessed limited experience) that it is the only way.

There are two rallies, two approaches, we all agree that the skipper is ultimately responsible, so he/she makes the decision that best suits and there you go.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> The philosophical difference we are all having here Smack is around that phrase 'entry standard'.
> 
> No argument from me that your boat should have just about everything on it that ISAF demands and then some.
> 
> But in implementing an 'entry standard' whether you mean to or not, you are shifting some of the responsibility. Your saying the organisers should be responsibile for making sure your responsible.
> 
> I understand why your saying it. Yes it fits with the culure that is part and parcel of offshore racing. It is however at odds with the philosophy that pervades blue water cruising.
> 
> My issue is that you are trying to make those of us that don't believe in the ISAF culture as blindly as you do to be subject to it, cause you think ( with your self confessed limited experience) that it is the only way.
> 
> There are two rallies, two approaches, we all agree that the skipper is ultimately responsible, so he/she makes the decision that best suits and there you go.


Chall, thanks for the reasoned response, dude. Seriously. And, yes, you understand the reasoning behind my "standards" very well (borne out of racing). I don't look at it as someone "giving me the okay to go". I look at it as learning to do it right (fully understanding that things can still go very wrong).

Furthermore, I COMPLETELY understand the resistance to what I'm pushing. That resistance is just as reasonable due to the fact that the skipper is solely responsible (just like with racing).

But, the "entry standard" issue is _not established by me_. It's established by _the rally_. THEY are inserting themselves into that decision by their definition of readiness. And that's the problem. They are essentially becoming something like an Organizing Authority in a race - yet not taking responsibility for their part of that decision. And it potentially sets them up for liability - as well as increases the risk of incidents with the increasing number of boats (just like with racing).

So, again, a fix might be to _do away with the SDR's entry standard altogether_ and REALLY make it COMPLETELY up to the skipper. Or revise the standard to fit the circumstances of the trip.

As it stands, they're currently trying to be on both sides of the line.


----------



## B.J. Porter

smackdaddy said:


> Acutally, yes, I do qualify.
> 
> BJ - that's where the big disconnect is in this whole debate. You guys who are much more experienced LOVE the SDR precisely because of your experience. That's why the thing was started in the first place.
> 
> At the same time, its standard for entry (a single "bluewater passage") is WAY below what any of you would consider sufficient for this kind of trip for an individual on his own. Does the rally aspect really bridge this gap that effectively - with a single safety seminar?
> 
> The solution is simple - up that entry standard so it becomes a non-issue. Nothing else needs to change.
> 
> (PS - You actually just made the case for this in your post.)
> 
> Where did I say that?


You imply it repeatedly every time you post about the lack of experience in SDR skippers. It is implicit in your judgement that they need more "Adult Supervision".

I am not super experienced.

Before the SDR my bluewater experience was bringing my boat back from Florida to RI, and some overnight trips from RI to Maine and Maine down to the Chesapeake.

By the time we did the SDR everyone on board had done a couple of over night trips, but I was the only one that had been out of sight of land for five days.

The difference between ONE off shore multi day passage > 1,000 miles and ZERO passages is enormous.

With ZERO, you have no idea what to expect. You don't really know how you handle seasickness, big waves...heck a lot of people haven't seen big waves if all you do is weekend day sail. No idea what standing watch is like, or what is out there to worry about.

You make one, especially as a skipper, all of a sudden you have a LOT more understanding for what you can get into.

I do not believe the requirement for the SDR is just that you've made one passage. For example, I have a cousin that did the Florida delivery with me. I do not think he'd been sailing for or since...I do not think he would qualify. There is a world of difference between making a passage as crew, and say, doing it with responsibility for preparing your own boat.

Registering for the rally you fill out a questionnaire with the experience of the skipper and crew, I had several email discussions with Linda before hand.

You understate the requirements and belittle the participants. Your characterization of the rally, its operators and the participants is wildly inaccurate. Therefore your conclusions are faulty.


----------



## smackdaddy

B.J. Porter said:


> You imply it repeatedly every time you post about the lack of experience in SDR skippers. It is implicit in your judgement that they need more "Adult Supervision".
> 
> I am not super experienced.
> 
> Before the SDR my bluewater experience was bringing my boat back from Florida to RI, and some overnight trips from RI to Maine and Maine down to the Chesapeake.
> 
> By the time we did the SDR everyone on board had done a couple of over night trips, but I was the only one that had been out of sight of land for five days.
> 
> *The difference between ONE off shore multi day passage > 1,000 miles and ZERO passages is enormous.*
> 
> With ZERO, you have no idea what to expect. You don't really know how you handle seasickness, big waves...heck a lot of people haven't seen big waves if all you do is weekend day sail. No idea what standing watch is like, or what is out there to worry about.


I understand that. I've done several multi-day off-shore passages - a couple in fairly sporty conditions.

I'm not belittling anyone. I'm talking about SDR's own stated rules for entry. I'm sorry you take that personally.

But, again, you hit the nail on the head above in bold. The difference between a single 2 day passage of 150 miles and your +1K passage is also enormous. So where in the SDR rules for entry are those details stipulated? Can you show that to me? Or is that determination purely up to the Knowles? Is your +1K enough for them? Or is it 150?



B.J. Porter said:


> I do not believe the requirement for the SDR is just that you've made one passage.


It's certainly stated as such on their own website:

http://saltydawgrally.org/


> The Salty Dawg Rally is a grassroots, non-profit organization, comprised of blue water sailors who have completed at least *one blue water passage*.


I'm not making this stuff up BJ.



B.J. Porter said:


> For example, I have a cousin that did the Florida delivery with me. I do not think he'd been sailing for or since...I do not think he would qualify. There is a world of difference between making a passage as crew, and say, doing it with responsibility for preparing your own boat.
> 
> Registering for the rally you fill out a questionnaire with the experience of the skipper and crew, I had several email discussions with Linda before hand.


Well, then this is where the rubber meets the road. We're back to "adult supervision". You don't think he'd qualify. Do they? If they state the standard for entry above (directly from their website) - then what does that really mean? And if you're having to get clearance from the Knowle's on whether you're qualified or not - are you really qualified to be doing the SDR in the first place (back to your characterization of my current readiness)?



B.J. Porter said:


> You understate the requirements and belittle the participants. Your characterization of the rally, its operators and the participants is wildly inaccurate. Therefore your conclusions are faulty.


Actually, I'm using the information for the SDR website. If how they handle things behind the scenes is completely counter to what they advertise - then that's a bigger problem.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I have right at 1500 off-shore miles. All of those have been on distance races and/or return deliveries crewing/driving other people's boats. Therefore, I consider myself on the "newb"-end of the experience scale.
> 
> In other words, I'm the perfect candidate for the SDR. I qualify.
> 
> Now, I personally can't stand the idea of a rally. BUT, if I were to do one at this point in my experience, I would - without hesitation - do the C1500 (even with the steep price tag). No freakin' way would I do the SDR (even though it's free).
> 
> Why? Safety.


Sorry, but that's nonsensical... You've totally bought into the illusion of safety any rally supposedly provides...

Why is is so hard to understand the fundamental flaw behind the rationale of increased "Safety" with regards to these things? If any sailor lacks the confidence to attempt this passage on their own, with no assistance whatsoever from anyone not aboard that boat, _they're not ready to make the passage, PERIOD_... Nothing that happens from the time you arrive in Hampton, no seminar, no safety inspector coming aboard your boat for 30 minutes to check the expiration date of your flares, _NONE_ of that stuff is gonna get you over the hurdle of being 'qualified' to go, or not...

Let's face it, we all know the "Standards for Entry" are essentially meaningless... Some sailors may learn virtually nothing of value from an offshore passage, others can gain invaluable experience in a 2 week summer cruise to Maine. In all my years of boating, the three most challenging conditions I've ever faced have occurred on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie... Pretty tough to rack up 1000 mile passages on the Great Lakes, and yet those waters have produced many of the finest and toughest sailors in America... So, how can an organizer possibly arrive at a "Standard for Entry" that takes into meaningful account, the incredibly wide array of sailing experience people possess... So, make clear that it's for "Experienced" offshore/bluewater sailors - and that's where a skipper's personal responsibility first comes to the fore. Namely, being honest with himself whether or not he fits that category... _NO ONE ELSE_ can make that determination... If you don't _feel_ ready, you're not ready, simple as that...



smackdaddy said:


> But there is no way I'd attempt that run in Oct/Nov...rally or not. I completely believe and agree with Jon's and Harries' advice on this.* I would want to try it first in a much mellower time of year - just to get the boat completely shaken down, learn the routes, etc.* (Maybe a couple of times before trying it in the fall.) For me to try to jump into that trip with such small and volatile weather windows - rally or not - would be stupid. I know that.


Uhhh, perhaps you haven't heard - but the only "mellower" time of the year would be Hurricane Season...



smackdaddy said:


> I'm in no hurry to jump in over my head - even if a particular rally tells me I can and offers me lots of freebies to do so and grow their numbers. *I'm the skipper. I'll make my own decision.*


In that case, sounds like the SDR is the one for you... Why on earth would you cede your own decision-making to the Adult Supervisors who will be flying to the BVIs on a commercial airliner in time to set up the after-party?

Save your money, $2K is a lot to spend for a few parties, free dockage for a few days, and a safety inspection... Buy Bill Seifert's book, instead...

If I'm gonna deliver a boat anywhere, I'd prefer to have it prepped to Seifert's standards, over the ISAF standards, every time...

Offshore Sailing: 200 Essential Passagemaking Tips: William Seifert, Daniel Spurr: 9780071374248: Amazon.com: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@514Un91LycL


----------



## B.J. Porter

smackdaddy said:


> I understand that. I've done several multi-day off-shore passages - a couple in fairly sporty conditions.
> 
> I'm not belittling anyone. I'm talking about SDR's own stated rules for entry. I'm sorry you take that personally.
> 
> But, again, you hit the nail on the head above in bold. The difference between a single 2 day passage of 150 miles and your +1K passage is also enormous. So where in the SDR rules for entry are those details stipulated? Can you show that to me? Or is that determination purely up to the Knowles? Is your +1K enough for them? Or is it 150?
> 
> It's certainly stated as such on their own website:
> 
> The Salty Dawg Rally
> 
> I'm not making this stuff up BJ.
> 
> Well, then this is where the rubber meets the road. We're back to "adult supervision". You don't think he'd qualify. Do they? If they state the standard for entry above (directly from their website) - then what does that really mean? And if you're having to get clearance from the Knowle's on whether you're qualified or not - are you really qualified to be doing the race in the first place (back to your characterization of my current readiness)?
> 
> Actually, I'm using the information for the SDR website. If how they handle things behind the scenes is completely counter to what they advertise - then that's a bigger problem.


Where are you grabbing that from, a quote from a press release? I don't see anything on the site that specifically says requirements to participate beyond quotes in press releases that talk about "Bluewater experience".

Those...you need to think about what is being said before quoting them as gospel. They're not going to take my cousin as a skipper with his experience, nor are they going to look at overnighting to Maine as "Bluewater". Of course when talking to the media they aren't going to spell out rules. Anyone WITH blue water experience will know roughly what they are talking about. At a minimum they seem to be looking for a multi day passage well out of sight of land, where you are in control of your own vessel.

Go try and register for a rally. You fill out your basic information on the site and you will get an e-mail from Linda. You then discuss specifics of experience and crew and so forth with them to see if you've got experience enough for this.

Now, I don't know that they've rejected people, I suspect there are few as I think the idea that it is for "more experienced" folks will weed out more than a few people that end up in the 1500.

But if you talked to the organizers and said "Yeah, I overnighted on my friends boat to Maine once, now I want to sail my boat to the Caribbean with you" I expect you'd get a gentle suggestion to try the other rally.

There is a good reason to NOT lay out a hard and fast rule; because if you do someone that meets the letter of the rule but not the actual intent of the rule can raise much more of a stink if it is thought they are not ready for it.

As Jon rightly points out, every sailors qualifications are different. There isn't an easy list of hard and fast rules you can put on a web site to say "yup, you are in." But that the SDR is NOT for Newbies is made very clear, and in discussions with the organizers you will not get encouragement if you aren't ready.

As Jon also points out correctly...November is when you make the trip. Summer is hurricane season, you can go then but no insurance company will cover you in a named storm. You could go in April or May I suppose but that is kinds of backwards, and can still be snotty and cold out there too.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but that's nonsensical... You've totally bought into the illusion of safety any rally supposedly provides...
> 
> Why is is so hard to understand the fundamental flaw behind the rationale of increased "Safety" with regards to these things? If any sailor lacks the confidence to attempt this passage on their own, with no assistance whatsoever from anyone not aboard that boat, _they're not ready to make the passage, PERIOD_... Nothing that happens from the time you arrive in Hampton, no seminar, no safety inspector coming aboard your boat for 30 minutes to check the expiration date of your flares, _NONE_ of that stuff is gonna get you over the hurdle of being 'qualified' to go, or not...
> 
> Let's face it, we all know the "Standards for Entry" are essentially meaningless... Some sailors may learn virtually nothing of value from an offshore passage, others can gain invaluable experience in a 2 week summer cruise to Maine. In all my years of boating, the three most challenging conditions I've ever faced have occurred on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie... Pretty tough to rack up 1000 mile passages on the Great Lakes, and yet those waters have produced many of the finest and toughest sailors in America... So, how can an organizer possibly arrive at a "Standard for Entry" that takes into meaningful account, the incredibly wide array of sailing experience people possess... So, make clear that it's for "Experienced" offshore/bluewater sailors - and that's where a skipper's personal responsibility first comes to the fore. Namely, being honest with himself whether or not he fits that category... _NO ONE ELSE_ can make that determination... If you don't _feel_ ready, you're not ready, simple as that...


I agree with everything you just said.



JonEisberg said:


> Uhhh, perhaps you haven't heard - but the only "mellower" time of the year would be Hurricane Season...


Yeah, okay. You mean the one that officially starts on June 1 and ends on November 30* for 2014? So, you're saying anything between December 1 and May 31 is jut too dicey? Let's not be hysterical dude.

(*BTW - the SDR boats are leaving November 2. You're cool with that right? Hmm.)



JonEisberg said:


> In that case, sounds like the SDR is the one for you... Why on earth would you cede your own decision-making to the Adult Supervisors who will be flying to the BVIs on a commercial airliner in time to set up the after-party?
> 
> Save your money, $2K is a lot to spend for a few parties, free dockage for a few days, and a safety inspection... Buy Bill Seifert's book, instead...
> 
> If I'm gonna deliver a boat anywhere, I'd prefer to have it prepped to Seifert's standards, over the ISAF standards, every time...
> 
> Offshore Sailing: 200 Essential Passagemaking Tips: William Seifert, Daniel Spurr: 9780071374248: Amazon.com: Books


I already said I won't be doing the SDR. And I'll take a look at the book. Thanks. But I'm pretty happy with the ISAF regs.


----------



## smackdaddy

B.J. Porter said:


> Where are you grabbing that from, a quote from a press release? I don't see anything on the site that specifically says requirements to participate beyond quotes in press releases that talk about "Bluewater experience".


BJ - go to the SDR home page and scroll down to this:

"Benefits of Becoming a Dawg"

It's also in several press releases and other places.

Don't accuse me of making stuff up, then make me go find the proof for you. It's all over the place.



B.J. Porter said:


> Those...you need to think about what is being said before quoting them as gospel. They're not going to take my cousin as a skipper with his experience, nor are they going to look at overnighting to Maine as "Bluewater". Of course when talking to the media they aren't going to spell out rules. Anyone WITH blue water experience will know roughly what they are talking about. At a minimum they seem to be looking for a multi day passage well out of sight of land, where you are in control of your own vessel.
> 
> Go try and register for a rally. You fill out your basic information on the site and you will get an e-mail from Linda. You then discuss specifics of experience and crew and so forth with them to see if you've got experience enough for this.
> 
> Now, I don't know that they've rejected people, I suspect there are few as I think the idea that it is for "more experienced" folks will weed out more than a few people that end up in the 1500.
> 
> But if you talked to the organizers and said "Yeah, I overnighted on my friends boat to Maine once, now I want to sail my boat to the Caribbean with you" I expect you'd get a gentle suggestion to try the other rally.
> 
> There is a good reason to NOT lay out a hard and fast rule; because if you do someone that meets the letter of the rule but not the actual intent of the rule can raise much more of a stink if it is thought they are not ready for it.
> 
> As Jon rightly points out, every sailors qualifications are different. There isn't an easy list of hard and fast rules you can put on a web site to say "yup, you are in." But that the SDR is NOT for Newbies is made very clear, and in discussions with the organizers you will not get encouragement if you aren't ready.
> 
> As Jon also points out correctly...November is when you make the trip. Summer is hurricane season, you can go then but no insurance company will cover you in a named storm. You could go in April or May I suppose but that is kinds of backwards, and can still be snotty and cold out there too.


Okay - cool. So the Knowles are personally determining who has enough experience and is qualified and/or "safe" enough to go. That's "adult supervision".


----------



## B.J. Porter

smackdaddy said:


> BJ - go to the SDR home page and scroll down to this:
> 
> "Benefits of Becoming a Dawg"
> 
> It's also in several press releases and other places.
> 
> Don't accuse me of making stuff up, then make me go find the proof for you. It's all over the place.
> 
> Okay - cool. So the Knowles are personally determining who has enough experience and is qualified and/or "safe" enough to go. That's "adult supervision".


Well the Adult Supervision should make you happy then, you've been complaining about the lack of it. In all my dealings with the Knowles I've never gotten the sense that they'd take absolutely anyone that wanted to go.

That is the experience I had, we discussed my experience and Linda told me that she thought I had sufficient experience to _do the rally with them_.

It is their rally after all, and one point of the new Rally was to get away from all the regulatory overkill of the 1500. To do that you need to be able to put more onus on the skipper. In theory these people might have your back in a problem, or you might have to bail them out.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, okay. You mean the one that officially starts on June 1 and ends on November 30* for 2014? So, you're saying anything between December 1 and May 31 is jut too dicey? Let's not be hysterical dude.


Well, sure - if you want to head to the Caribbean for hurricane season in the spring, go for it... You'll certainly have to route to yourself, there seems to be a pretty good reason most boats will be headed in the opposite direction...



smackdaddy said:


> (*BTW - the SDR boats are leaving November 2. You're cool with that right? Hmm.)


What's the problem with that date, sounds good to me... Same date as the Adult Supervisors gave the green light to the 1500 fleet last fall, after all...



smackdaddy said:


> I already said I won't be doing the SDR. And I'll take a look at the book. Thanks. But I'm pretty happy with the ISAF regs.


Well, that's good... The ISAF regs would be easier, basically a check list, after all...

I happened to be aboard a boat that Bill Seifert inspected for the Bermuda Race about 8 years ago... Unbelievably thorough, the guy essentially performed a freakin' _survey_ of the damn thing, passing ISAF muster would have been a piece of cake, in comparison...


----------



## smackdaddy

B.J. Porter said:


> Well the Adult Supervision should make you happy then, you've been complaining about the lack of it. In all my dealings with the Knowles I've never gotten the sense that they'd take absolutely anyone that wanted to go.
> 
> That is the experience I had, we discussed my experience and Linda told me that she thought I had sufficient experience to _do the rally with them_.
> 
> It is their rally after all, and one point of the new Rally was to get away from all the regulatory overkill of the 1500. To do that you need to be able to put more onus on the skipper. In theory these people might have your back in a problem, or you might have to bail them out.


Like I said earlier - if I were to join a rally, I'd join the C1500...for the reasons I stated. But I'm not looking for adult supervision from a rally. I'm learning a great deal from the racing skipper and crew I sail with. And I'm about ready to start skippering a few off-shore runs of my own this summer.

Look, maybe the Knowles are extremely picky and _only_ allow skippers/boats that have your +1000 mile week+ passage under their keel. That would be cool. Then your assumption that everyone knows this is only for very experienced sailors is right, and the safety stuff isn't nearly as important. Of course, no one knows this. Right now, it's apparently completely up to the Knowles.

But, at the end of the day, I really don't think I'm too far off base. Change seems to be coming. This is from their site as well (posted in the last couple of months):



> The Salty Dawg Rally is a R.I. registered non-profit organization and *for the next year will demonstrate its roll* as an educational organization by fostering and teaching seamanship, safe boat handling, navigation and other skills needed by blue water sailors.*
> 
> Testimonial from George Day, Publisher, Blue Water Sailing magazine: "When Bill and Linda Knowles and I got talking about starting a new, free rally for cruisers that would help sailors get to and from the BVI each fall and spring, I knew they were onto a great idea. *There was another rally out there but it was not free and not run in the true spirit of the cruising lifestyle...*"


(*I assume they mean "role" and not "biscuit" or "jive")

It'll be cool if they can be that educational organization they're talking about and remain free. If they put together a quality safety program, hell, I might even support them.


----------



## Ilenart

JonEisberg said:


> Save your money, $2K is a lot to spend for a few parties, free dockage for a few days, and a safety inspection... Buy Bill Seifert's book, instead...
> 
> If I'm gonna deliver a boat anywhere, I'd prefer to have it prepped to Seifert's standards, over the ISAF standards, every time...
> 
> Offshore Sailing: 200 Essential Passagemaking Tips: William Seifert, Daniel Spurr: 9780071374248: Amazon.com: Books


Thanks for the suggestion Jon. Looks like a good reference

Ilenart


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, sure - if you want to head to the Caribbean for hurricane season in the spring, go for it... You'll certainly have to route to yourself, there seems to be a pretty good reason most boats will be headed in the opposite direction...
> 
> What's the problem with that date, sounds good to me... Same date as the Adult Supervisors gave the green light to the 1500 fleet last fall, after all...
> 
> Well, that's good... The ISAF regs would be easier, basically a check list, after all...
> 
> I happened to be aboard a boat that Bill Seifert inspected for the Bermuda Race about 8 years ago... Unbelievably thorough, the guy essentially performed a freakin' _survey_ of the damn thing, passing ISAF muster would have been a piece of cake, in comparison...


I'm curious...will you be delivering any SDR or C1500 boats back up?

BTW - I'm glad to know that Seifert's book is the way to guarantee that nothing bad happens on a passage. The ISAF checklist definitely can't do that. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I'm curious...will you be delivering any SDR or C1500 boats back up?


Nope...

Not that I know of, anyway... I think rockDAWG is getting all the work, these days )

I've got a short trip starting this weekend, and things should begin to pick up around Easter... I hate the years when Easter falls late, that always compresses the schedule, as that it often the last time people plan to spend time on their boat before it comes north...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Nope...
> 
> Not that I know of, anyway... I think rockDAWG is getting all the work, these days )
> 
> I've got a short trip starting this weekend, and things should begin to pick up around Easter... I hate the years when Easter falls late, that always compresses the schedule, as that it often the last time people plan to spend time on their boat before it comes north...


Well, it's obvious that if you _do_ bring a SDR boat back, you absolutely HAVE to pick me as crew. It would be e-p-i-c.

Heh-heh.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Save your money, $2K is a lot to spend for a few parties, free dockage for a few days, and a safety inspection... Buy Bill Seifert's book, instead...
> 
> If I'm gonna deliver a boat anywhere, I'd prefer to have it prepped to Seifert's standards, over the ISAF standards, every time...
> 
> Offshore Sailing: 200 Essential Passagemaking Tips: William Seifert, Daniel Spurr: 9780071374248: Amazon.com: Books


Looks like a interesting read, thanks for the recommendation will be getting a copy as well.


----------



## luv4sailin

Ha, ha, ha.

Smackdaddy and Jon on a boat together for days?....We'd need dental records to identify their bodies.

Cheers,
Ron


----------



## SVAuspicious

luv4sailin said:


> Smackdaddy and Jon on a boat together for days?....We'd need dental records to identify their bodies.


I have confidence in Jon.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> I have confidence in Jon.


So do I. That's why of all the delivery skippers in this thread, he was my pick. He doesn't fold when conditions get sporty.


----------



## jameswilson29

I have confidence in Jon and Dave SVAuspicious concerning passagemaking and weather. I have confidence in Bob Perry on yacht design. I have confidence in outbound's opinion on sleep research.

One of the great things about listservs is the opportunity to correspond with professionals/experts in particular fields of study or experience. Someone can come on this listserv and argue passagemaking with Jon or Dave, yacht design with Bob Perry, sleep physiology with a physician like "outbound", or contract law with me or any of the other lawyers on this listserv. That doesn't mean the lay persons are right, but it does make for good entertainment.


----------



## smackdaddy

Cool, JW. You hook up with Ausp and we'll turn it into a race. Bob will critique the boat design (which you guys can use as an excuse for losing) - and Out will tell us why we're all so tired when we hit the Chessie...except for Jon...since he will have made me do the majority of the driving.

Then we can get drunk and reenact episodes of _Ally McBeal_.


----------



## jameswilson29

The direction of this thread is becoming increasingly frightening...


----------



## outbound

Smack thanks to you and the other contributors this has been a most educational and delightful thread. Thanks to you all.
Still at the end of the day after talking with multiple folks who have done the SDR, now getting back into passage making and having my wife do more significant transits as well as emailing with Herb I hate to tell you Smackie I have every intention to do the SDR next year. (Wife wants to winter in Bahamas this year). Sure crew and the boat with be fully shaken down. Sure I will decide on the departure date taking in to account their weather router but making my own decision. However, I believe as long as you don't fall into the herd mentality the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Just the deals on the satphone and how being part of it eases the logistics make it a great opportunity. I think our fundamental divergence is I believe they make it clear to you that you (not them) are responsible for your decisions and safety. Given that I respectfully believe your objections are not germane. As Jeff Foxworthy says " You can't fix stupid".

P.S.- Can others get in on that race? Can see the headline "Dilettantes Destroy Dedicated Professionals In Do or Die Race"


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack thanks to you and the other contributors this has been a most educational and delightful thread. Thanks to you all.
> Still at the end of the day after talking with multiple folks who have done the SDR, now getting back into passage making and having my wife do more significant transits as well as emailing with Herb I hate to tell you Smackie I have every intention to do the SDR next year. (Wife wants to winter in Bahamas this year). Sure crew and the boat with be fully shaken down. Sure I will decide on the departure date taking in to account their weather router but making my own decision. However, I believe as long as you don't fall into the herd mentality the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Just the deals on the satphone and how being part of it eases the logistics make it a great opportunity. I think our fundamental divergence is I believe they make it clear to you that you (not them) are responsible for your decisions and safety. Given that I respectfully believe your objections are not germane. As Jeff Foxworthy says " You can't fix stupid".
> 
> P.S.- Can others get in on that race? Can see the headline "Dilettantes Destroy Dedicated Professionals In Do or Die Race"


Actually, I think that's awesome Out. Make sure to keep a blog of your experience - with the issues at play in this thread in mind. I would love to follow your story and how these issues play out via an actual _objective_ participant.

I assume you do have at least one bluewater passage on your CV? Heh-heh.


----------



## outbound

Yeh- more than one - even some BFSs.:laugher


----------



## outbound

Smack - I know its been some time since anyone looked at this thread. Since then have been doing some serious thinking and have had multiple conversations with experienced cruisers as well as getting info from OBO and SDR. Net result is I respectfully suggest at present if you want to go from New England to the eastern Caribbean the SDR rally remains one of the best options for a cruiser just entering the life full time. Leaving from Newport means a longer sail and more opportunity for weather. Leaving from points far south means headwinds, need to follow the gentleman's path and difficulty arranging crew for the many short passages. The rally and OBO offer supports that other ways of making this passage do not.
I respect your stated opinions about SDR but note given the responsibility for when to leave, who to leave with, and how to prep the boat are and have always been the responsibility of the captain/owner I do not feel your statements were sufficient to dissuade me from joining the fall rally. I sent them the $250. I'm working with Hank to line up crew. You can come visit me in the BVIs this November.
All the best and hope I never post a BFS.


----------



## smackdaddy

As I said above, out, you're far more experienced and prepared than a participant that meets their minimum standard. So in that regard, I have absolutely no problem with it (as it if mattered anyway). 

Just watch out for those guys that have only "one blue water passage" under their keels. Unlike you, they don't really know what they're getting into.


----------



## smackdaddy

Out - I just looked at the website for this year's Rally - and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. So - the rally is still open and "free" to complete greenhorns, but now you have to _pay at least $250_ to get any of the "benefits"?



> But, if you want to be able to purchase a Salty Dawg Burgee (available only to members with boats who are currently doing the Rally or have done the Rally) that will entitle you to all of the benefits, discounts and services that comes with the flag as well as all of the free benefits given by the sponsors, you can join as a member.


Safety and experience don't really matter - but mugs and skipper bags will cost you what you could have put into that rudder inspection.

I just have to shake my head. Oh well, there's always the waiver:



> *I recognize that off-shore cruising is an inherently dangerous activity. The risks include injury, loss of property, loss of life. As captain and/or crew on a vessel making an ocean passage, I must have appropriate training and experience*.
> I certify that I am engaging in this activity understanding the risks and agree that neither the Salty Dawg Rally, nor any of the
> organizers, officers, agents or volunteers thereof have or shall have any liability of any nature for any loss, damage, cost or
> injury (including death) arising out of my participation in the Salty Dawg Rally, the ocean crossing or any event related
> thereto.
> 
> I agree to indemnify, save and hold harmless the Salty Dawg Rally, the organizers, officers, agents and volunteers from and
> against any claim or liability arising out of my participation in the rally and related events with respect to myself, my crew, my
> boat, any other participant or person who may make a claim against the Salty Dawg Rally related to the rally.
> I accept the jurisdiction of the Salty Dawg Rally with respect to eligibility, disqualification, or awards.


----------



## outbound

Going me, an experienced captain and two others. Breaks on dockage, sat phone etc. make it worth it. Flying the burgee would be a kick and distinguish me from charter boats in bvi. Having another opinion on weather window is helpful as well.
$250 is short money compared with the other expenses. ? Want to come?


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Going me, an experienced captain and two others. Breaks on dockage, sat phone etc. make it worth it. Flying the burgee would be a kick and distinguish me from charter boats in bvi. Having another opinion on weather window is helpful as well.
> $250 is short money compared with the other expenses. ? Want to come?


With you? Hell yes! I'd do it if I could.

It would be a great learning experience - and it would be especially fun to fight off 12 drunken SDRers on the beach who'd been reading all my posts here.

"There's that Smackdaddy bastard! Let's get 'em!"

But alas, I'll be prepping for a very big adventure coming up in January/February. I'll let the cat out of the bag soon as/if everything comes together.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Just watch out for those guys that have only "one blue water passage" under their keels. Unlike you, they don't really know what they're getting into.


You mean, like a significant percentage of the likely entrants in the Caribbean 1500?

Seriously, how can anyone make such a broad assertion? After a single offshore passage, some may have a very good idea what it's about... Others, after several more benign passages, _still_ might not...



smackdaddy said:


> Safety and experience don't really matter - but mugs and skipper bags will cost you what you could have put into that rudder inspection.
> 
> I just have to shake my head. Oh well, there's always the waiver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize that off-shore cruising is an inherently dangerous activity. The risks include injury, loss of property, loss of life. As captain and/or crew on a vessel making an ocean passage, I must have appropriate training and experience.
> I certify that I am engaging in this activity understanding the risks and agree that neither the Salty Dawg Rally, nor any of the
> organizers, officers, agents or volunteers thereof have or shall have any liability of any nature for any loss, damage, cost or
> injury (including death) arising out of my participation in the Salty Dawg Rally, the ocean crossing or any event related
> thereto.
> 
> I agree to indemnify, save and hold harmless the Salty Dawg Rally, the organizers, officers, agents and volunteers from and
> against any claim or liability arising out of my participation in the rally and related events with respect to myself, my crew, my
> boat, any other participant or person who may make a claim against the Salty Dawg Rally related to the rally.
> I accept the jurisdiction of the Salty Dawg Rally with respect to eligibility, disqualification, or awards.
Click to expand...

Just a WAG on my part, but I'll bet the participants in the Caribbean 1500 are compelled to sign a similar waiver, don't you think?

Although, I've gotta wonder why... Hell, with their stringent entry requirements, Safety Inspections, and their _"taking all the worry out of choosing a weather window"_ for the rally fleet, one might think they might demonstrate a bit more _Confidence_, and wouldn't feel the need to still have to indemnify the organization against liability in such a manner similar to the SDR, no?

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Seriously, how can anyone make such a broad assertion? After a single offshore passage, some may have a very good idea what it's about... Others, after several more benign passages, _still_ might not...


Why would any organized rally have such a "broad" requirement for entry? The exact opposite of your above assertion can be, and likely is, more common. And that's exactly the problem.

Look, I know your position and you know mine. All we - and/or the CG - can do now is pray for fair weather and wait. Because it seems the only lesson that has been learned from last year's SDR-debacle is that there's money to be had in this thing.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Look, I know your position and you know mine. All we - and/or the CG - can do now is pray for fair weather and wait. *Because it seems the only lesson that has been learned from last year's SDR-debacle is that there's money to be had in this thing.*


LOL! And, the Caribbean 1500 has been run for the past 25 years as a 'Public Service' to cruising sailors, absent any financial interest, their motives as Pure as the Driven Snow?

Damn, who knew? 

btw, has it ever been established what lesson, exactly, the organizers of the 1500 "learned", or what changes might have been put into effect, after the death of one of its participants a few years ago?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Uhh, you understand the difference between "FREE", and a $1500 'Entry Fee', I presume?


At least this bit of the argument is becoming less of an issue. "FREE" no more. You definitely get what you pay for, eh?

Back in March, I had high hopes that it wouldn't JUST be a money grab:



smackdaddy said:


> I was checking in to see how the SDR was progressing with their board review of the rescue debacle - and didn't see anything. However, they are looking for more cash!
> 
> The Salty Dawg Rally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SALTY DAWG RALLY - SUPPORTERS AND MEMBERSHIPS*
> A note for all Salty Dawgs from rally founders Linda and Bill Knowles, s/v Sapphire:
> 
> We would like to thank all the current and past Salty Dawgs, our sponsors, volunteers and everyone who has contributed to the success of the Salty Dawg Rally. We have grown beyond our wildest dreams. We want to make sure the Rally keeps growing, but with growth also comes increased workloads and operating expenses. Our sponsors and many Dawgs have donated lots of benefits to those who have become Dawgs but not enough money to cover the growing expenses...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, I'm fine with their becoming more like the WCC rallies if they also up the ante on the safety side accordingly.
> 
> Maybe that's what their board is really getting at after last year. They're just not specifically laying that out yet. Nothing good is really free, right?
Click to expand...

Oh well.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Out - I just looked at the website for this year's Rally - and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. *So - the rally is still open and "free" to complete greenhorns...*


Sorry, but it doesn't do much to support your argument, or enhance your credibility, by continuing to repeat such nonsensical disinformation...


----------



## smackdaddy

Out - all persnickitiness aside, here is one thing I'd actually like to get your view on when you go. After last year's issues, they put the following statement into their sponsorship section:



> The Salty Dawg Rally is a R.I. registered non-profit organization and for the next year will *demonstrate its roll as an educational organization by fostering and teaching seamanship, safe boat handling, navigation and other skills needed by blue water sailors.*


As you well know by now, this is exactly what I was hoping they'd do. If they are not going to raise the bar for entry, the least they can do is raise the standards of safety and seamanship for those coming in with only a single bluewater passage under their keels.

So, as you go through their rally it would be great to know how they are doing as this "educational organization". I hope that it's similar to the C1500's ISAF-based standards and expectations. If it is, then the SDR is a hell of a great deal - and I might even sponsor them. If not...well.

As was the case last year, out of the 15 or so events they had listed starting in July (they just revised their events calendar this morning by the way) - there is one single day listed for "seminars" on October 8* - and only for 100 people.

Their new calendar, updated this morning, has far less detail than it did yesterday, saying in the entry for the departure date on November 2 that "Dates for check in, seminars, and pig roast, BBQs and other fun pre departure events details will be posted soon."

So, if it IS a single day of seminars - I'm very curious about the curriculum as it regards their above statement. Are they fulfilling their "roll" [sic] in educating participants in the critical areas of safety and seamanship?

_*Less than a month prior to departure. I'd assume that even if they strongly encouraged participants in these seminars to get rudder and rig inspections (the majority of the failures last year) - that less than 4 weeks would be a stretch in repairing deficiencies and still making the departure date._

*PS - If I send you a free BFS hat and t-shirt, will you wear them to the seminars and pig roasts?*


----------



## Classic30

smackdaddy said:


> ... *demonstrate its roll as an educational organization*...
Click to expand...

Well, Smack, with perhaps a bit of persnickitiness added back, I do hope that, as an educational organization, they learn to spell.


----------



## aeventyr60

" So, if it IS a single day of seminars - I'm very curious about the curriculum as it regards their above statement. Are they fulfilling their "roll" [sic] in educating participants in the critical areas of safety and seamanship?"

How could any organization or an individual be educated in one day on the "critical areas of safety and seamanship"? Seems to be a bit of a stretch for me.


----------



## outbound

The education is one day of seminars in October. The courses look quite reasonable and worthwhile . Enough so I'll fly down for them.

D-mn straight I'll wear the BFS gear. I wore a very old greatful dead t shirt at the dinghy club so I have a rep to kept

Thing is sponsored by a bottom paint company so first talk is about paint. Rest is quite germane to passage making- rigging failures, steering, rafts, weather, boat prep.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> The education is one day of seminars in October. The courses look quite reasonable and worthwhile . Enough so I'll fly down for them.
> 
> D-mn straight I'll wear the BFS gear. I wore a very old greatful dead t shirt at the dinghy club so I have a rep to kept
> 
> Thing is sponsored by a bottom paint company so first talk is about paint. Rest is quite germane to passage making- rigging failures, steering, rafts, weather, boat prep.


Cool. It will be good to get an objective view of this. Lord knows I'm not objective...heh-heh.

Go over to bfsshop.com and sign up for an account and I'll set you up so you can order some gear. This is will be fun!


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> " So, if it IS a single day of seminars - I'm very curious about the curriculum as it regards their above statement. Are they fulfilling their "roll" [sic] in educating participants in the critical areas of safety and seamanship?"
> 
> How could any organization or an individual be educated in one day on the "critical areas of safety and seamanship"? Seems to be a bit of a stretch for me.


Well, the 1500 must have better instructors, if they can pull it off in 2 hours... 
With coffee and donuts provided, no less... 

Ocean Sailing Forum 2014 (Annapolis, MD)

Hmmm, speaking of dubious claims:



> Without a doubt the most difficult part of getting to the Caribbean is timing the weather window before departure. Fall on the East Coast is squeezed between late summer hurricane season and early winter gale season. *By joining the 1500, you can rest assured that the 'experts' are there to take the pressure off of that decision. Our support team consists of professional ocean sailors working closely with our weather forecasters at WRI to ENSURE the fleet makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions.*
> 
> Carib1500


----------



## smackdaddy

What do you have against the C1500, Jon?

I guess when a rally has the safety standards already in place - and applied to all participants - you don't need as much time in a seminar.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> What do you have against the C1500, Jon?
> 
> I guess when a rally has the safety standards already in place - and applied to all participants - you don't need as much time in a seminar.


I don't have anything against the 1500, actually... and, I think Andy Schell and his wife Mia are the best thing that's happened to that rally since it was bought by World Cruising...

I simply don't understand the criticism of the SDR, for doing many of the same things the 1500 does, or for making similar claims...

And, I just don't see having a safety inspection - which we've seen may, or may not be actually carried out - as making a critical difference, or being by definition better than having individual skippers take full responsibility for the preparation of their vessel, and crew... And, we're still waiting for any shred of evidence that any of the 1500's "Safety Standards" might have averted any of the difficulties suffered by the boats that called for S&R in last year's SDR...

As always, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this... But in my observation, I haven't seen all that much evidence that the organizers of the 1500 have always done such a hot job of "educating" their participants how best to prepare for such a passage, either...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I don't have anything against the 1500, actually... and, I think Andy Schell and his wife Mia are the best thing that's happened to that rally since it was bought by World Cruising...


Good!



JonEisberg said:


> I simply don't understand the criticism of the SDR, for doing many of the same things the 1500 does, or for making similar claims...


I don't at all criticize the SDR for doing the same things as the C1500. I criticize it for NOT doing the same things. See the difference?



JonEisberg said:


> And, I just don't see having a safety inspection - which we've seen may, or may not be actually carried out - as making a critical difference, or being by definition better than having individual skippers take full responsibility for the preparation of their vessel, and crew... And, we're still waiting for any shred of evidence that any of the 1500's "Safety Standards" might have averted any of the difficulties suffered by the boats that called for S&R in last year's SDR...


Again, surely you understand you're asking the impossible. "Proving" that - _any of the 1500's "Safety Standards" might have averted any of the difficulties suffered by the boats that called for S&R in last year's SDR_ - is kind of a silly thing to expect. Not really logical. The only thing you CAN do is compare the two rallies for that same year. The C1500 did really well. The SDR was a disaster. Those are facts. The only thing left, then, is to compare where one greatly differs from the other. Back to my point above.



JonEisberg said:


> As always, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this... But in my observation, I haven't seen all that much evidence that the organizers of the 1500 have always done such a hot job of "educating" their participants how best to prepare for such a passage, either...


Did that boat have to call in the CG?


----------



## outbound

Looking back all the rallies have had a bad year or two. Major issue for any rally or race is the weather. As far as I know this is not controlled by the organizers. As far as I know even the best be it Lee or Chris or anyone you care to name doesn't bat 1000.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Looking back all the rallies have had a bad year or two. Major issue for any rally or race is the weather. As far as I know this is not controlled by the organizers. As far as I know even the best be it Lee or Chris or anyone you care to name doesn't bat 1000.


That's exactly right. That's why the running argument Jon and I have is a bit silly. But it's fun, man!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Again, surely you understand you're asking the impossible. "Proving" that - _any of the 1500's "Safety Standards" might have averted any of the difficulties suffered by the boats that called for S&R in last year's SDR_ - is kind of a silly thing to expect. Not really logical.


What's "not really logical" is your relentless insistence that the SDR should be adopting "Safety Standards" similar to the 1500, without offering any evidence whatsoever that such standards would have made a shred of difference in what transpired last November... Individual skippers ceding responsibility to a rally organizer for the preparation of their boats and crew, and the choice of their departure, is inherently preferable simply _BECAUSE you say it is ???_



smackdaddy said:


> \The only thing you CAN do is compare the two rallies for that same year. The C1500 did really well. *The SDR was a disaster.*


C'mon, it wasn't _that_ bad... After all, at least nobody _DIED..._ Unlike during the 2010 Caribbean 1500, or the 2011 NARC... And, the percentage of boats abandoned in last year's SDR still pales in comparison to the NARC a few years ago, or during the 1500 back in 1998...



smackdaddy said:


> Those are facts. The only thing left, then, is to compare where one greatly differs from the other. Back to my point above.


Actually, "the facts" are that all of the boats in last year's SDR that got into trouble in the Stream departed roughly 2 days after the 1500. Thus, they encountered entirely different conditions in the vicinity of the Stream than the 1500 fleet had. None of the SDR boats that made the same call on the departure time as the 1500 - and thus sailed in similar weather conditions - experienced major problems, or ever called for assistance... But, you already knew that, right? 



smackdaddy said:


> Did that boat have to call in the CG?


No, they did not... They may have been _LUCKY_, it would seem...

That boat pictured sailed in the 1500 in 2011... That was the first year the WCC was running the 1500. After a couple of postponements, they were all set to sail, despite the fact that what became TS Sean was starting to get organized halfway down the rhumbline... Chris Parker got it right that year, and many of the 1500 participants who had also engaged the services of Chris balked at the notion of departing when the 1500's routers were giving the green light. Finally, at the final skipper's meeting the morning of the re-scheduled departure date, the organizers acceded to the wishes of those heeding Chris Parker's cautions, and agreed to postpone the departure once again... I thought it was the right call, i think it could have been ugly if they had left that day...

Now, if you think that manner I pictured of stowing a tender for such a passage is a seamanlike one, well... then we probably have nothing further to discuss...

)


----------



## Nancyleeny

I find this thread so interesting, especially the discussion of newbies buying a 40 foot boat and wanting to go offshore. Wow!! That's crazy. We are buying a big boat because we like staying overnight and my husband is tall. Having said that, we know we need help with learning how to sail this boat, and we are going to be in a lake. And take it slow, moving up to bigger winds as we get more experienced, and having experienced sailor friends with us for the first year. We just talked about how many years it would take to even consider going coastal cruising, and we agreed that it would be at least five, and maybe ten. And we both agreed we are too old already, in our early 50s, to gain the kind of experience we would need to ever cross an ocean, or even do the Newport to Bermuda run on our own.

Cowards?? I don't think so. My husband was a firefighter with the FDNY, and risked his life hundreds of times, including on 9/11. I actually think that protects him from taking unnecessary risks - he has nothing to prove and doesn't care one whit if people think he is being too cautious. We are new to sailing and not too proud to ask friends to help and if they aren't available, to ask for professionals to teach us more.

I think it's not hard to stay out of trouble. Don't put yourself in situations that are far above your experience. A bit, sure, that's how we will learn, but to take a 35 foot boat out in 25 knot winds the first time out, that's kooky!!

Just a Coward's opinion. 
Best,
Nancy


----------



## aa3jy

Nancyleeny said:


> I find this thread so interesting, especially the discussion of newbies buying a 40 foot boat and wanting to go offshore. Wow!! That's crazy. We are buying a big boat because we like staying overnight and my husband is tall. Having said that, we know we need help with learning how to sail this boat, and we are going to be in a lake. And take it slow, moving up to bigger winds as we get more experienced, and having experienced sailor friends with us for the first year. We just talked about how many years it would take to even consider going coastal cruising, and we agreed that it would be at least five, and maybe ten. And we both agreed we are too old already, in our early 50s, to gain the kind of experience we would need to ever cross an ocean, or even do the Newport to Bermuda run on our own.
> 
> Cowards?? I don't think so. My husband was a firefighter with the FDNY, and risked his life hundreds of times, including on 9/11. I actually think that protects him from taking unnecessary risks - he has nothing to prove and doesn't care one whit if people think he is being too cautious. We are new to sailing and not too proud to ask friends to help and if they aren't available, to ask for professionals to teach us more.
> 
> I think it's not hard to stay out of trouble. Don't put yourself in situations that are far above your experience. A bit, sure, that's how we will learn, but to take a 35 foot boat out in 25 knot winds the first time out, that's kooky!!
> 
> Just a Coward's opinion.
> Best,
> Nancy


"We don't need no 'Stick'n training...."

The INTERVIEW WITH A CRUISER Project: 10 Questions for Bumfuzzle

..up set some of the guru cruiser experts


----------



## Nancyleeny

aa3jy said:


> "We don't need no 'Stick'n training...."
> 
> The INTERVIEW WITH A CRUISER Project: 10 Questions for Bumfuzzle
> 
> ..up set some of the guru cruiser experts


Whoa!! All I can say is that they are braver than we are.


----------



## aa3jy

"What are your impressions of the cruising community? 
The cruising community surprised us a little bit with their pessimism and somewhat elitist attitude. That's generalizing greatly of course, but near to home it seemed most people we talked with didn't put much stock in our ability to sail a small boat around the world. Further afield the long term cruisers we ran into seemed to be in some sort of competition revolving around how long they'd been out cruising. We never really felt we meshed with the cruising community. That may have been due to our age at the time, or simply to our differences in perspectives."

..an interesting 'perspective...' Quoted


----------



## JonEisberg

aa3jy said:


> "We don't need no 'Stick'n training...."
> 
> The INTERVIEW WITH A CRUISER Project: 10 Questions for Bumfuzzle
> 
> ..up set some of the guru cruiser experts


Well, I'm not sure how relevant the introduction of The Legendary Bumfuzzles might be to this particular topic... They might never have attained their status as Cruising Icons had they selected the late fall trip from the east coats to the islands as their first offshore passage, after all... 

Certainly, this comment from that interview:



> It seems to us that with today's weather forecasting that is available by e-mail at any time that there is little reason to get caught out in seriously bad weather.


...sounds rather naive, given the fact that the passage these rallies undertake tends to fool even the best offshore weather routers in the business with a surprisingly high degree of regularity...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I'm not sure how relevant the introduction of The Legendary Bumfuzzles might be to this particular topic... They might never have attained their status as Cruising Icons had they selected the late fall trip from the east coats to the islands as their first offshore passage, after all...
> 
> Certainly, this comment from that interview:
> 
> ...sounds rather naive, given the fact that the passage these rallies undertake tends to fool even the best offshore weather routers in the business with a surprisingly high degree of regularity...


Actually, it's pretty relevant. The Bumfuzzles _literally had NO schedule_ - at all. The Rallies do. So, like we saw last year, the rally routers are trying to look for very narrow windows to get everyone through in time for the pig roast. One router got it right - the other got it wrong.

Maybe we should all learn something from the Bumfuzzles.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, it's pretty relevant. *The Bumfuzzles literally had NO schedule - at all.*


Really? Damn, I could have sworn theirs was a typical Milk Run circumnavigation, in tune with the seasons... You know, arriving in the Marquesas along with everyone else, avoiding cyclone season across the Pacific like everyone else, planning their Indian Ocean crossing around the monsoon, getting out of the Med prior to the onset of winter, and sailing back across the Atlantic at the same time pretty much everyone else does it... No schedule whatsoever, huh? Are you suggesting they might be just as likely to undertake the route these rallies sail in the middle of hurricane season, as in the middle of winter, being as they are not constrained by 'schedules', or the dictates of their insurer, in any way?

Most everyone sails to a 'schedule', some are simply looser than others... (There are some pretty compelling reasons why the Bermuda Races are run in June, rather than August, or September.) But there are several ocean passages cruising sailors routinely undertake that have very narrow windows of opportunity. The passage between NZ and Fiji and Tonga, for example. Or the fall crossing of the Bay of Biscay from the British Isles/Baltic. As we saw this spring, even the window of opportunity back to the Azores from the Caribbean can be surprisingly brief... However, there are probably no popular passages that offer a more compressed time frame than the late fall trip from the Eastern seaboard to the islands... Especially, given the twin constraints of Hurricane season/insurance dictates, and the American holiday season, that are placed upon most who make the trip...

One of the primary reasons Bill & Linda Knowles were inspired to start the SDR, was when they heard of the departure date of the next Caribbean 1500, which they were planning to sail in once again. This was the first year the 1500 was run by the WCC, and the organizers being Brits, they might have lacked an appreciation for the importance of our Thanksgiving holiday. The date they'd chosen was around the 8th of November, if memory serves - which of course left virtually no wiggle room for crews to be back home for Turkey Day, in the event of any postponement, or even a slower than average passage...

Certainly, it can be argued that's not the way it should be... However, the simple reality is that it IS the way it is for most participants... The vast majority of boats are taking along friends/extra crew for this passage, but with the understanding that most everyone is committed to being back home for Thanksgiving. If you've ever been in Hampton, and sat thru a couple of postponements in departure due to weather, it's only a few days before a mass exodus of crewmembers will begin... In 2011, the most recent year I was there waiting along with everyone else, Charlie Doane himself was one of the many who felt compelled to bail out...



> I decided I had to pull the plug on my participation in this year's Caribbean 1500 on Wednesday afternoon after rally HQ announced they were postponing the start once again until this morning. I was reluctant to do this, but the "squash zone" between my prospective arrival time in the BVI and the Thanksgiving holiday was getting a little too tight for comfort.
> 
> CARIBBEAN 1500 RALLY: They Leave Without Me | Sailfeed





smackdaddy said:


> So, like we saw last year, the rally routers are trying to look for very narrow windows to get everyone through in time for the pig roast.


You know, you might want to give your repeated mocking references to the SDR's pig roast a rest... In this instance, it's especially nonsensical relative to the point you're attempting to make, given that the infamous pig roast is held _PRIOR_ to the fleet's departure from Hampton... 

And, you continue to cite the SDR for faults that the 1500 is even _MORE_ guilty of... The 1500's awards dinner this year is scheduled for November 14, the SDR's final get-together not until the 21st... Gee, with both rallies estimating identical departure dates, which one do you suppose might feel more compelled to adhere to a 'scheduled' departure date, huh?


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> The date they'd chosen was around the 8th of November, if memory serves - which of course left virtually no wiggle room for crews to be back home for Turkey Day, in the event of any postponement, or even a slower than average passage...


Janet and I spent Thanksgiving in the Bahamas one year. It was great, even if the canned ham was a disaster. Next time we do something like that we'll take smoked ham we can hang somewhere.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well, JonE, having one's schedule be set by _the seasons_ is very different from this:

The start:


> Nov 2, 2014 • Hampton, VA • Fall 2014 Salty Dawg Rally departure.


The "finish":









So, as you say, November 21 is the finale party. And December 20 is when they "turn out the lights". I don't know about other events that are scheduled for the arrival of the fleet (additional pig roasts, sundowners, beach parties, whatever) as they aren't yet on the SDR schedule. But you can be pretty sure there are several.

So, the clock is definitely ticking for these participants (not to even mention the Thanksgiving issue). And it has nothing to do with hurricanes or monsoons.

(Oh - and I'm not making a distinction between the SDR and the C1500 in this argument. These issues are the same with virtually any rally - which is why I'm not a fan in general. My point is that the Bumfuzzles at least got the "no schedule" part very right.)


----------



## outbound

Smack
Sounds good to me. Finish a long passage of around11d and have the issues of the land fall sorted out. 
Thing you continue to miss is they say very clearly is exact date of departure is left to captains discretion. Reality is this is the obligate season for this passage which why bill/ Linda picked this time. Weather routers are good for 5 d at best and while underway can only give you a statistical probability of best course. Any knows making best easting as soon as possible is best. Leaving from this area increases probability of a benign stream crossing. Few people can line up crew and keep them ( and themselves) together for more than two weeks. 
I hold you in high regard but is your position my way or the highway just like our favorite poster BS.


----------



## smackdaddy

No out, it's not my way or the highway at all. But I still hold the same stance I've held for the whole of the thread. 

I think the SDR is a great rally for experienced, responsible sailors. I think it's outright dangerous for new sailors (i.e. - one blue water passage). What people want to do with this viewpoint is entirely up to them.


----------



## outbound

But Smack any passage is dangerous for new sailors. In fact as SDR states in an effort to indemnify themselves ocean sailing is "an inherently dangerous activity". One would add this is true for all of us. Such an inexperienced person would be very well advised to have a pro captain or very experienced crew. They would also be well advised to delegate the captain role to one more experienced. As stated the insurance companies will place limits on the occurrence of unsafe voyages. Beyond this as Jeff said "You can't fix stupid". No amount of regulation will fix that. If insurance and/or regulations of the rally are so restrictive the inexperienced may choose to leave and follow in proximity to the rally. They only have to pick one of us as a buddy boat on AIS or as a MARPA target. SSB is an open system. They can also make use of that in a parasitic fashion.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> But Smack *any passage is dangerous for new sailors*. In fact as SDR states in an effort to indemnify themselves *ocean sailing is "an inherently dangerous activity"*. One would add this is true for all of us. *Such an inexperienced person would be very well advised to have a pro captain or very experienced crew. They would also be well advised to delegate the captain role to one more experienced.*


Out - all of this is absolutely correct. Now if only the SDR would agree with you and raise their standards for entry there would be no debate.



outbound said:


> As stated* the insurance companies will place limits on the occurrence of unsafe voyages.* Beyond this as Jeff said "You can't fix stupid". No amount of regulation will fix that. If insurance and/or regulations of the rally are so restrictive the inexperienced may choose to leave and follow in proximity to the rally. They only have to pick one of us as a buddy boat on AIS or as a MARPA target. SSB is an open system. They can also make use of that in a parasitic fashion.


After last year's debacle, I can virtually guarantee you that the insurance companies are watching the SDR very closely - as is the CG (remember the Notice to Mariners?). If the SDR gets stupid again, it will be fixed.

And in that vein, if an inexperienced sailor chooses to shadow the SDR over the C1500 - well, he should have his head examined by a brain doctor in BFS gear at a pig roast. You know anyone?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> After last year's debacle, I can virtually guarantee you that the insurance companies are watching the SDR very closely - as is the CG (remember the Notice to Mariners?). *If the SDR gets stupid again, it will be fixed.*


Please explain how ANY of the incidents involving boats that required assistance
last fall were due to the "SDR's _stupidity_"... What did that "stupidity" entail, exactly? Following the advice of one of the most renowned weather routers in the business, perhaps?

I've previously linked to the published accounts in CRUISING WORLD from the Alden 46 ZULU, and the blog of the HC 38 that was dismasted... What did they do, precisely, that was "stupid"? And why would the insurors of those vessels hold the organizers of the rally accountable, rather than their owners/skippers themselves?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> And why would the insurors of those vessels hold the organizers of the rally accountable, rather than their owners/skippers themselves?


Handy for the SDR, eh?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Handy for the SDR, eh?


So, in other words, you got nuthin'...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> My point is that the Bumfuzzles at least got the "no schedule" part very right.)


So, then - how do you suppose the Bums would have handled this passage? Given their "no schedule" attitude, coupled with their somewhat 'casual' attitude towards weather forecasting?

From their article in LATITUDES & ATTITUDES, May 2006:



> We spend exactly 5 minutes per week on weather forecasting, no more. I'm a finance major, I don't know what barometric pressure is.


Theirs is the example people contemplating a late fall passage to the Caribbean should be following, eh? YCMTSU...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> So, then - how do you suppose the Bums would have handled this passage? Given their "no schedule" attitude, coupled with their somewhat 'casual' attitude towards weather forecasting?
> 
> From their article in LATITUDES & ATTITUDES, May 2006:
> 
> Theirs is the example people contemplating a late fall passage to the Caribbean should be following, eh? YCMTSU...


And yet 5 indubitably qualified SDRers had to call in the CG - when the Bumfuzzles never did for an entire circumnavigation. I don't have to make stuff up.

The point is simple - if you have only one bluewater passage under your keel either get rid of the schedule or go with a responsible rally like the C1500.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And yet 5 indubitably qualified SDRers had to call in the CG - when the Bumfuzzles never did for an entire circumnavigation. I don't have to make stuff up.
> 
> The point is simple - if you have only one bluewater passage under your keel either get rid of the schedule or go with a responsible rally like the C1500.


Aw, what the hell... I'll give it another shot, for the _UMPTEENTH_ time... 

How, precisely, was the "irresponsibility" of the organizers of the SDR a contributing factor to any of those 5 SARs? Or, what role did the skipper's alleged lack of experience play in any of those incidents?

I have already shown, hundreds of posts back, that many of those skippers were quite experienced... Moreover, what evidence is there to support the supposition that any of these incidents would have been less likely to occur, had these boats been part of the 1500, instead?

*ZULU* - The Alden 54 that suffered the loss of her rudder... Her owner is a member of the New York, Bristol, and Great Harbor Yacht Clubs. She had previously completed the brutal 2011 NARC rally, with no issues... Verdict: "Inexperience" not likely to be a significant issue...

*JAMMIN'* - the Catalina 42 that also lost her rudder... These folks have been full-time cruisers since 2007, starting from the West Coast... They had made the trip back and forth to the Islands a couple of times before...
Verdict: "Lack of experience" not bloody likely to have been an issue...

*LIKE DOLPHINS* - a Catana 47 that was dismasted... Her owners are from freakin' _BELGIUM_, so they have at least one Transatlantic crossing under their belts...
Verdict: I doubt their dismasting was due to a lack of experience...

*NYAPA *- the Hans Christian 38 also dismasted... This year was to be their 3rd time out cruising for an extended period, their first time out was 25 years ago after they were first married... 2nd cruise was a 5 year affair with their 3 daughters, starting on the West coast, thru the Canal and most of the Caribbean, and ending at home in New England, where they worked to replenish the cruising kitty, and refit for another extended cruise...
Verdict: "Lack of experience"??? Seriously???

*WINGS* - the C-38 abandoned after being 'disabled'... Another full-time cruising couple, their home port was Duluth, MN - you know, on that puny bathtub called _Lake freakin' SUPERIOR_ ? They had already made it down to the Bahamas, spent at least a year without ever coming alongside a dock, then had returned to the Chesapeake, where they planned to sail with the SDR...
Verdict: Information on this couple is the hardest to obtain, but I it certainly does not appear they would fit anyone's reasonable definition of "Inexperienced"...

*BRAVEHEART* - the Tartan 4600 that diverted to Beaufort after a crewmember suffered a broken arm...Her owners were veterans of previous Caribbean 1500s, as long ago as 2006...
Verdict: "Inexperienced"? Yeah, OK, if you say so...

Seriously, smack... In all my years of hanging out on sailing forums, I don't believe I have EVER seen anyone cling so desperately to an argument, without being able to offer a _SINGLE_ bit of factual evidence in support of it...

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Aw, what the hell... I'll give it another shot, for the _UMPTEENTH_ time...
> 
> How, precisely, was the "irresponsibility" of the organizers of the SDR a contributing factor to any of those 5 SARs? Or, what role did the skipper's alleged lack of experience play in any of those incidents?
> 
> I have already shown, hundreds of posts back, that many of those skippers were quite experienced... Moreover, what evidence is there to support the supposition that any of these incidents would have been less likely to occur, had these boats been part of the 1500, instead?
> 
> *ZULU* - The Alden 54 that suffered the loss of her rudder... Her owner is a member of the New York, Bristol, and Great Harbor Yacht Clubs. She had previously completed the brutal 2011 NARC rally, with no issues... Verdict: "Inexperience" not likely to be a significant issue...
> 
> *JAMMIN'* - the Catalina 42 that also lost her rudder... These folks have been full-time cruisers since 2007, starting from the West Coast... They had made the trip back and forth to the Islands a couple of times before...
> Verdict: "Lack of experience" not bloody likely to have been an issue...
> 
> *LIKE DOLPHINS* - a Catana 47 that was dismasted... Her owners are from freakin' _BELGIUM_, so they have at least one Transatlantic crossing under their belts...
> Verdict: I doubt their dismasting was due to a lack of experience...
> 
> *NYAPA *- the Hans Christian 38 also dismasted... This year was to be their 3rd time out cruising for an extended period, their first time out was 25 years ago after they were first married... 2nd cruise was a 5 year affair with their 3 daughters, starting on the West coast, thru the Canal and most of the Caribbean, and ending at home in New England, where they worked to replenish the cruising kitty, and refit for another extended cruise...
> Verdict: "Lack of experience"??? Seriously???
> 
> *WINGS* - the C-38 abandoned after being 'disabled'... Another full-time cruising couple, their home port was Duluth, MN - you know, on that puny bathtub called _Lake freakin' SUPERIOR_ ? They had already made it down to the Bahamas, spent at least a year without ever coming alongside a dock, then had returned to the Chesapeake, where they planned to sail with the SDR...
> Verdict: Information on this couple is the hardest to obtain, but I it certainly does not appear they would fit anyone's reasonable definition of "Inexperienced"...
> 
> *BRAVEHEART* - the Tartan 4600 that diverted to Beaufort after a crewmember suffered a broken arm...Her owners were veterans of previous Caribbean 1500s, as long ago as 2006...
> Verdict: "Inexperienced"? Yeah, OK, if you say so...
> 
> Seriously, smack... In all my years of hanging out on sailing forums, I don't believe I have EVER seen anyone cling so desperately to an argument, without being able to offer a _SINGLE_ bit of factual evidence in support of it...
> 
> )


That's because you keep missing my point...over and over again. Let me try it this way...

The Bumfuzzles were utterly and undeniably inexperienced, right? Yet they never had to call in the CG during an _entire circ_. Everyone you listed above are definitely "experienced"...and _every one of them_ had to call in the CG on the same exact run.

So what is the difference between the two instances? Simple: Lack of a schedule and the resulting ability to avoid bad weather in the case of the Bumfuzzles...even though they admittedly sucked at the whole weather forecasting thing. Your experienced sailors, on the other hand, had a tight window, but had a "pro" forecasting for them (unlike the Bumfuzzles) - and _every single one of them_ had to call for help. Hmmm.

So, again, my point here, as always, is this:

If you're new to offshore passages (i.e. - you only have a single bluewater passage under your keel) the evidence Jon has laid out clearly shows that you shouldn't join any rally with its arbitrarily set schedule. Follow in the much safer path of the Bumfuzzles and go when its right to go. However, if you insist on joining a rally, it clearly should NOT be the one where all of the above experienced sailors had to call for help in a single night.

I guess that would leave the C1500.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> That's because you keep missing my point...over and over again. Let me try it this way...
> 
> The Bumfuzzles were utterly and undeniably inexperienced, right? Yet they never had to call in the CG during an _entire circ_. Everyone you listed above are definitely "experienced"...and _every one of them_ had to call in the CG on the same exact run.
> 
> So what is the difference between the two instances? Simple: Lack of a schedule and the resulting ability to avoid bad weather in the case of the Bumfuzzles...even though they admittedly sucked at the whole weather forecasting thing. Your experienced sailors, on the other hand, had a tight window, but had a "pro" forecasting for them (unlike the Bumfuzzles) - and _every single one of them_ had to call for help. Hmmm.
> 
> So, again, my point here, as always, is this:
> 
> If you're new to offshore passages (i.e. - you only have a single bluewater passage under your keel) the evidence Jon has laid out clearly shows that you shouldn't join any rally with its arbitrarily set schedule. Follow in the much safer path of the Bumfuzzles and go when its right to go. However, if you insist on joining a rally, it clearly should NOT be the one where all of the above experienced sailors had to call for help in a single night.
> 
> I guess that would leave the C1500.


UFB... So, while arguing that sailing to a schedule is the real problem, here, if a less experienced passagemaker intends to make this trip, ideally he should go with _the rally that features the more rigid schedule..._ ???

Do you seriously believe that any of those boats cited above did NOT think it was "the right time to go" when they left? Forecasts are sometimes in error, weather (particularly on a route such as this) does not always play out as expected. THAT is what happened last year, why not simply admit people should go with the 1500 because they have the better routers, who will never miss a call?

I swear, smack... if anyone else is still reading this thread, I'll bet there might be more than a couple who are hoping it's the 1500 fleet that gets hammered next time, simply to prove how wrongheaded you are on this one...

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> UFB... So, while arguing that sailing to a schedule is the real problem, here, if a less experienced passagemaker intends to make this trip, ideally he should go with _the rally that features the more rigid schedule..._ ???


No silly. Go with the one that has some safety standards.



JonEisberg said:


> Do you seriously believe that any of those boats cited above did NOT think it was "the right time to go" when they left? Forecasts are sometimes in error, weather (particularly on a route such as this) does not always play out as expected. THAT is what happened last year, why not simply admit people should go with the 1500 because they have the better routers, who will never miss a call?


The problems were in the SDR - not the C1500. That's all I'm saying. And it's indisputably true. How you try to justify the SDR's problems is your business. I don't feel the need to try.



JonEisberg said:


> I swear, smack... if anyone else is still reading this thread, I'll bet there might be more than a couple who are hoping it's the 1500 fleet that gets hammered next time, simply to prove how wrongheaded you are on this one...


Wow. Now that would just be mean and petty.


----------



## outbound

Smack- in a earlier post you said(paraphrase ) you enjoy this thread because the argument with Jon was fun. Whenever I have internet access I look look at this thread daily. My life and boat( house) is on the line with this decision. Although the argument is between you and Jon I post to give voice for others like me actually making this trip. I think you need to acknowledge the perspective of those who actually have skin in the game.
Choices
Leave from Newport or leave from mid coast. Mid coast would appear safer. Leave from Florida and do Gentlemans way- not practical for many of us.
Get router routing for hundreds of boats or just for you. Router for many may choose more wisely but in either case you need to make your own decision as most do even inside a rally. 
Go in rally or not. Given inside a rally or not you will still need to sail your own boat. Safety depends on structure,design,preparation of your boat and your choice of crew. I view this the same as a group motorcycle ride." You ride the ride you brought". 
Expense of rally. Smack if you ever sat down and looked at the expense of either rally versus the expense of the voyage you would realize rally expense is trivial c/w voyage expense. This simply doesn't enter the decision matrix.
Hence as Jon has repetively stated given the constrains of hurricane season and probability of winter storms even without the artificialities of rallies and insurance fall is the obligate time to do this trip. Most you can reasonably vary is a week to 10d given external constraints. Practicality suggests for the majority of us variance is more likely a week or less. Given weather forecasting for more than 5 d is voodoo at best adjusting timing of departure may allow accomendation for one system at best. Equally important is in route input to your course planning. Here rallies may be helpful. You still need to look,at your 500mb and gribs and make your own decision. There is little downside as once again your departure date is your decision. 
In short as regards safety choice of rally and in fact being in a rally makes little difference. The elephant in the room is you, your boat and your crew. You are making a tempest in a teacup. Bill,and Linda are good helpful people. Involvement with them has been quite helpful. The proof of the value of this rally is the high number of repeat parcipitants . Let it go Smack. Jon is right on this one.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack- in a earlier post you said(paraphrase ) you enjoy this thread because the argument with Jon was fun. Whenever I have internet access I look look at this thread daily. My life and boat( house) is on the line with this decision. Although the argument is between you and Jon I post to give voice for others like me actually making this trip. I think you need to acknowledge the perspective of those who actually have skin in the game.
> Choices
> Leave from Newport or leave from mid coast. Mid coast would appear safer. Leave from Florida and do Gentlemans way- not practical for many of us.
> Get router routing for hundreds of boats or just for you. Router for many may choose more wisely but in either case you need to make your own decision as most do even inside a rally.
> Go in rally or not. Given inside a rally or not you will still need to sail your own boat. Safety depends on structure,design,preparation of your boat and your choice of crew. I view this the same as a group motorcycle ride." You ride the ride you brought".
> Expense of rally. Smack if you ever sat down and looked at the expense of either rally versus the expense of the voyage you would realize rally expense is trivial c/w voyage expense. This simply doesn't enter the decision matrix.
> Hence as Jon has repetively stated given the constrains of hurricane season and probability of winter storms even without the artificialities of rallies and insurance fall is the obligate time to do this trip. Most you can reasonably vary is a week to 10d given external constraints. Practicality suggests for the majority of us variance is more likely a week or less. Given weather forecasting for more than 5 d is voodoo at best adjusting timing of departure may allow accomendation for one system at best. Equally important is in route input to your course planning. Here rallies may be helpful. You still need to look,at your 500mb and gribs and make your own decision. There is little downside as once again your departure date is your decision.
> In short as regards safety choice of rally and in fact being in a rally makes little difference. The elephant in the room is you, your boat and your crew. You are making a tempest in a teacup. Bill,and Linda are good helpful people. Involvement with them has been quite helpful. The proof of the value of this rally is the high number of repeat parcipitants . Let it go Smack. Jon is right on this one.


Sorry, out, no can do. Otherwise I would have let it go a long time ago. I understand if arguing like this makes you uncomfortable. But I honestly don't think Jon takes any of this personally (I know I don't). We're simply debating two sides of an issue. People will learn from that debate and make up their own minds.

There is the idea of rallies in general (which you've walked through above - and all of that is perfectly valid) - then there are the finer points of a rally that has a low standard of entry and virtually no safety standards vs. a rally that offers pretty robust safety standards in addition to everything else (and if cost is not really a factor - why not choose safety?).

_*For newer sailors*_ I continue to think that the SDR in particular is a dangerous rally. I really do. Their record thus far certainly seems to indicate that. Maybe that record will improve and I'll have less of a case. But as of today the SDR still has a serious black eye of its own making - irrespective of how much Jon wants to cover it with makeup.

Now, you've put skin in that SDR game - and I'm not harping on you personally AT ALL. You have far more experience than the SDR entry requirements AND, if I recall correctly, you've brought _additional experience_ onto the boat. As far as I'm concerned, you're doing everything right.


----------



## outbound

Thanks Smack. What I still don't understand is given you tactically acknowledge is in the absence of the SDR the folks you think are unsafe will go ANYWAY how your argument holds water? 
The folks I've met doing or who have done the the SDR are as or more safety aware than me. Jon has pointed out the boats that got into trouble were well founded with experienced crew. As Jon seemed to ask can you name a single instance where your discomfort about the SDR actually lead to an adverse outcome? Your position would suggest your issue is with Chris not Jon or me and Chris is one of the best there is. To ask it another way. Let's say SDR makes changes- What changes? How does this change outcomes? What evidence do you have? In short as Cap Ron said" if it's going to happen it will happen out there".
It seems to be the nanny state argument you are proposing. Maybe you would like us to be like the EU with onerous licensing and course requirements? I know better than you works except for the opportunity to bail on rallies altogether which increases the opportunities for SAR events as interacting with rally members not only organizers is another major source of education. I'm trying to get the prospective folks who are thinking to do this passage to be safe. I'm concerned the logic of your thinking will either lead to nanny state or less U.S. sailors living the dream or doing it unsafely.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Thanks Smack. What I still don't understand is given you tactically acknowledge is in the absence of the SDR the folks you think are unsafe will go ANYWAY how your argument holds water?


My point is that if such newer sailors are going to go anyway the C1500 is far-and-away the better choice precisely because of its safety standards. And if, as you say, the cost is not really an issue, there should be no question about which is the better rally for that sailor. My hunch, however, is that cost is a very big factor as to why the SDR is growing in numbers so quickly. I just don't think that's a good thing.



outbound said:


> The folks I've met doing or who have done the the SDR are as or more safety aware than me. Jon has pointed out the boats that got into trouble were well founded with experienced crew. As Jon seemed to ask can you name a single instance where your discomfort about the SDR actually lead to an adverse outcome?


A single instance? Jon's list of 5 is proof enough for me. But in addition to that, the *USCG put out a Marine Alert* right after last year's debacle specifically pointing out the SDR. To my knowledge, there's never been one of those for the C1500 despite a few SAR cases over its many years. Again, the USCG firing a warning shot across the bow of a particular rally is proof enough for me.



outbound said:


> Your position would suggest your issue is with Chris not Jon or me and Chris is one of the best there is. To ask it another way. Let's say SDR makes changes- What changes? How does this change outcomes? What evidence do you have? In short as Cap Ron said" if it's going to happen it will happen out there".


The changes I've advocated for the SDR are very simple:

1. Up the standards for entry. For example, stick with the roots of this rally and make it for those who have either already done the C1500, or have done this route at this time of year multiple times.

-or-

2. Adopt safety standards and inspections similar to the C1500.

The SDR claims to be an "educational organization" for safety and seamanship. They need to show it.



outbound said:


> It seems to be the nanny state argument you are proposing. Maybe you would like us to be like the EU with onerous licensing and corse requirements?


It's a "nanny state" only when one HAS to do a rally to get out there. That's not the case at all. In fact, as I've said, I personally don't think rallies in general are all that great. But, I would be fine with leaving the SDR exactly as it is (without safety standards or inspections) IF they upped the standard for entry to better match the level of risk they foster.



outbound said:


> I know better than you works except for the opportunity to bail on rallies altogether which increases the opportunities for SAR events as interacting with rally members not only organizers is another major source of education.


Again, to my knowledge, the SDR is the only cruising rally I know of to have the distinction of warranting a USCG Maritime Alert. Why? Precisely because of the number of SAR events last year in a single day in a fleet of what were supposed to be experienced sailors. If you can't see something really off in that scenario, I don't know what else to say.



outbound said:


> I'm trying to get the prospective folks who are thinking to do this passage to be safe. I'm concerned the logic of your thinking will either lead to nanny state or less U.S. sailors living the dream or doing it unsafely.


I'm all for any sailor out there living the dream. I just don't think a rally is necessary for that. In fact, purely going by the numbers and the sentiments of the USCG, one of them seems to be downright dangerous to that dream if you have only one bluewater passage under your keel.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Smack
sorry to say but I think you are wrong on this one. if you need the 'safety' of a rally, in terms of inspections, instruction, or having someone close if something happens, you should not be out there at all. If you do the rally for the social aspects that is fine.

I think there is a tendency to underestimate the challenge of going from the Chesapeake to the islands in November. This is a very serious passage. If you do a circumnavigation via Suez is is likely the most challenging passage of all (ignoring guys in motor boats who want to have you visit them for a time). If you go via South Africa it will be close to Mauritius-Richards Bay in challenge. The problem for new cruisers in eastern North America is that this nasty bit comes first. Such is life though. Either rally is just fine as far as I am concerned (we did neither). It may be a piece of cake or you may get the crap kicked out of you on either. What did or did not happen to the Bumfuzzles is irrelevant. They won the lottery and did not get the kind of nastiness that can happen. If they gotten into a winter storm four days out and had to push the big red button, people would be all over them for being inexperienced and unprepared.

I disagree about the cost aspect. If you look at it in terms of the total cost of buying and prepping a boat it is irrelevant but if you look at is as an additional cost, after the boat costs it is far from irrelevant.

To me the thought process is:
1. My boat and crew are up to it, I want to sail to the Caribbean during that brief weather/insurance window at the beginning of November.
2. I want to socialize with others doing the same thing? YES - join a rally; NO - go by yourself


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> Smack
> sorry to say but I think you are wrong on this one. *if you need the 'safety' of a rally, in terms of inspections, instruction, or having someone close if something happens, you should not be out there at all.* If you do the rally for the social aspects that is fine.


No need to be apologetic. I've been wrong once or twice before. The bottom line is that I generally agree with the bold part. The rallies certainly don't market themselves that way though. That's the problem. And I'm looking at all this through the eyes of a less-experienced sailor being drawn to the idea of a rally - which is exactly the opposite of how you or Jon or even Out would look at this.



killarney_sailor said:


> I think there is a tendency to underestimate the challenge of going from the Chesapeake to the islands in November. This is a very serious passage... The problem for new cruisers in eastern North America is that this nasty bit comes first.


Again, I totally agree with you Kil. And, because of this, I suspect you would NOT say that a sailor with one "bluewater passage" under his keel is ready for such a serious passage. That's my problem with the SDR. They do say that in their marketing.



killarney_sailor said:


> What did or did not happen to the Bumfuzzles is irrelevant. They won the lottery and did not get the kind of nastiness that can happen. If they gotten into a winter storm four days out and had to push the big red button, people would be all over them for being inexperienced and unprepared.


Absolutely. No argument there. The only reason I brought them up is that they eschewed a schedule which definitely stacked the odds in their favor. Not having a strict schedule is pretty widely-held as a good thing in terms of prudent seamanship. The evidence seems to bear this out.



killarney_sailor said:


> I disagree about the cost aspect. If you look at it in terms of the total cost of buying and prepping a boat it is irrelevant but if you look at is as an additional cost, after the boat costs it is far from irrelevant.


That was out's point. I'll let him address it as I agree with you. I think cost is a big factor in this decision - in a bad way.


----------



## transmitterdan

The Bumfuzzles are a sample size of 1. Drawing statistical conclusions from such a small sample size is not possible. Sometimes crap doesn't happen. Sometimes it does.


----------



## goboatingnow

transmitterdan said:


> The Bumfuzzles are a sample size of 1. Drawing statistical conclusions from such a small sample size is not possible. Sometimes crap doesn't happen. Sometimes it does.


Correct. One might as well might take recent attempted ocean passages that failed and say diametrically the opposite


----------



## outbound

Smack
You have now heard the same basic position from
a gentleman who does this transit for a living and has done it multiple times. The voyage carries risk- rally or not- choice of rally is irrelevant.
a gentleman who has circumnavigated. This is a potentially dangerous passage. Being in a rally or not is irrelevant- the choice of rally is irrelevant.
One who is about to do this passage. I know which rally I'm in and if I go with a rally is irrelevant.
In short it seems your argument although well meaning ( as are your posts in general) is viewed as specious by those intimately involved with this passage.
Come on Smack- even when I went fishing with a 6 y.o. grandkid and told him of the passage he knew this was a dangerous passage. To think anyone regardless of what type of newbie they are or what promo info says doesn't know this can be a rough passage seems most naïve and I know you are not naïve but experienced. The 6 y.o. said "PaPa that's a big sail..be careful.. I hope the boat is good and you know what you are doing". 
Back to filling out "trip questionnaires" for insurance


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> The 6 y.o. said "PaPa that's a big sail..be careful.. I hope the boat is good and you know what you are doing".


He nailed it. The SDR should hire him as a consultant.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Again, I totally agree with you Kil. And, because of this, I suspect you would NOT say that a sailor with one "bluewater passage" under his keel is ready for such a serious passage. That's my problem with the SDR. They do say that in their marketing.
> .


Back to my point about this being the first passage (in a rally or not) that most cruisers from the east coast take. Where is one to get the experience of a bluewater passage on their own boat? You could go to Bermuda and back in May or June - and it is a good idea, but the chances of seriously crappy weather are not great. Other than that there are few options. Crewing on another boat to the Caribbean helps but not nearly the same thing as doing it on your own boat.

Rally organizers have to say something in their requirements I guess or they would get people showing up in a close equivalent of a Sunfish. I don't think it really matters very much if a person has had one bluewater passage or six since this is no assurance that they have faced challenging conditions or learned very much from whatever conditions they did face.


----------



## outbound

Killarney is right- I done the Bermuda races. Other then basically missing fathers day not much to talk of. Had only one truly bad passage and on this trip having more than 1-2 d of serious crappiness is most unusual. The big thing both for winning the race and nature of trip is the stream. It's quite a different thing going through it in June with only fairly minor systems going through and in the fall. Although according the insurance companies I'm a experienced blue water sailor. According to me I'm not. To me experienced means more days than the weather router can predict. Far enough that SAR is irrelevant. You either fix it, deal with it or go swimming.
Back to filling out trip questionnaires.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> _*For newer sailors*_ I continue to think that the SDR in particular is a dangerous rally. I really do. Their record thus far certainly seems to indicate that. Maybe that record will improve and I'll have less of a case. *But as of today the SDR still has a serious black eye of its own making* - irrespective of how much Jon wants to cover it with makeup.


Yet again, we await your connecting of the dots between any specific actions, or posture, on the part of the organizers of the SDR, and the difficulties encountered by the boats cited above...



smackdaddy said:


> My point is that if such newer sailors are going to go anyway the C1500 is far-and-away the better choice precisely because of its safety standards.


Yet again, we await at least a _HINT_ of how the any of the 1500's vaunted "safety standards" would have likely averted the incidents cited above... Some degree of specificity would be nice... 



smackdaddy said:


> Again, to my knowledge, the SDR is the only cruising rally I know of to have the distinction of warranting a USCG Maritime Alert. Why? Precisely because of the number of SAR events last year in a single day in a fleet of what were supposed to be experienced sailors. If you can't see something really off in that scenario, I don't know what else to say.


Funny, but what's really "off" to me about that scenario, is that the CG never took any such similar action re either of the other 2 fall rallies, after they suffered fatalities, or a higher percentage of boats abandoned. Are steering failures and dismastings really all THAT much more serious, than people DYING?



smackdaddy said:


> Again, I totally agree with you Kil. And, because of this, I suspect you would NOT say that a sailor with one "bluewater passage" under his keel is ready for such a serious passage. *That's my problem with the SDR. They do say that in their marketing.*


And yet again, you are chiding the SDR for something the 1500 does to an even greater extent - with their claims of "taking the worry out of choosing a weather window" for you, and "*ensuring* you make it across the Stream safely"... Too bad their experts can't be aboard each and every boat to sail it for you, and in that regard, the approach of the SDR is far more grounded in reality, by making it clear from the very outset that YOU are the one sailing your boat, and YOU are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the voyage, and the safety of your crew...

If I see one significant distinction between the approaches taken to this passage by the respective organizers, it is this... To me, the #1 priority of the 1500 seems to be to get the fleet across the Stream in one piece, at whatever cost, period. Then, let them deal with the rest of the passage themselves, no matter how much sailing hard on the wind that might entail... They do this by sheparding the fleet down the beach to Hatteras, and crossing the Stream as quickly as possible...

Now, sometimes that's a good strategy, I've favored it myself on occasion. But the 1500 seems to do this route every single year. Rick Palm is a big proponent of this route, and he's a very accomplished sailor who understands the risks of cutting Hatteras so close, and has the skills and experience to deal with the consequences should things go pear-shaped down there... The rest of the fleet, however, maybe not so much, and I've always said I think it's just a matter of time before some 1500 boats get into big trouble, sailing as close to Hatteras as that fleet tends to do, year after year... Don Street is just one expert that comes to mind, who thinks sailing that route is just plain nuts...

Few people realize how close the 1500 came to further tragedy in addition to the loss of RULE 62 back in 2010, when a Hallberg-Rassy from their fleet took the decision to bail out after the first night due to seasickness, and enter Oregon Inlet in heavy conditions. The boat grounded on the outer bar hard, suffered very heavy damage, the skipper was very shaken and admitted they were lucky to have survived.

To me, this was an absolutely astonishing occurrence... Given all the 1500's claims to their expertise and skill in helping prepare their fleet, in all their seminars and skipper's meetings, was it NEVER made clear to these people that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, should ANY attempt be made to enter any inlet along the Outer Banks in heavy weather? That your ONLY first bailout point would be Beaufort? I still shake my head in wonder today, that one of that fleet made such a foolhardy decision, and managed to get away with it... The 1500 dodged a bullet, bigtime, with that one... They were not so lucky a week later, unfortunately, when the skipper of RULE 62 attempted a similar stunt...

Bill Knowles of the SDR, on the other hand, is a proponent of what he calls "Riding the Curve", sailing a more Easterly course out of the Bay... This approach generally sets you up for a more pleasant passage overall, as you're likely to be further north when you finally encounter the Trades, and it also keeps the possibility of Bermuda as a bail-out closer at hand. This seems to be the approach favored by Dave on AUSPICIOUS - who has done this passage numerous times - as well... The major downside to this route, of course, is that it takes you longer to reach the Stream than by sailing down the beach, and thus the possibility that the weather you were banking on when you departed Hampton might have changed... That's what happened last year, of course.

I think it's worthwhile to note, however, that to the best of my knowledge, all of the boats involved in the spate of SARs were, fortunately, well clear of the treacherous lee shore of Hatteras, and seemed to be favoring the Knowles' 'High Line' route... If any of those rudder losses or dismastings had occurred close to Hatteras, along the route the 1500 gurus tend to favor, last year's "disaster" could have been on a whole different order of magnitude...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Yet again, we await your connecting of the dots between any specific actions, or posture, on the part of the organizers of the SDR, and the difficulties encountered by the boats cited above...


I'll allow the USCG Marine Alert to do it for me (I've highlighted the parts that clearly connect the dots):



> *Marine Safety Alert*
> *Inspections and Compliance Directorate*
> 
> Offshore Sailing
> You Must Be Prepared
> 
> In a recent offshore regatta, numerous sailboats experienced steering system and other failures which required assistance and/or rescue by the U.S Coast Guard...Vessel equipment and components must be thoroughly checked before getting underway...


So, do you know for a fact that your 5 experienced/rescued sailors/crews had their rigs and rudders (and other failed components) thoroughly inspected prior to the rally? If not, did the organization's doing away with such inspections (the "anti-C1500" spirit of the rally) - i.e. - being organizationally "non-compliant" with the directorate - contribute in any way to this problem?

I certainly think you could make that argument - especially if the organization claims to be educational in nature regarding safety and seamanship as the SDR does.



JonEisberg said:


> Yet again, we await at least a _HINT_ of how the any of the 1500's vaunted "safety standards" would have likely averted the incidents cited above... Some degree of specificity would be nice...


Okay, here's a hint specific to one of the failures on the Catana:

From Time of Registration:
● Free rig inspections anytime at Port Annapolis Marina

In Portsmouth VA (Prior to Departure):
● Safety equipment inspection
● Lecture program (Gulf Stream crossing, rigging, weather, provisioning, first aid)
● Rig inspections by Southbound Yacht Rigging

Again, do you know for sure whether the Catana's skipper had the rig inspected prior to departure? If not, what do you then think of his/her seamanship and experience?

On the other hand, to your point, would these things above from the C1500 have _absolutely prevented_ the dismasting of the Catana? Impossible to say one way or another, of course.

But at least these inspections are part of the C1500's pre-departure protocol. They comply with the directorate - and seamanship - and common sense.



JonEisberg said:


> Funny, but what's really "off" to me about that scenario, is that the CG never took any such similar action re either of the other 2 fall rallies, after they suffered fatalities, or a higher percentage of boats abandoned. Are steering failures and dismastings really all THAT much more serious, than people DYING?


You need to take that up with the CG - not me. They obviously thought this debacle was enough of a problem to take the pretty extraordinary step of issuing a very pointed marine alert targeted directly at the SDR and its sailors. You can second-guess the USCG all you want (and I'd really like to watch that). But I'm not going to second-guess them.

In any case, in regards to the above Marine Alert, why would the USCG go after the C1500? Unlike the SDR, it is at least making an effort to comply, as an organizing entity, with the points in the directorate.



JonEisberg said:


> And yet again, you are chiding the SDR for something the 1500 does to an even greater extent - with their claims of "taking the worry out of choosing a weather window" for you, and "*ensuring* you make it across the Stream safely"... Too bad their experts can't be aboard each and every boat to sail it for you, and in that regard, the approach of the SDR is far more grounded in reality, by making it clear from the very outset that YOU are the one sailing your boat, and YOU are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the voyage, and the safety of your crew...


All I can do is look at the actual record. Not the hyperbole.

In that regard, for anyone interested, here is a good article written on this SDR/C1500 subject by Andy Schell:

*Ocean Sailing Rules: The Salty Dawg Incident of 2013*



> But there is also an ulterior motive in me publishing this now - for anyone starting to make plans to head south this coming fall (or in the future), I hope that the following is a convincing argument for joining the Caribbean 1500 over the Salty Dawgs, and if you go it alone, I hope this helps with your preparation.
> 
> I believe everyone involved was acting with the best intentions - but I do believe they acted wrongly. Both the organization behind the Salty Dawgs and the skippers of some of the boats that got into trouble.





> One long-time Carib1500 crewmember, who sailed aboard a Salty Dawg boat in 2013 talks specifically about some of the troubles the Salty Dawg fleet experienced offshore last year. He puts it down to an untested boat.
> 
> This crewmember, an experienced ocean voyager himself who'd crossed the Atlantic single-handed, surveyed the boat before departure and found several things not right.
> 
> Once offshore, the front came on Thursday, stalled, and stayed 12 hours longer than expected. The crewmember tried to set the staysail but the running backstays were frozen in the stowed position. The owner had bought the boat new 7 years ago - over that time, he had never learned what the running backs were for. Apparently, he had never even set the staysail. Ultimately, the crewmember managed to beat the snap shackle open with a hammer and set the windward backstay.





> "In everything we do," he wrote, "and even when we do nothing, we assume a level of risk. So we manage risk everyday. But when we are in a position where we are managing other peoples' risk, especially when we are engaging in activities that carry significantly elevated levels of risk, it pays to get more organized about it." Therein lies the crux of the issue. The Salty Dawgs, while claiming to be organized enough to call themselves an event, accept none of the risks of their fleet as a whole and refuse to get organized about it, opening the door for exactly the type of incidents that occurred last year.


I agree with Andy's take.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> To me, this was an absolutely astonishing occurrence... Given all the 1500's claims to their expertise and skill in helping prepare their fleet, in all their seminars and skipper's meetings, was it NEVER made clear to these people that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, should ANY attempt be made to enter any inlet along the Outer Banks in heavy weather? That your ONLY first bailout point would be Beaufort?


Independent of one rally compared to another people do foolish things, even when they do know better. Even so running any Outer Bank inlet under any conditions is a bad idea.

I understand the motivation. During one particularly ignominious trip I passed Hatteras and Oregon Inlet _three_ times (southbound to the Caribbean ran into bad weather and turned back - a second system made getting back to the Chesapeake untenable so I turned around again and headed for Beaufort. Oregon Inlet looked pretty attractive (figuratively, I wasn't close enough to actually see it) when I still had a day to round Cape Lookout and head into Beaufort. Oh well - at least I had a cell signal from Cape Lookout onward.



JonEisberg said:


> Bill Knowles of the SDR, on the other hand, is a proponent of what he calls "Riding the Curve", sailing a more Easterly course out of the Bay... This approach generally sets you up for a more pleasant passage overall, as you're likely to be further north when you finally encounter the Trades, and it also keeps the possibility of Bermuda as a bail-out closer at hand. This seems to be the approach favored by Dave on AUSPICIOUS - who has done this passage numerous times - as well... The major downside to this route, of course, is that it takes you longer to reach the Stream than by sailing down the beach, and thus the possibility that the weather you were banking on when you departed Hampton might have changed... That's what happened last year, of course.


You have one heck of a memory Jon. Weather permitting (and it usually does but doesn't always), from safe water buoy CB I head 135T at least until I cross the Gulf Stream and usually all the way to 65W. I agree that it takes a bit longer (a few hours) to reach the Stream. On the other hand you cross the Stream at a near 90 degree angle. "Riding the Curve" (I like that terminology) also puts you across the Stream further North and getting Easting early before finding the trades. I believe the total time to cross the Stream is about the same. Remember that this far North the Gulf Stream is itself heading Northeast so the time you do spend in the Stream is boosting you in a direction you want to go (East) as much as bucking you North when you want to go South. For that reason I would rather sail 090T than 150T. As Jon noted I like to keep Bermuda in view as a bailout, especially with untested crew (or owners) aboard. Four days is plenty of time for people to get adjusted and if still badly seasick its time to get them under a tree. *grin* In the real world I can usually make 135T to 125T.

Running the beach does keep you in cell phone range longer. You can take lots of pictures of the Virginia Beach condos. You can even run the inside pass through Diamond Shoals with your friends on the phone. *grin*

Weather is only so predictable, but leaving from Little Creek when the weather off Hatteras looks okay the difference between 135T and running the beach just doesn't make any difference. Strategically riding the curve makes more sense to me.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, here's a hint specific to one of the failures on the Catana:
> 
> From Time of Registration:
> ● Free rig inspections anytime at Port Annapolis Marina
> 
> In Portsmouth VA (Prior to Departure):
> ● Safety equipment inspection
> ● Lecture program (Gulf Stream crossing, rigging, weather, provisioning, first aid)
> ● Rig inspections by Southbound Yacht Rigging
> 
> Again, do you know for sure whether the Catana's skipper had the rig inspected prior to departure? If not, what do you then think of his/her seamanship and experience?
> 
> On the other hand, to your point, would these things above from the C1500 have _absolutely prevented_ the dismasting of the Catana? Impossible to say one way or another, of course.
> 
> But at least these inspections are part of the C1500's pre-departure protocol. They comply with the directorate - and seamanship - and common sense.


I haven't a clue whether the rig on the Catana was inspected, or not... However, I think most understand that such an inspection - while certainly prudent, indeed a 'necessary' part of the prep for such a passage - is still no guarantee against a rigging failure. For example, the HC 38 that was dismasted, they had just _REPLACED_ all their standing rigging just months before... Hmmm, perhaps they shouldn't have done the job so far in advance of their departure? 



smackdaddy said:


> In that regard, for anyone interested, here is a good article written on this SDR/C1500 subject by Andy Schell:
> 
> *Ocean Sailing Rules: The Salty Dawg Incident of 2013*
> 
> I agree with Andy's take.


As I've already noted, I have a very high regard for Andy Schell. His stuff is always worth reading, he makes some very good points there, and I find very little in that piece to take issue with, either...

It's always easy to cherry-pick selected examples, however - we're all guilty of that from time to time... But his description of the account from one of the ill-prepared boats in the SDR, citing the cascading failures of the staysail, then genset charging issues, and so forth? Hell, reading that, for all intents and purposes, it was little different than reading Charlie Doane's account of the series of multiple failures aboard Be GOOD TOO, a brand-new $700K boat under the command of a highly experienced offshore professional... 

Not to mention, citing the account of this ''long-time 1500 crewmember... who surveyed the boat before departure..."? If that was that case, wouldn't you think he then would have detected "the backstays frozen in the stowed position" while still at the dock, instead of not until the staysail needed to be set in anger when the breeze built to 30-35? Hmmm, not the best example to have selected, perhaps... 

Certainly, there can be no disagreement when he writes _"The bottom line is, anyone making a November voyage off the northeast of the US needs to be mentally and physically prepared for heavy weather. They need to have full awareness of what they're getting into."_ However, I can only wonder - would Andy assert that 1500 rallyists such as the skipper of RULE 62, or the crew I mentioned that bailed out into Oregon Inlet after the first night out of the Bay, fit that description? If not, why didn't the 1500's "higher bar for entry" weed out those who were so obviously unaware of what they were getting into?

Finally, how ironic that Andy should cite the example of the Saga 43 KINSHIP - that he skippered in the ARC Europe in 2012 - in his discussion of "Preparation & 'Shaking Down'". What he doesn't mention, is this little tidbit...

After that summer in Europe, KINSHIP was entered in the WCC's ARC Rally in November, for the return trip to the Caribbean... Aboard for the trip (and presumably acting as skipper) were none other than long-time 1500 gurus Rick and Julie Palm...

A mere 2 days into the trip, and while meeting nothing remarkable in terms of weather, KINSHIP was forced to *abandon* the rally, and return to Las Palmas... Something about "previously undetected leaks"...

Hmmm, so much for a proper, rigorous, and comprehensive "Preparation & 'Shaking Down'" _"ensuring"_ a trouble-free passage, eh? LMAO!

No truer words were ever spoken, than those of Captain Ron: _"If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen OUT THERE..."_

)


----------



## RTB

This from a USCG recue swimmer Expecting the Unexpected

A good read for anyone considering doing either rally.

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I haven't a clue whether the rig on the Catana was inspected, or not... However, I think most understand that such an inspection - while certainly prudent, indeed a 'necessary' part of the prep for such a passage - is still no guarantee against a rigging failure.


Who ever said an inspection needs to be a guarantee? The only guarantee in this scenario is that NOT inspecting and maintaining it will _absolutely guarantee_ failure.

The C1500 has inspections. The SDR doesn't. Which is more "prudent, indeed 'necessary'"?



JonEisberg said:


> For example, the HC 38 that was dismasted, they had just _REPLACED_ all their standing rigging just months before... Hmmm, perhaps they shouldn't have done the job so far in advance of their departure?
> 
> Not to mention, citing the account of this ''long-time 1500 crewmember... who surveyed the boat before departure..."? If that was that case, wouldn't you think he then would have detected "the backstays frozen in the stowed position" while still at the dock, instead of not until the staysail needed to be set in anger when the breeze built to 30-35? Hmmm, not the best example to have selected, perhaps...
> 
> After that summer in Europe, KINSHIP was entered in the WCC's ARC Rally in November, for the return trip to the Caribbean... Aboard for the trip (and presumably acting as skipper) were no less than long-time 1500 gurus Rick and Julie Palm...
> 
> A mere 2 days into the trip, and while meeting nothing remarkable in terms of weather, KINSHIP was forced to *abandon* the rally, and return to Las Palmas... Something about "previously undetected leaks"...
> 
> Hmmm, so much for a proper, rigorous, and comprehensive "Preparation & 'Shaking Down'" _"ensuring"_ a trouble-free passage, eh? LMAO!


See, this is where you always of fall off the cliff, Jon. To follow your logic out vis-a-vis this SDR debate - the logic being that _not even the best ALWAYS catch absolutely everything in their inspections and still have problems_, so there - you seem to be holding that inspections are worthless anyway so why have them at all? Of course, that's just patently stupid. So I'm going to assume that you're just blustering and don't really mean what you're implying.

Sure, the SDR seems to believe your line of logic since they have none - but I don't think there is any sailor out there anywhere that holds your line of reasoning:

1. For any inspection to be worthwhile ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should go wrong out there afterward - otherwise it's useless.

2. Any inspection, _especially informal dockside inspections *by crew*_, should catch ABSOLUTELY EVERY problem that the boat has - otherwise why inspect in the first place?

3. If you DO happen to have your boat inspected by someone else, you should see that as a GUARANTEE that NOTHING will go wrong out there.

Again - who thinks that way? Is no inspection at all really better?

Now, to be fair, I think that last part in your quote refers to this statement on the C1500 site:



> Without a doubt the most difficult part of getting to the Caribbean is timing the weather window before departure. Fall on the East Coast is squeezed between late summer hurricane season and early winter gale season. *By joining the 1500, you can rest assured that the 'experts' are there to take the pressure off of that decision. Our support team consists of professional ocean sailors working closely with our weather forecasters at WRI to ensure the fleet makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions.*


If that's what you're referring to, I can kind of see what you mean in that _nothing_ is ever "ensured" out there. At the same time, as you always like to do, you've seriously twisted what they are saying. They are not "_"ensuring"_ *a trouble-free passage*, eh? LMAO!" - they are ensuring that the fleet "makes it across the Gulf Stream and into warmer waters in the best possible conditions."

So if this is going to be a sane debate, let's at least keep it real.



JonEisberg said:


> It's always easy to cherry-pick selected examples, however - we're all guilty of that from time to time... But his description of the account from one of the ill-prepared boats in the SDR, citing the cascading failures of the staysail, then genset charging issues, and so forth? Hell, reading that, for all intents and purposes, it was little different than reading Charlie Doane's account of the series of multiple failures aboard Be GOOD TOO, a brand-new $700K boat under the command of a highly experienced offshore professional...


You like to keep picking on Charlie about this rescue. And that's your business I suppose. But I think you're off base in doing so. First, _Be Good Too_ was not _really_ "under his command" in the way you want to imply. That's very clear by his and Hank's and the owner's recounting. This was _a delivery_ of a _brand new boat_ with _the owner/skipper aboard_ - that had been delayed repeatedly by Aero. All of those things complicate matters quite a bit in terms of a boat truly "being under your command" - and Charlie and Hank laid out those complications very clearly in my view. You of all people should know of those kinds of complications. Do you drop the rudder on every boat you deliver prior to departure?

Again, if you want to keep making fun of Charlie and Hank - go ahead. But I think you're being a good bit jerky toward them.



JonEisberg said:


> Certainly, there can be no disagreement when he writes _"The bottom line is, anyone making a November voyage off the northeast of the US needs to be mentally and physically prepared for heavy weather. They need to have full awareness of what they're getting into."_ However, I can only wonder - would Andy assert that 1500 rallyists such as the skipper of RULE 62, or the crew I mentioned that bailed out into Oregon Inlet after the first night out of the Bay, fit that description? If not, why didn't the 1500's "higher bar for entry" weed out those who were so obviously unaware of what they were getting into?


I think Ausp nailed it above. There are always individuals who make bad calls. Your only problem in bringing these up over and over again in this debate is this: The USCG never saw the problem you're trying to create in order to justify the SDR. Instead they saw the SDR as something potentially dangerous enough to merit a Marine Alert.

+++++

I'll conclude with this..though you make fun of it, the example of that C1500 crew finding problems with the boat he'd been brought onto (implying that he should have been able to identify EVERY potential problem prior to departure) is very telling as to Andy's point about the SDR's organizational failure.

Here is a boat AND skipper in the SDR rally that are obviously completely unprepared for heavy weather in the Gulf Stream. This guy has never used his staysail, never used his running backstays, and is relying on a completely untested "HW sail" that disintegrates the first time it's tested (do you _really_ think this crewmember could have possibly found every problem on a boat like this in a pre-departure dockside survey?). On top of this incident - and aside from the actual rescues - there are myriad similar gear failures across the fleet in the following USCG-reported and SDR-confirmed conditions:



> While the Salty Dawg fleet experienced worse weather for sure, it was far from survival conditions, with Coast Guard rescuers reporting *winds in the 20s and 8-12' seas*. It made the newscaster who was attempting to be dramatic about the whole thing sound rather silly. *Boats going offshore ought to be prepared for and able to handle conditions two or three times worse than that. The Salty Dawg organizers admitted as much themselves, saying that experienced sailors should be able to handle those conditions, despite the unexpected change in the weather.*


Now why is that? Sure, one or two really bad decisions like you bring up are to be expected I suppose - but this much carnage across the fleet in these conditions?

I agree with Andy that this is clearly a failure on the part of _*the organization*_ to do precisely what you emphasized above:



JonEisberg said:


> Certainly, there can be no disagreement when he writes _"The bottom line is, anyone making a November voyage off the northeast of the US needs to be mentally and physically prepared for heavy weather. They need to have full awareness of what they're getting into."_


The point is this - this skipper and his boat, clearly unprepared in the same area in which you say there can be no disagreement - was still plenty "experienced" and "prepared" and "qualified" to join this rally - and to depart with all the other boats under the "advice" of the SDR. Why did he, as the sole person responsible for his boat and crew, do that? Human nature. People will roll the dice as long as they can. We all do it to some degree. The problem is, the SDR assembles _a couple hundred boats_, many of which will be dice-rollers purely because they can while still feeling some sense of security in the numbers and the organizational umbrella. This is dangerous. In this regard, it's not "seamanship, safe boat handling, navigation and other skills needed by blue water sailors" that SDR is "fostering and teaching" as the educational organization it claims to be...it's Gulf Stream Roulette.

Andy Schell has it right.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> _*For newer sailors*_ I continue to think that the SDR in particular is a dangerous rally. I really do. Their record thus far certainly seems to indicate that. Maybe that record will improve and I'll have less of a case. But as of today the SDR still has a serious black eye of its own making - irrespective of how much Jon wants to cover it with makeup.


The term 'personal responsibility' comes to mind. The only ones responsible for their own misfortunes are the people who chose to sail.


----------



## smackdaddy

RTB said:


> This from a USCG recue swimmer Expecting the Unexpected
> 
> A good read for anyone considering doing either rally.
> 
> Ralph


That is a GREAT article. Thanks Ralph.

Two quotes from it that I think are spot on:



> To understand how to be ready for it I interviewed the experts and found out success in foul weather is about spending some time playing and practicing in it - on purpose.





> "The word "experienced" often refers to someone who has gotten away with doing the wrong thing more frequently than you have." ~ Laurence Gonzales


And ian - when it comes to individuals sailing on their own I totally agree with you. When it comes to an organization gathering and advising 200 boats (in whatever degree of readiness they may be) to do a very challenging fall crossing of the Gulf Stream - it becomes far more complicated. That's Andy's point.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> See, this is where you always of fall off the cliff, Jon. To follow your logic out vis-a-vis this SDR debate - the logic being that _not even the best ALWAYS catch absolutely everything in their inspections and still have problems_, so there - you seem to be holding that inspections are worthless anyway so why have them at all?


How you arrive at the conclusion that I might be espousing such a nonsensical point of view is completely beyond me... 



smackdaddy said:


> Again - who thinks that way? Is no inspection at all really better?


No, certainly, an inspection can obviously have value... Those conducted prior to the Bermuda Race, for instance, are a good example... They are VERY comprehensive... The ones for the 1500, can be surprisingly cursory, little more than ticking items off a checklist...

For the record, I believe anyone planning on sailing his boat on this passage, without first performing something like a rig inspection, would be a fool. That is something that an "experienced bluewater sailor" knows, and would do... Where we really seem to disagree, is that I don't believe that 'inspections', to be of any real value, need be carried out by someone OTHER than the captain and crew of the vessel in question...

Sure, part of what comes with the 1500 is a "free" rig inspection... (Of course, it's not "free", at all) But if a rig inspection is so important, why is this "free rig inspection" not _MANDATORY_ for all boats participating in the 1500? Is checking for expired flares aboard _REALLY_ of greater importance than a prior check of the soundness of a boat's rig for such a passage? Well, based upon what the 1500 actually "inspects", it would appear so... 



smackdaddy said:


> You like to keep picking on Charlie about this rescue. And that's your business I suppose. But I think you're off base in doing so. First, _Be Good Too_ was not _really_ "under his command" in the way you want to imply. That's very clear by his and Hank's and the owner's recounting. This was _a delivery_ of a _brand new boat_ with _the owner/skipper aboard_ - that had been delayed repeatedly by Aero. All of those things complicate matters quite a bit in terms of a boat truly "being under your command" - and Charlie and Hank laid out those complications very clearly in my view. You of all people should know of those kinds of complications. Do you drop the rudder on every boat you deliver prior to departure?
> 
> Again, if you want to keep making fun of Charlie and Hank - go ahead. But I think you're being a good bit jerky toward them.


Oh, please... No need to defend Charlie's honor for him... I was not "picking on" him at all, but merely mentioning the remarkable similarity in the type and sequence of failures in the event Andy referenced, and the identical problems that arose on BE GOOD TOO...

I've delivered many boats fresh out of the box from factories... Does that mean those trips were not _REALLY_ "under my command"? Damn, who knew?

And, if you go back thru my posts on that incident, you will see that I have ALWAYS given Hank and Charlie the benefit of the doubt, and maintained that they at least would have probably toughed it out a bit longer, had it not been for the presence of the owner and his wife aboard... I have NEVER questioned their decision to abandon, that was made by the owner himself, I've only questioned certain choices that were made that helped put them in that situation to begin with...



smackdaddy said:


> The point is this - this skipper and his boat, clearly unprepared in the same area in which you say there can be no disagreement - was still plenty "experienced" and "prepared" and "qualified" to join this rally...


You're dreaming if you think similar entrants have not participated in the 1500 over time... RULE 62 might serve as Exhibit A...



smackdaddy said:


> - and to depart with all the other boats under the "advice" of the SDR.


Please, explain to us how the SDR "advised" the fleet when to depart...



smackdaddy said:


> Why did he, as the sole person responsible for his boat and crew, do that? Human nature. People will roll the dice as long as they can. We all do it to some degree. The problem is, the SDR assembles _a couple hundred boats_, many of which will be dice-rollers purely because they can while still feeling some sense of security in the numbers and the organizational umbrella. This is dangerous. In this regard, it's not "seamanship, safe boat handling, navigation and other skills needed by blue water sailors" that SDR is "fostering and teaching" as the educational organization it claims to be...it's Gulf Stream Roulette.


Whether you're doing this passage with the 1500, the SDR, independently, or with Stan Honey on board as your navigator - this passage is _ALWAYS_ gonna be a form of "Gulf Stream Roulette"... Perhaps when you get a few passages under your own belt, you'll begin to appreciate that...

Your notion that we should all be as free to "never sail to a schedule" like the Bumfuzzles, is a quaint one, indeed  Most of us inhabit The Real World, where a certain degree of allegiance to the constraints of time is a fact of life. You seem to imagine a scenario where if one simply waits long enough, the Perfect Weather Window for this trip will eventually arise, and your crew who has an unlimited amount of time to sit waiting in Hampton with you until such time, will be rewarded for doing so...

Sorry, but it rarely works out that way... At some point, you simply have to take the decision - imperfect as the situation may be - and just _GO_...

I just sat in Shelburne, Nova Scotia for almost 6 days, waiting for a good window to cross back over the Gulf of Maine to Nantucket. Weather very unsettled during that time, with the only real winds blowing hard from the SW. Several other boats with me at the Shelburne YC, every day the common refrain of "Well, what do YOU think?"  Finally, things started to align for a departure on Sunday. It was almost too good to be true, the perfect time for a departure after the passage of a weak cold front, and the timing of the tides out around Cape Sable, was gonna be precisely one hour after the finish of the Italian Grand Prix that I would be watching on the club's big screen upstairs... 

Only one little fly in the ointment, started showing up on Saturday. One computer model starting indicating the development of a rather intense little low south of Long Island, that _MIGHT_ be nearing Nantucket about the same time I would be... Living on the Jersey shore all my life, I've learned to pay attention to anything that develops in the New York Bight, particularly near the change of the seasons... So, sailing in such close proximity to George's Bank, and the eastern approaches to Nantucket Shoals, if such weather were to make up, it would NOT be a pretty place to be...

Of course, I went anyway... Kept the option to bail out over the top of Cape Cod if things started looking threatening, but that's not necessarily a great option, either... But I knew if I didn't leave then, I might still be sitting in Shelburne tonight... And, like most folks, I actually do have a life in NJ that I need to get back to before too much longer.. 

Turned out to be a fantastic trip... Clear as a bell, first time I've ever actually SEEN Cape Sable... First night close reaching in about 12-15 knots under the Super Moon, just awesome... Next day the wind went NE, increased, and the sleighride was on... The final approach to Great Round Shoal Channel was very rough and uncomfortable, as I was fighting the ebb coming out of Nantucket Sound, the medicine one must swallow if you want to ride the flood through the 10 mile gauntlet of the GRS Channel and across Nantucket Sound...

Wish I could say I'd planned it that way, but I simple FLEW across the Sound yesterday, riding that enhanced Super Moon tidal current... Fantastic sailing, and I was the only one out there... Reached the entrance to Lake Tashmoo just as the current was turning back up Vineyard Sound, dropped the hook in plenty of time for a sundowner...

I had 2 celebratory Manhattans last night, toasting my good fortune... That trip could easily have turned out to be something quite different, and in fact some indications when I departed were that it would be. But again, there usually comes a time where so simply have to say "Screw it, this is as good as it's likely to be for awhile, it's time to _GO..._"

Once again, I'd lucked out, bigtime... hence, the reason for the second Manhattan  I've made enough passages that turned out to be miserable, despite the appearance of a far more favorable weather window than I had this time around...

Make a few passages yourself, and I think perhaps you'll begin to appreciate how often Pure, Dumb _LUCK_ plays a more critical role than just about anything else... 

Oh, and one more thing... Even the Bumfuzzles succumbed to a schedule once in awhile... One of the dumber things they ever did, was transiting The Devil's Backbone passage between Harbour Town and Spanish Wells during a rage... All to get Ali's sister back to Nassau in time to catch her flight back home... _REALLY_ stoopid move, especially when one considers they just could have put her on the high speed ferry back, and she would have been in Nassau in a matter of hours...


----------



## smackdaddy

So you don't drop the rudders for inspection on the boats you deliver. 

As the Bumfuzzles proved, better lucky than good, eh?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So you don't drop the rudders for inspection on the boats you deliver.


Seriously??? Of course not... Hell, making a buck delivering boats is hard enough as it is, to insist on such a protocol as a matter of routine would make it all but _impossible..._

Guess I'm missing your point... Have I indicated anywhere that anyone in particular was remiss in not pulling their rudders prior to a passage? I seem to recall saying that a boat the vintage of the Alden 54 ZULU _might have been a ripe candidate for a rudder failure_, but who knows? It would also seem such a boat would have been likely to have seen only the highest quality of maintenance under such an experienced owner...

I've rebuilt my own rudder, so I believe I'm good to go for awhile... I would not have attempted the fall passage direct to the islands, or the trip I did this summer for that matter, with her original rudder...

So, no, I do not drop and X-ray the rudders of every boat I deliver... On the other hand, I have certainly declined my fair share of deliveries over the years, of boats for whatever reason I might have thought were not up to the trip...

Hell, I've even been known to pass on a delivery, the boat sight unseen, based on little more than the brand name alone...

)


----------



## rdw

I have been watching and reading for a long time and could not resist finally commenting. I did a Caribbean 1500 in 2012 and 2014.
I did a lot of preparation: good boat, good crew that had done over nights before, crew and I attended Safety at Sea, crew and I had had a 3 day sailing instructor (North Sail) on my boat for a weekend, all safety rules for Caribbean 1500 were met well ahead for time, 2 crew were sailing instructors for up to level 7.
I still think we were inexperienced. I very much benefited from the collective knowledge and experience of my crew. I clearly benefited from paying attention to the Caribbean 1500 rules and recommendations. The Caribbean 1500 was worth the money for me. I would have been very tempted to have gone with the free Salty Dawgs but I think if the skipper- owner reads and studies everything sent out by the Caribbean 1500 he might be a little ahead.
We did break a travelor and ripped a sail on the way down.
On one return I got us too near a subtropical storm and we were hove to in 30-40 foot seas and 30-40 knot wind but nothing broke.
One time sailed all the way back using a wind vane, autopilot was broken.
Where do I get paid?
RDW


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks RDW. It's good to hear from someone who's done the C1500. And I definitely agree with your view of things.

As for getting paid. I'm happy to send you a small piece of SDR roasted pig wrapped in a BFS hat. Heh-heh.


----------



## TomMaine

Having spoken to a three time SDR participant last week, this has to be the most vacuous thread on the internet. 

He had seen this thread back several hundred posts ago, and couldn't apply it the SDR as he knows it. 

He's headed to South America this coming winter and will utilize the SDR service again. He's a big fan. 

Vacuous but I predict this thread will go to 1000 posts.


----------



## Group9

I don't see how you can blame Rally's for what the people in them do.

I was cruising in the Bahamas when Rule 62 was lost. I can certainly understand why the people running that rally, didn't think, at one of the meetings, to get up and say, "And, oh, yeah. If any of y'all decide to bag the rally near the Bahamas, please don't try to enter any of the cuts at night, that you are completely unfamiliar with, especially in a rage sea."

I motored out to the cut they tried to come into (and several others) , in a center console from Marsh Harbor on another trip to the Bahamas, many years ago, during rage conditions, in the middle of the day, just to see what one looked like. It was scary looking, looking at it from the good side of it, in the middle of the day. After seeing it, I would have mutinied, to the point of using physical force, to subdue any captain of a sailing vessel I was on, who told me we were about to try what Rule 62 tried. 

I don't see how that tragedy was the fault of anybody who organized or ran that Rally.


----------



## outbound

Smack please read above posts. From personal experience this seems to be consensus opinion of sdr parcipitants . Went to newport show yesterday. Picked up sat phone, lined up Bitter End mooring, went through our tentative sail plan with crew, pissed away a few bucks on a burgee while chatting with Linda. Being in sdr helped decrease expense and hassle factor.
In short all sdr parcipitants seem to realize.
You sail your own boat with your own crew and leave when you want. The rally adds some cost saving, another skilled opinion on weather, some socializing if you want and networking. It doesn't increase safety, improve the weather or make you young again. They make no claims it does and neither does the c1500. 
Some will do courses or read books or learn one on one from experienced captains or peers. But at the end of the day the only way to know what this passage is like is to do it and every time you do it it will be different. If you are foolhardy and don't prep your boat/self or unlucky you will pay. Rallies make no difference.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack please read above posts. From personal experience this seems to be consensus opinion of sdr parcipitants .


Out, I fully understand that I'm in the very tiny minority around here on this subject. And I _certainly_ wouldn't expect any of the SDR participants to agree with my point of view. And that's okay.

My point of view, of course, is based on the facts of what happened last year, and the USCG's Marine Alert. Period. Therefore, I'm pretty comfortable and feel no need whatsoever to be an apologist.

Granted, it is nice to know that guys like Charlie, Andy, John (MorgansCloud) and other very experienced dudes hold many of these same views as I. So I feel like I'm pretty good company...even if it's a small group.

Enjoy the rally dude. And be safe.


----------



## outbound

Ok will agree to disagree .


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> You sail your own boat with your own crew and leave when you want. The rally adds some cost saving, another skilled opinion on weather, some socializing if you want and networking. It doesn't increase safety, improve the weather or make you young again. They make no claims it does and neither does the c1500.


Are you coming by Annapolis or heading from Newport to Hampton directly? I'd like to meet you if you come through Annapolis. I will be in Hampton for a few days after the Annapolis Boat Show so may be able to catch you there.


----------



## outbound

Thanks for asking. Going straight to Hampton. Hope to be there at least three or four days before leaving assuming window starts on first or second. There will be six Outbounds in this rally. Find any one and you will find me. Don't drink much for the week before a passage but would be delighted to pour you one. Know I would benefit from having you critique my preperation or just chatting.


----------



## Yorksailor

Smack,

It is time for you to enter the Salty Dawg...I will pay your entry fee!

Phil


----------



## smackdaddy

Yorksailor said:


> Smack,
> 
> It is time for you to enter the Salty Dawg...I will pay your entry fee!
> 
> Phil


Wouldn't that be a fun scene on the beach at Virgin Gorda! A circle of angry drunk dudes with SDR burgees as loin cloths, teeth bared (bits of roasted pork still in them), surrounding a super handsome, fun-loving sailor in a BFS tee.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Wouldn't that be a fun scene on the beach at Virgin Gorda! A circle of angry drunk dudes with SDR burgees as loin cloths, teeth bared (bits of roasted pork still in them), surrounding a super handsome, fun-loving sailor in a BFS tee.


Would you be there too?


----------



## outbound

Think loin clothes may be an improvement. Amazing how bad clothes smell after a passage. 
BTW smack your first drink is on me.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yep. Last minute preparation for the rally!

A Guide To Steering Without A Rudder | Salty Dawg Rally

You guys have fun!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yep. Last minute preparation for the rally!
> 
> A Guide To Steering Without A Rudder | Salty Dawg Rally
> 
> You guys have fun!


We get it, smack... The SDR can do NOTHING right, in your eyes...

Would you prefer that they NOT provide this link on their site?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> We get it, smack... The SDR can do NOTHING right, in your eyes...
> 
> Would you prefer that they NOT provide this link on their site?


Oh, c'mon dude. You have to admit it's kind of funny.

(PS - In all seriousness, at least they are taking a step in the right direction.)


----------



## sailvayu

I watched the video and really looked at it. I do not think it is a practical solution. It was done in flat calm conditions, they just about admit it does not work under sail and the lines rigged like they are would take just a few minutes to foul the prop at sea. I am not taking sides and saw this before SD folks embraced it. I think it was a good effort but seems to be more of an ad for the drogue and they seemed to want it to work from the getgo. Sorry I just do not see this working in the real world with 8-10 foot seas and a 30 kt wind.


----------



## smackdaddy

I knew I'd seen that before. Herli posted that video here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/2004089-post24.html

And I commented that it was the best I'd seen on the technique...which is probably why SDR picked it up.

But I agree with you sailva - doing this in flat water is a lot different than doing it offshore in the stink.


----------



## outbound

Mike is my yard manager. Testing was not done for SDR but rather as part of mikes involvement with safety at sea. He is a very experienced sailor. I think if caught in that situation I will attempt to use a section of my Jordan series drogue for this purpose. I see no reason to not try it. I ordered the drogue two years ago and it was built with a long and short segment. When deployed for a storm both segments are attached together. For this would use short segment.
Hopefully will never need to do this.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Mike is my yard manager. Testing was not done for SDR but rather as part of mikes involvement with safety at sea. He is a very experienced sailor. I think if caught in that situation I will attempt to use a section of my Jordan series drogue for this purpose. I see no reason to not try it. I ordered the drogue two years ago and it was built with a long and short segment. When deployed for a storm both segments are attached together. For this would use short segment.
> Hopefully will never need to do this.


Yeah, I've got the SeaBrake - and found the video very informative.

If you really think about it the video makes some sense. Let's say you do lose a rudder a few hundred miles out in the stink (but you're not taking on water). If you have your drogue deployed, you don't really need to be actively steering anyway until things die down.


----------



## sailvayu

Yes a drogue could help keep you headed down wind but to think you could steer like this I think is a mistake. Waiting for things to die down is a option I guess but they will not get that calm. The problem I see with this is people will think this is a viable option and not have a backup method. But hey I could be wrong I guess time will tell next time someone gets out there and tries it in the real world. We will see I really hope I am proven wrong but having been out in the **** I will make other plans.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm with you sailva. I certainly wouldn't want to try to make 500-1000 miles using that technique. I'd much rather bolt my salon table to a whisker pole:


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, c'mon dude. You have to admit it's kind of funny.


You've got to admit, this is kind of funny, too...

Looks like someone else has left his prep to the last minute, , as well... 

GALERIDER DROGUE: For Steering and Heaving To


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I'm with you sailva. I certainly wouldn't want to try to make 500-1000 miles using that technique. I'd much rather bolt my salon table to a whisker pole:
> 
> Steering a boat without a rudder - YouTube


you'd better hope you have a big crew  I can't begin to imagine steering a boat over 1000 miles of open ocean using such a setup...

Let the sails do the work instead, let them _PULL_ you to your destination. I think your whisker pole would be put to far better use poling out a headsail, to create a downwind rig... It would be a miracle if that table lasted for more than 50 NM, anyway 

The folks on the Sweden 390 EGRET showed how it's done, a very impressive feat of seamanship...

26: Atlantic Adventure | Egret

27: A Directional Challenge | Egret

28. A Visit from Santa | Egret

29. Christmas at Sea | Egret

30. A Welcome Landfall | Egret


----------



## outbound

Thanks Jon. Are there any thoughts on what took out their rudder. When the boat was hauled were there any clues?


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> Thanks Jon. Are there any thoughts on what took out their rudder. When the boat was hauled were there any clues?


Their blog says they hit something unknown.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smackdaddy said:


> I'd much rather bolt my salon table to a whisker pole:


Yeah, the sweep is a much more active, faster, better way to go... But a solo sailor will need an effective method for the long hours.

Btw its a good idea to pick up a few large U bolts to make one up.

Other good thing its theres lots of nicely shaped timber on board: each canin door, floor boards etc. but not many spinnaker poles.


----------



## sailvayu

"I'm with you sailva. I certainly wouldn't want to try to make 500-1000 miles using that technique. I'd much rather bolt my salon table to a whisker pole:"

Smack, I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not with this. I will say that video has the same problem: it was done in flat calm. If I loose my rudder in the harbor I know how I will get back....Call sea tow. The problem is when 200 miles at sea. Although I think these videos are interesting they both ignore the effects of wave action. Ignoring that is akin to ignore the effect of the wind on a sailboat. Anyone who has been out of the harbor knows that most steering that is done is to adjust for the effect of the waves not the wind. Great discussion hope to hear some other ides and info on this.


----------



## sailvayu

JonEisberg Thanks for that link about Egret. Very interesting reading and it is always better to get first hand info like that. Great bit of seamanship on their part i will add. It sounds like they did pretty good with the drogue going down wind although most of the steering was done with sails form the sounds of it. No matter if it worked for them it is all good. Sounds like they had some rudder left as well. So this illustrates that every situation is unique and there is no single "right" answer or method. What works in one situation may not work in another. For me i think the best answer would be to pre plan an emergency rudder as I personally feel this is a better option and would give more control and safety in the long run. Bottom line is whatever works use it and be prepared.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Yeah, the sweep is a much more active, faster, better way to go... But a solo sailor will need an effective method for the long hours.
> 
> *Btw its a good idea to pick up a few large U bolts to make one up.*
> 
> Other good thing its theres lots of nicely shaped timber on board: each canin door, floor boards etc. but not many spinnaker poles.


Definitely... "Bolting" a makeshift rudder blade thru a thin-walled downwind pole is Designed to Fail in pretty short order, some form of lashing would be preferable... Perfect time to pull out a Band-It tool, any boat crossing an ocean should have a banding tool aboard, IMHO...






Still, I can't imagine using such an oar for any great distance in the open ocean, or for anything other than relatively flat water, on a modestly-sized boat... I think even steering my little 30-footer in a seaway using such an arrangement would be a real handful, and exhaust me VERY quickly...

One of the big problems on many boats - and one instance where twin wheels could pay off - might be the necessity to get the wheel and pedestal out of the way. You're gonna need a considerable length of pole extending into the cockpit to gain the necessary leverage, and with the steering pedestals on so many boats placed far aft, the angle of the pole necessary to clear the pedestal could easily place the end of the pole over your head...  On anything other than a tiller-steered boat, a complete removal of the pedestal would seem to be required, especially if you were trying to use the cockpit winches to run control lines... Nah, I think I'd favor letting the sails and drogue do the work...

You'd need to do some serious de-construction to gain the room to operate aboard this Cabo Rico, for instance:










And, using that techinque on the Shannon HPS would seem to be a very tall order, to say the least...


----------



## aeventyr60

For those with Monitor windvanes, something like this:

http://www.selfsteer.com/products/monitor/pdfs/mrudBrochure.pdf


----------



## JonEisberg

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the rallies won't be departing on Saturday, as scheduled... Looks like the getting going might have been good, like, maybe yesterday...?












although, that little system (Invest 96L) down in the NW Caribbean certainly bears watching, storms that form down there this time of the year and come up into the Gulf of Mexico and into the Atlantic have a nasty history, and have wreaked havoc on the 1500 before...










Caught this blog post from one of the 1500 entries, about their trip down the bay to Portsmouth (emphasis mine):



> La Madeline - Arrived at Portsmouth
> 
> Left Annapolis on Thursday and sailed straight through as a shakedown cruise.*My first time night sailing* so thanks Skipper Scott Tobin for arranging the 20knot gusting winds! Kept me awake for the night shift


Yup, that "higher bar the 1500 sets for entry" is way up there, alright...

)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Caught this blog post from one of the 1500 entries, about their trip down the bay to Portsmouth (emphasis mine):
> 
> Yup, that "higher bar the 1500 sets for entry" is way up there, alright...
> 
> )


Good lord you're slow, dude. A "low bar for entry" is fine if you have safety standards to fall back on - like the C1500.

The SDR has *both* a low bar *and* no safety standards. Can you see the difference - now that we're at post #921?

How can I make this any more clear for you? How about this...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Good lord you're slow, dude. A "low bar for entry" is fine if you have safety standards to fall back on - like the C1500.
> 
> The SDR has *both* a low bar *and* no safety standards. Can you see the difference - now that we're at post #921?
> 
> How can I make this any more clear for you? How about this...


Ahhh, got it...

So, then, it's the 1500's vaunted "Safety Standards" that make it "fine" to head off on such a passage with crew that have sailed after dark only _ONCE_ before ?

I wish them Good Luck with that...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, got it...
> 
> So, then, it's the 1500's vaunted "Safety Standards" that make it "fine" to head off on such a passage with crew that have sailed after dark only _ONCE_ before ?
> 
> I wish them Good Luck with that...


They're in much better hands than they would be in the SDR. No doubt. That's been my point throughout this thread.

I'm glad you're finally starting to understand. The crayons seemed to help.

I hope we hear from out soon on the thinking in the SDR group. That looks like a seriously nasty system.


----------



## outbound

Hi guys
Just hit hampton this evening from Barrington R.i. Broke a spin pole, wife ripped a set of clutches off the deck with a powered winch confusing lines at night. Got some down flooding forward of water tight bulkhead which set off bow thruster ( through windlass hole), had minor leak (fresh) in aft electric toilet.
The whole damn trip was a beat. Both noaa and passage weather under estimated winds but not seas. 35 sustained was common and saw 45 multiple times. Up down up down smash.
Scuttlebutt is Monday is the likely day but will see what Chris has to say at 5p tomorrow.
Smack at some time you need to step back. Your whole argument is specious. No one forces you to do the sdr.they do offer services and discounts that are helpful. They don't mandate your take off time,who you take as crew or in what boat. 
So far everyone I spoke to would do this trip at this time even if there was no 1500 or SDR. 
Bogus thinking guy. 
Looking forward to cruising with th 6 boats in the Outbound regatta. 
O my, 6 boats sailing to the Caribbean together in the fall. They need rules,inspections,courses, fees, and permission to use their left hand instead of their right when they go potty,
Sorry smack,pissy after a couple of days with no sleep.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Hi guys
> Just hit hampton this evening from Barrington R.i. Broke a spin pole, wife ripped a set of clutches off the deck with a powered winch confusing lines at night. Got some down flooding forward of water tight bulkhead which set off bow thruster ( through windlass hole), had minor leak (fresh) in aft electric toilet.
> The whole damn trip was a beat. Both noaa and passage weather under estimated winds but not seas. 35 sustained was common and saw 45 multiple times. Up down up down smash.
> Scuttlebutt is Monday is the likely day but will see what Chris has to say at 5p tomorrow.
> Smack at some time you need to step back. Your whole argument is specious. No one forces you to do the sdr.they do offer services and discounts that are helpful. They don't mandate your take off time,who you take as crew or in what boat.
> So far everyone I spoke to would do this trip at this time even if there was no 1500 or SDR.
> Bogus thinking guy.
> Looking forward to cruising with th 6 boats in the Outbound regatta.
> O my, 6 boats sailing to the Caribbean together in the fall. They need rules,inspections,courses, fees, and permission to use their left hand instead of their right when they go potty,
> Sorry smack,pissy after a couple of days with no sleep.


No worries, out. I step back, but then Jon baits me and...whaddayagonnado?

I'm really sorry about the string of nasties. I hope everything from here on is smooth for you guys.

Be safe and have fun out. And don't eat the pig!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> They're in much better hands than they would be in the SDR. No doubt. That's been my point throughout this thread.
> 
> I'm glad you're finally starting to understand. The crayons seemed to help.


My point, throughout, has been that once any of those boats leave the dock in Portsmouth, or Hampton, those skippers/crews/boats are in nobody else's "hands" but their own...

Just as it _should_ be... 



smackdaddy said:


> I hope we hear from out soon on the thinking in the SDR group. That looks like a seriously nasty system.


I'm guessing he's been pretty busy of late, and has far more important things to do with his time than to keep us apprised of the latest from Hampton... And, hopefully, having plenty of fun... 

Not looking at this point to be the greatest of passages, weather looks a bit fluky in the wake of that low, which looks like it will move off fairly quickly... I haven't really looked at the weather until today, but if I were sitting down there right now waiting to go, I'd probably be inclined to head down inside to Beaufort, and stage from there, keeping an eye on that 96L... Not an option for the biggest boats, of course...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> My point, throughout, has been that once any of those boats leave the dock in Portsmouth, or Hampton, those skippers/crews/boats are in nobody else's "hands" but their own...
> 
> Just as it _should_ be...
> 
> I'm guessing he's been pretty busy of late, and has far more important things to do with his time than to keep us apprised of the latest from Hampton... And, hopefully, having plenty of fun...
> 
> Not looking at this point to be the greatest of passages, weather looks a bit fluky in the wake of that low, which looks like it will move off fairly quickly... I haven't really looked at the weather until today, but if I were sitting down there right now waiting to go, I'd probably be inclined to head down inside to Beaufort, and stage from there, keeping an eye on that 96L... Not an option for the biggest boats, of course...


Ahmmm - out just posted above.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Hi guys
> Just hit hampton this evening from Barrington R.i. Broke a spin pole, wife ripped a set of clutches off the deck with a powered winch confusing lines at night. Got some down flooding forward of water tight bulkhead which set off bow thruster ( through windlass hole), had minor leak (fresh) in aft electric toilet.
> The whole damn trip was a beat. Both noaa and passage weather under estimated winds but not seas. 35 sustained was common and saw 45 multiple times. Up down up down smash.
> Scuttlebutt is Monday is the likely day but will see what Chris has to say at 5p tomorrow.
> Smack at some time you need to step back. Your whole argument is specious. No one forces you to do the sdr.they do offer services and discounts that are helpful. They don't mandate your take off time,who you take as crew or in what boat.
> So far everyone I spoke to would do this trip at this time even if there was no 1500 or SDR.
> Bogus thinking guy.
> Looking forward to cruising with th 6 boats in the Outbound regatta.
> O my, 6 boats sailing to the Caribbean together in the fall. They need rules,inspections,courses, fees, and permission to use their left hand instead of their right when they go potty,
> Sorry smack,pissy after a couple of days with no sleep.


Great to hear from you...

That would have been a _CARBON_ pole, right? _OUCH..._

Have a few stiff drinks, they're on me... )

Good luck, check in whenever you can...


----------



## outbound

Yup carbon but fortunately didn't lose it. Mangle the end that stay attached to the track but fixable now we're in a slip. Looking at weather with current system and 30% chance of hurricane developing in area at end of passage may leave Monday or Tuesday. Looking at passage weather and weather tracks girb sites. Make up my mind as it gets closer.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Yup carbon but fortunately didn't lose it. Mangle the end that stay attached to the track but fixable now we're in a slip. *Looking at weather with current system and 30% chance of hurricane developing in area at end of passage* may leave Monday or Tuesday. Looking at passage weather and weather tracks girb sites. Make up my mind as it gets closer.


Hmmmm... Where is that coming from, is that the system currently down off Honduras? If so, I see a decent chance of a Dark 'n Stormy or two at the White Horse Tavern in your future... 

Again, I'd be VERY wary of that system... Eerily reminiscent of the worst pasting the Caribbean 1500 fleet ever took, 2 boats abandoned after Hurricane Mitch re-formed over Yucatan and started tracking NE. Late season systems that develop in the NW Caribbean make me very nervous, they seem very unpredictable, and often offer a major 'surprise'...

HEAVY-WEATHER SAILING: Remembering Hurricane Mitch


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> Looking at passage weather and weather tracks girb sites.


Please don't depend on gribs. Synoptics are your friends. Start here: AuspiciousWorks - Communications / Yacht Management / Deliveries Worldwide


----------



## killarney_sailor

I agree, synoptic charts are way more useful than GRIBs. Need a bit of knowledge about what is being shown but it is not hard to pick up and a lot more useful than knowing how to do celestial (said by someone who knows both).


----------



## outbound

Been getting those as well from opc. And getting Chris Parker update and interpretation daily. Thanks gentlemen. A your site is very well done. Going to bed. Get up early drop the bride at the airport then struggle with the linear drive on the ap. Brushes wearing fast. Wasn't that difficult a trip so want to fully check it out.


----------



## TomMaine

Look for Iain and Fiona on RUFFIAN. This will be their 4th SDR(I think-2 each way). They were selling the rally at the Annapolis boat show.

They're a real anomaly for this thread(they wouldn't understand a single post). They love the SDR and carry jerry jugs on their side decks.


----------



## RTB

outbound said:


> Been getting those as well from opc. And getting Chris Parker update and interpretation daily. Thanks gentlemen. A your site is very well done. Going to bed. Get up early drop the bride at the airport then struggle with the linear drive on the ap. Brushes wearing fast. Wasn't that difficult a trip so want to fully check it out.


So, what's the consensus on the start day? Nov 2 (Sunday) isn't looking good.
Maybe Tuesday or Wednesday?

Ralph


----------



## blowinstink

RTB said:


> So, what's the consensus on the start day? Nov 2 (Sunday) isn't looking good.
> Maybe Tuesday or Wednesday?
> 
> Ralph


I heard it is whatever the herd decides, but the guy I heard it from talks a lotta smack so . . .


----------



## outbound

We are thinking leave midday Monday. Head nearly due east. Stay above 35. Head nearly due south around long of Porto Rico or V.I. depending. Longer but safer than rhumb line with current info. Be really nasty Saturday and Sunday off mid coast u.s.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> We are thinking leave midday Monday. Head nearly due east. Stay above 35. Head nearly due south around long of Porto Rico or V.I. depending. Longer but safer than rhumb line with current info. Be really nasty Saturday and Sunday off mid coast u.s.


Longer is better if it's safer. No doubt.

Be safe dude. We're all pullin' for you!


----------



## tempest

Out, With 6 outbound 46's in this years rally, ya'll could start your own mini rally....beautiful vessel! Have a great trip!


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> We are thinking leave midday Monday. Head nearly due east. Stay above 35. Head nearly due south around long of Porto Rico or V.I. depending. Longer but safer than rhumb line with current info. Be really nasty Saturday and Sunday off mid coast u.s.


So you might actually wind up passing to the north of Bermuda? That's a bit unusual for a departure from the Chesapeake, but seems like it could pay off nicely this year. And, of course keeping Bermuda close at hand in the event of needing to make a stop in the event of a problem is always a nice option...

Your plan is not much different from what I did last time I made the trip, and it worked out quite nicely, we had fast sailing the first 2 days out on the heels of a strong front, and made it into St George's before anyone else. You may even consider leaving a bit earlier as opposed to later, as by sailing due E you won't be running into the Stream for quite awhile... The Stream might not be running as strong as you expect, we could barely tell we were in it the last time, and it turned out to be quite benign... We wound up coming in around the bottom of Bermuda, our approach was made on a rather squally night, and I don't like the idea of being off the reefs to the north in such a situation, I'd much rather have that comforting sight of the powerful beam on top of Gibbs Hill to steer by... 

It will be interesting to see if the Caribbean 1500 fleet does their usual thing this year, running down the beach to Hatteras and favoring a straight rhumb line shot... As of now, looks like there might be a lot of fluky weather along that route, light air and a fair amount of headwinds... Everything could change between now and then, of course, but I hope they have plenty of jerry cans...  Your plan sounds like a good one right now, to me...

I really enjoyed this podcast from Andy Schell, on his basic approach to dealing with weather offshore... I couldn't agree with him more, our obsession with weather routing and all the rest really does seem to have gotten a bit out of hand these days, and really can have a detrimental effect on the reason we might be going out there, to begin with... Many of the most experienced offshore sailors I've run into take a similar view, simply accepting that you _WILL_ get pasted out there from time to time, and focusing rather on preparing for the worst, and simply sailing the boat to the weather you get... Goes very much in hand with what John Harries was saying in the wake of the SDR last year, that many sailors venturing offshore today are doing so with the naive expectation that with 'Modern Forecasting', and all the fancy tools at our disposal to obtain such information when offshore, there is almost a guarantee that one can always avoid a gale at sea...

I think he articulates this very well, and probably expresses better than I can my thinking about dealing with weather on a passage... Well worth a listen, I think:

Podcast: Offshore Weather Essay ? 59º North Ocean Sailing


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think that podcast should be mandatory listening for anyone heading offshore for the first time. Some people seem so wedded to the idea that if you have 'good' weather forecasts you will never get yourself into trouble. More than once people on SN have made comments about wanting to cross the Atlantic or go to Hawaii saying that they will wait until they have 'a good weather window' before leaving, as if that will provide anything useful beyond 72 hours (if you are lucky).

The podcast has it exactly right. Pick the right season, be prepared for 35 knots with confidence, and only worry about larger storms. Note also, for those doing major trade wind passages, there are very few if any such larger storms if you are out of the local tropical cyclone season. 

The creator of the podcast did not mention the usefulness of a barometer. That is about the only addition I would make.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Can a moderator who knows about such things make the weather map smaller please.



outbound said:


> We are thinking leave midday Monday. Head nearly due east. Stay above 35. Head nearly due south around long of Porto Rico or V.I. depending. Longer but safer than rhumb line with current info. Be really nasty Saturday and Sunday off mid coast u.s.


Almost the classic I65 route although as was pointed out you are some distance north of the usual route. I had a look at the 96 hour forecasts and it looks like the nasty stuff will be north rather than south. That huge low that is developing looks really nasty (976 mb). I posted the 96 hour surface forecast, which I am sure you know about, but others might want to see. Still a lot of wind in 96 hours (Monday morning) not far from where you are, although the direction is good (pretty much dead downwind for those reading the production boat thread). It would be really nice to follow the fringe of that depression as it tracks eastward (I assume it should turn) and just be the right distance away from it to get the wind you want (20-25 knots). These conditions are not unlike what we had in 2009 although we got away just as such a depression was forming For the most part we were able to get far enough east and south to avoid the worst of it. We had 25 to 40 knots for about a week and then the wind totally quit for the last 400 miles, not even trades all the way to St Thomas.

Not sure why you want to keep north. Is that coming from someone who knows more than me (entirely possible)? It would keep you in the stronger winds longer. I think I would be inclined to aim at Bermuda until you are past the Gulf Stream and then figure out how things are going and what you do next. The advice I was given when we did this trip is not to stop in Bermuda if things are going well. I also imagine the island will not be at its best a few weeks after suffering hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage.

It is all pretty much common sense. If you have gribs just keep an eye on where the northern edge of the trades are and don't get that far south until you have made your easting. When you are sitting at a dock in the Chesapeake you really can't predict conditions a week out.

Have fun.


----------



## chef2sail

outbound said:


> Hi guys
> Just hit hampton this evening from Barrington R.i. Broke a spin pole, wife ripped a set of clutches off the deck with a powered winch confusing lines at night. Got some down flooding forward of water tight bulkhead which set off bow thruster ( through windlass hole), had minor leak (fresh) in aft electric toilet.
> The whole damn trip was a beat. Both noaa and passage weather under estimated winds but not seas. 35 sustained was common and saw 45 multiple times. Up down up down smash.
> Scuttlebutt is Monday is the likely day but will see what Chris has to say at 5p tomorrow.
> Smack at some time you need to step back. Your whole argument is specious. No one forces you to do the sdr.they do offer services and discounts that are helpful. They don't mandate your take off time,who you take as crew or in what boat.
> So far everyone I spoke to would do this trip at this time even if there was no 1500 or SDR.
> Bogus thinking guy.
> Looking forward to cruising with th 6 boats in the Outbound regatta.
> O my, 6 boats sailing to the Caribbean together in the fall. They need rules,inspections,courses, fees, and permission to use their left hand instead of their right when they go potty,
> Sorry smack,pissy after a couple of days with no sleep.


Check out our dockmates on Crazy Horse Bill and Rosemary. Sundeer 60.


----------



## outbound

Sorry to be so tardy on getting back on sailnet. Got in to Bitter end a few days ago. Stayed on a mooring one night. Then made use of our free night on slip use to run the AC and water the boat. Now back on a mooring and done with drinking and listening to stories at the bar for awhile.
Regardless of what Smackie says:
For $250 the SDR is a great deal. We didn't do any much socializing but the $250 got us
Chris- Just to directly chat with him every day on the ssb made it worth while. We left Monday. It was a slow trip which took us just under 12d. The wind was commonly light and or on the nose making for much power sailing. Surprisingly the SOG v. speed thru water often suggested current against us even when long past the stream. We saw squalls but nothing bad just to the 40s and brief. Boats ahead of us saw multiple days of squalls in the 50s. 
Chris would give us pointers such as when it was wise to end easting or need to get to a certain point by such and such a time to either get useable wind or avoid nasty weather.
The SDR also allowed a good deal at the Bitter End. The place is pretty but very expensive. No useful services such as real provisioning beyond baked goods or launder mat.
Interestingly boats left over a just about 3d period suggesting Smacks concern about a herd mentality may not be such a strong influence. Also boats scattered from even Chris' suggested course.
We generally ran slightly east of the rhumb line and added east when we could. As stated we just about did the I65 for the last few days.
Would suggest Smack come with me on the next SDR. Might change his view of things.


----------



## blowinstink

Congrats Out - Nice trip. Didn't know the SDR had a $250 fee. Was watching your boat on the tracker and wanted to tell you that on day 3 maybe (???) you dropped off for a few hours. Were you using a SPOT based device? Enjoy the BVI's!


----------



## outbound

thanks all for your kind wishes. Was using a spot but sometimes forgot to trigger it. Also had a morning check in via ssb so then sometimes wouldn't trigger the sport. Also had a daily chat with the other 5 Outbounds. Finally when we chatted with Chris we would give position and Dick listened in on all those chats. 
That's one of the nice incidental things about the SDR. Although the horizon is nearly always empty you don't feel alone.
Unusual trip. Never had a full day/night of clear skies. Stars where not as good as past offshore transits between having the moon and constant 70-80% overcast. Saw a fair amount of lightening nearly every night. Trades never really filled in like you would want.
Went with three total and used 2h watches 24/7. So between the muggy conditions, occasional fresh water rinses and overcast catching good sleep in your 4h off was hard. Had enough water for a couple of showers which was nice. 
With only three on the boat every one had their own bunk and space. No tripping over each other. But when I do this again might think of doing it with 4 just for the extra sleep.


----------



## smackdaddy

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!

I followed you all the way Out!!! Great job!!

Pics when you got 'em!


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> thanks all for your kind wishes. Was using a spot but sometimes forgot to trigger it. Also had a morning check in via ssb so then sometimes wouldn't trigger the sport. Also had a daily chat with the other 5 Outbounds. Finally when we chatted with Chris we would give position and Dick listened in on all those chats.
> That's one of the nice incidental things about the SDR. Although the horizon is nearly always empty you don't feel alone.
> Unusual trip. Never had a full day/night of clear skies. Stars where not as good as past offshore transits between having the moon and constant 70-80% overcast. Saw a fair amount of lightening nearly every night. Trades never really filled in like you would want.
> Went with three total and used 2h watches 24/7. So between the muggy conditions, occasional fresh water rinses and overcast catching good sleep in your 4h off was hard. Had enough water for a couple of showers which was nice.
> With only three on the boat every one had their own bunk and space. No tripping over each other. But when I do this again might think of doing it with 4 just for the extra sleep.


Welcome back, thanks for the report...

it certainly seemed like an unusual year, not the best conditions for that trip, but sounds like you guys did fine, congrats...

I'll bet a lot of folks were happy when this year's passage was over... Following the 1500 fleet, one thing that struck me was the number who arrived at Nanny Cay in the dead of night, at a time like 0300... They must have _REALLY_ wanted that trip to be finished... ) I know the approach to Nanny Cay is not particularly daunting, but still...

An abiding faith in the chartplotter lives, no question about it... That whole 'waiting for daylight' to enter what might be a strange or unknown harbor approach at the end of a long, tiring passage is _SO_ Old School, after all...

)

So, where to from here? Are you planning to come back north next spring, or are you staying in the islands, or heading off elsewhere?


----------



## killarney_sailor

outbound said:


> thanks all for your kind wishes. Was using a spot but sometimes forgot to trigger it. Also had a morning check in via ssb so then sometimes wouldn't trigger the sport. Also had a daily chat with the other 5 Outbounds. Finally when we chatted with Chris we would give position and Dick listened in on all those chats.
> That's one of the nice incidental things about the SDR. Although the horizon is nearly always empty you don't feel alone.
> Unusual trip. Never had a full day/night of clear skies. Stars where not as good as past offshore transits between having the moon and constant 70-80% overcast. Saw a fair amount of lightening nearly every night. Trades never really filled in like you would want.
> Went with three total and used 2h watches 24/7. So between the muggy conditions, occasional fresh water rinses and overcast catching good sleep in your 4h off was hard. Had enough water for a couple of showers which was nice.
> With only three on the boat every one had their own bunk and space. No tripping over each other. But when I do this again might think of doing it with 4 just for the extra sleep.


Congratulations on your passage. Next time try using three hour watches so you can get more sleep. We use three hours watches for the 12 dark hours with no formal watches during the day since someone is always up and around. We tried two hour watches and were not happy with them. Four hours seemed too long.

We will have to keep an eye out for each other. We should be heading north from Grenada Feburaryish.


----------



## TomMaine

outbound said:


> thanks all for your kind wishes.
> That's one of the nice incidental things about the SDR. Although the horizon is nearly always empty you don't feel alone.
> Unusual trip. Never had a full day/night of clear skies. Stars where not as good as past offshore transits between having the moon and constant 70-80% overcast. Saw a fair amount of lightening nearly every night. Trades never really filled in like you would want.


Thanks for your report. I don't know if you met Iain and Fiona(she loves your boat), but they 'rallied' to Bermuda.

Interesting report from them here on their passage.

Something strange happened while at sea. | A little boat and a big ocean.


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> Thanks for your report. I don't know if you met Iain and Fiona(she loves your boat), but they 'rallied' to Bermuda.
> 
> Interesting report from them here on their passage.
> 
> Something strange happened while at sea. | A little boat and a big ocean.


Oh, no! Looks like the crew of RUFFIAN is not gonna make it to the Pig Roast!

)

Good on Iain and Fiona... I was surprised how few boats stopped in Bermuda this year, but as their track shows, it can be quite a diversion when one sails the rhumb line...










By "dodgers", I presume they're referring to what most of us here in the Colonies call "weather cloths"? I'm a bit surprised they didn't have them fitted at least for the start of the trip, in my opinion few things can make the cockpit of a small boat more comfortable, offshore, especially in November... 

Another interesting report from Charlie Doane, that re-affirms the potential difficulty of heading to Bermuda directly from New England... Once again, more than a few of the boats choosing that route find themselves 'limping in' to St George's... A Sabre 402 had to 'borrow' some fuel from a passing ship to make it in... And, if anyone thinks they can get away with not securing the drop boards in the companionway even on a center cockpit boat as large as this, think again... )

2014 SOUTHBOUND LUNACY: Waiting on WX in Bermuda


----------



## TomMaine

When I read the winds were not cooperating, I worried for RUFFIAN. Iain and Fiona sail their passages, they have to. Even with their jerry jugs on deck, their range is limited compared to bigger boats. There's not a spare cubic inch left for extra tankage. 

I marveled at how 2 people have been living aboard and moving that Sadler 34, always, for 3-4 years now. To get a sense of how packed the boat is, when they lift the sole, every cubic inch is full of canned foods and bottles(their bilge is insulated and dry-they have no bilge). 

They revel in sailing off shore. Racers to the core, they're good at it(and enjoy it immensely)! 

But if winds are light, RUFFIAN is challenged with her load(we sailed a week with them). 

When they had wind on this passage, it was strong and on the nose. They can(and have), do that too. 

But I could just see their sea-savvy thinking in falling off for Bermuda. They have time. Plenty of time.


----------



## outbound

Good on ruffian.
Several boats traded fuel. We carry 200g and went through half of it. Even had to power sail with both jib and main up at times.
Thinking of just messy around in Eastern caribe for awhile. Wife will,call the shot on where next. 
Internet via wifi is slow even with th booster so been bad about being on SN. Had a great sail at hull speed from bitter end to fat hogs bay today. Made the 12 to2 watches in a fresh water rinse worthwhile. Friend said one day they reefed/unreefed over 12x in a single 3h watch. Makes me think Jon is more man than me going forward each time to do this.
Picking out a marina. Any thoughts on good ones in BVI would be appreciated.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Friend said one day they reefed/unreefed over 12x in a single 3h watch. Makes me think Jon is more man than me going forward each time to do this.


LOL! Yeah, but I probably have less distance to cover going from my cockpit to my mast, than you might have between your helm and the lines led aft to your cockpit... 

Trust me, if I had a boat the size of yours, I'd be going the Leisure-Furl route, as well...


----------



## outbound

Have single line jiffy for the first two and double for the third with Dutchman to hold things in place. 
Leisure furl just makes me nervous. What if with the stresses and strains the boom angle changes or the halyard breaks and dumps your whole main on deck just attached at foot and clew. Also particularly with the third like to be able to shape it. Even with single line reefing between halyard tension traveler and vang can shape the other two.
Frien got a rip in his main on this trip. Given tear was below 2nd reef and just went to that reef. Then no stress on the torn section. Would think even if on a mandrel tear would continue.
Yes Jon I'm old school. Just not as old school as you.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Have single line jiffy for the first two and double for the third with Dutchman to hold things in place.
> Leisure furl just makes me nervous. *What if with the stresses and strains the boom angle changes or the halyard breaks and dumps your whole main on deck just attached at foot and clew.*


I don't know, seems to me the same thing can occur with a conventional mainsail, no?



outbound said:


> Frien got a rip in his main on this trip. Given tear was below 2nd reef and just went to that reef. Then no stress on the torn section. Would think even if on a mandrel tear would continue.
> Yes Jon I'm old school. Just not as old school as you.


That's a good point... ideally, I think any sail on a Leisure furl should still have cringles installed along the leech at various reef points, so that a strop could be led through and secured beneath the boom if deemed necessary... although, I've yet to see one like that...

Might be a good idea for Stanley Paris to add a strop to the clew of his main, as well... I'm pretty sure he has by now, however...

)


----------



## outbound

Yes agree you have a good idea for Stanley. 
With conventional main if halyard parts you do not have the whole thing lying on your deck or in the sea. Even with no boom you can take a line from clew to snatch block to winch and keep sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

You're welcome Salty Dog and its ralliers:

Cruising Compass ? Outfitting Your Sailboat for Safety at Sea | Salty Dawg Rally



> The International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and U.S. Sailing have been leaders in the safety at sea movement for many years, and as such, have developed a set of safety recommendations for what offshore quality yachts and their crews should have aboard when heading out over the horizon. Many of their recommendations are required for entry in offshore racing events, but cruising sailors can easily look at them as a helpful set of parameters to follow when outfitting for their own coastal or offshore passages.


Just shy of 1K posts - and I was right again from the very beginning.


----------



## xort

Well, isn't that special, churchlady!


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh.


----------



## xort

THAT should be your avatar


----------

