# "Dove" crew missing



## Paul2000

The U.S. Coast Guard said Saturday morning on Twitter that rescuers were searching for Charlotte Kirby, Nathaniel Davis and Wilfredo Lombardo, who were aboard the 40-foot sailboat named Dove. The boat was last known to be about 20 miles south of Mount Desert Island, where the famed Acadia National Park and seaside hamlet town of Bar Harbor are located.

The Coast Guard said that dispatchers on the mainland received a 911 call at about 3 a.m. from passengers on the boat that warned they were in distress.

"They basically said 'help' and 'we're on a boat' before the call cut out," Coast Guard spokeswoman Petty Officer Nicole Groll told the Portland Press Herald.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/missing-sailboat-maine-coast-coast-guard-massive-search


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

This is in Maine?


"The air temperature hovered around 34 degrees, with a water temperature of 52 degrees."

Hypothermia calculation ain't great


----------



## DDouglas1

Good lord. Pray they have an inflatable or a dinghy, food and water.
I pray they are found in good shape.


----------



## Chris271828

Good news, they were found. 

My post count isn’t high enough to post a link.


“BAR HARBOR, MAINE (AP) — The Coast Guard says a sailboat that placed a distress call off the Maine coast has been located.

The Coast Guard ended a three-day search Monday after the 40-foot boat, Dove, was located safe and sound, nearly 100 miles off the New Jersey coast.”


----------



## bristol299bob

Chris271828 said:


> Good news, they were found.
> 
> My post count isn't high enough to post a link.


here you go

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2019-11-18/search-for-missing-sailboat-enters-3rd-day


----------



## mbianka

Well that's good news! But,

_"The search began when a woman dialed 911 to make a distress call early Saturday.
The Coast Guard determined the call came from a location 20 miles south of Mount Desert Island. Groll said the Coast Guard wants to interview the crew at its next port of call."_

Damn right. Got to be more to this story. Lucky they had Locator device on board. Stupid that they had not renewed the subscription before the started the passage to Florida.


----------



## drew1711

Glad they've been found. A happy ending for once.

Much as I hate to speculate, it sounds like a classic case of something frightening an inexperienced passenger who panicked and made the call. Someone else snatched the cell phone and ended it. My best guess.


----------



## mbianka

drew1711 said:


> Glad they've been found. A happy ending for once.
> 
> Much as I hate to speculate, it sounds like a classic case of something frightening an inexperienced passenger who panicked and made the call. Someone else snatched the cell phone and ended it. My best guess.


Similar situation that happened during the Perfect Storm.


----------



## patrickbryant

mbianka said:


> Similar situation that happened during the Perfect Storm.


This is harsh, but it's my interpretation that the two women aboard S/V Satori, the real-life sailboat depicted in The Perfect Storm, were possibly the "proximate cause" of the loss of one crewman aboard the rescue helicopter and a possible "factor" in the loss of the entire crew of F/V Andrea Gail -- by diverting resources to an unnecessary rescue. The Satori was so robust that, though abandoned by order of the USCG, she went on her way with no one aboard and was recovered later intact. The whole story is here: https://www.westsail.org/satoristorm.

We can't know what happened aboard F/V Andrea Gail. No one lived to tell the story. The movie is pure speculation based on little objective fact. But if the rescue helicopter hadn't ditched due to fuel exhaustion while en-route to her, the story may have ended very differently.

The lesson is: don't let people aboard your vessel issue a spurious distress call. I show my crew and passengers how to use the radio, how the "distress" DSC button works, and how to activate the EPIRB. But I stress, they are not to touch those emergency functions unless I am incapacitated, overboard, or dead. I also stress how a rescue can be more hazardous than hunkering down on board. And that the liferaft is to be used only if they have to step up to get into it. I see the main utility of a liferaft is for rescuing people from another vessel, sent down on a lanyard, where the seastate is too dangerous to lay alongside.


----------



## chef2sail

patrickbryant said:


> This is harsh, but it's my interpretation that the two women aboard S/V Satori, the real-life sailboat depicted in The Perfect Storm, were possibly the "proximate cause" of the loss of one crewman aboard the rescue helicopter and a possible "factor" in the loss of the entire crew of F/V Andrea Gail -- by diverting resources to an unnecessary rescue. The Satori was so robust that, though abandoned by order of the USCG, she went on her way with no one aboard and was recovered later intact. The whole story is here: https://www.westsail.org/satoristorm.
> 
> We can't know what happened aboard F/V Andrea Gail. No one lived to tell the story. The movie is pure speculation based on little objective fact. But if the rescue helicopter hadn't ditched due to fuel exhaustion while en-route to her, the story may have ended very differently.
> 
> The lesson is: don't let people aboard your vessel issue a spurious distress call. I show my crew and passengers how to use the radio, how the "distress" DSC button works, and how to activate the EPIRB. But I stress, they are not to touch those emergency functions unless I am incapacitated, overboard, or dead. I also stress how a rescue can be more hazardous than hunkering down on board. And that the liferaft is to be used only if they have to step up to get into it. I see the main utility of a liferaft is for rescuing people from another vessel, sent down on a lanyard, where the seastate is too dangerous to lay alongside.


Many of us know and understand the way that Satori story went.
It is -20/20 hindsight to interpret that as the ladies fault.


----------



## patrickbryant

chef2sail said:


> Many of us know and understand the way that Satori story went.
> It is -20/20 hindsight to interpret that as the ladies fault.


Maybe true. But the lesson still stands. The skipper should make the risk assessment and decide if the risk of staying aboard is greater than the risk of being rescued - which can be substantial. Once the call goes out that conditions have put your vessel in unsurvivable peril, you've almost certainly committed to abandoning ship. There are other less drastic options, like being on a radio watch. They'll ask how things are going, and if you go silent, they'll dispatch a rescue.

You can also ask another nearby vessel to stand alongside. I've done that once. With my little personal boat, a 26 foot Pearson Ariel standing alongside a 50 foot sailboat hove to in 12 foot swells at 16 seconds and 40 knot winds, my reports that everything was fine aboard my boat had a real calming affect on the people aboard the "imperiled" bigger boat. If my "little" boat was doing OK, maybe they were worrying too much.

It's happened to me that an inexperienced person insisted on calling in a rescue in just a bit worse than moderate conditions. Mostly, they were seasick, which makes everything seem worse. I sent that person down below with the instructions to: "check to see if there's smoke or water greater than ankle deep in the cabin." When they returned to report neither, I said: "Good. Then we aren't sinking or on fire. Please relax. I'll have you check again in 10 minutes." (Keep scared people busy and reassured.) That went on until the seastate improved and my nervous shipmate fell asleep. Now, if it'd been up to that person, we'd have had a dangerous ride up a cable to a Coast Guard helicopter, putting all of us and the Coast Guard crew in unnecessary danger. Plus, taking away that rescue asset from someone who may actually need it.


----------



## chef2sail

patrickbryant said:


> Maybe true. But the lesson still stands. The skipper should make the risk assessment and decide if the risk of staying aboard is greater than the risk of being rescued - which can be substantial. Once the call goes out that conditions have put your vessel in unsurvivable peril, you've almost certainly committed to abandoning ship. There are other less drastic options, like being on a radio watch. They'll ask how things are going, and if you go silent, they'll dispatch a rescue.
> 
> You can also ask another nearby vessel to stand alongside. I've done that once. With my little personal boat, a 26 foot Pearson Ariel standing alongside a 50 foot sailboat hove to in 12 foot swells at 16 seconds and 40 knot winds, my reports that everything was fine aboard my boat had a real calming affect on the people aboard the "imperiled" bigger boat. If my "little" boat was doing OK, maybe they were worrying too much.
> 
> It's happened to me that an inexperienced person insisted on calling in a rescue in just a bit worse than moderate conditions. Mostly, they were seasick, which makes everything seem worse. I sent that person down below with the instructions to: "check to see if there's smoke or water greater than ankle deep in the cabin." When they returned to report neither, I said: "Good. Then we aren't sinking or on fire. Please relax. I'll have you check again in 10 minutes." (Keep scared people busy and reassured.) That went on until the seastate improved and my nervous shipmate fell asleep. Now, if it'd been up to that person, we'd have had a dangerous ride up a cable to a Coast Guard helicopter, putting all of us and the Coast Guard crew in unnecessary danger. Plus, taking away that rescue asset from someone who may actually need it.


Certainly lots of different issues presented in 1 paragraph. All may contribute to thread drift

1- responsibilities of the captain to informing newbies how the should act on the boat ie,. Man overboard, contacting authorities, using VHF, pfd use. Head use. Etc On Haleakula use of VHF restricted to wife oe myself unless incapacitated

2- assessing the guests abilities designated to the captain, ive take many guests on board from first timers to experienced crew. Sounds like you had an inexperienced nervous Nellie. It's ok different people react differently. Placing a real newbie on a 26 ft boat like your or #35 ft boat like mine is intimidating for some. I tailor our day out around that and how they react when they first come aboard. I wat h carefully. Last thing I want is them uncomfortable when it takes a few Hours to get to dock. They can upset themselves and others.

It's a big leap from a basic sail on a realitively heavy sailing day to the need to call the CG for rescue. We've all read what the captain responsibilities are are most on here know them. Asking for assistance is a big step. Askking for xassistance to step of the boat. More or less a final step. The crew is not involved in these decisions. Calling in the CG is the captains responsibility unless incapacitated. Also checking the vessel for that potential....again the captains responsibility.

Maybe explaining what was the actual emergency ( smoke / water) you mentioned. I have found that many nervous people are looking for confidence in the captain. It goes a long way to settling them down, how the captain reacts. That can set the tone in many guest situations.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

To me it's "same old, same old".

It never changes. 

Sail in the right season. 

Maine and November are not correct together. 

You get terrifying storms that rightly terrify even experiend sailors who then do terrifyingly stupid things that they think are correct. 

Often people mention that an evacuated boat has popped out the other side of the storm. But I wonder the permanently altered minds of the people who remain on-board. 

Sailing is easy. Passage making is much more difficult. Passage making in the wrong season is insane. 


Mark


----------



## Don L

This is know-it-all couch sailing that could at least wait till all the info is available.

Better to call for a rescue and be wrong than to not call and be wrong.


----------



## capta

In my opinion, *if the story is as it appears to be*, this is a case where these people should be held accountable for the costs of this search. At the very least that the person who ended the call to 911 so abruptly should have called back and made it clear that there was no emergency. If not common courtesy, then put that under common sense! Time to make an example of these people and charge them for every penny spent searching for them!
The powers that be should make it expensive enough that folks think twice before calling out SAR on a whim and only use the system when life (not a boat) is at stake.


----------



## chef2sail

capta said:


> In my opinion, *if the story is as it appears to be*, this is a case where these people should be held accountable for the costs of this search. At the very least that the person who ended the call to 911 so abruptly should have called back and made it clear that there was no emergency. If not common courtesy, then put that under common sense! Time to make an example of these people and charge them for every penny spent searching for them!
> The powers that be should make it expensive enough that folks think twice before calling out SAR on a whim and only use the system when life (not a boat) is at stake.


No way. Bad idea.

Only when there is an obvious hoax that is preplanned should their be " punitive renewmerable damages " to recover the costs.

I understand it puts assets in harms way potentially.
I understand there is a monetary cost . 
I understand your intention is to prevent frivolous alarms, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

I however I have more faith and trust with the professionals of the CG to determine what actions need be taken. Not you sitting behind a computer or a civilian . I am sure they assessed the situation, with ALL the facts they knew at the time meaning they had more info than you and I though just reading the internet, and determined that a search was necessary.

Putting some predetermined deterrent with penalty of costs so people don't call does not make sense. It isn't done when you call the cops when you see something suspicious like a possible terrorist attempt. It isn't done when a neighborhood watch calls something in. More appropriate it ISNT done when someone files a missing persons report.

Again...I trust the professionals to evaluate the information and take what they deem are appropriate protocols in reacting to what they see. Any time wasted by restrictions or hesitations could have negative consequences


----------



## patrickbryant

If you call the police - it's free. But call an ambulance, and it can be very costly. There's something vaguely ironic about that.

Some counties and states will charge a hefty price for rescues. And they'll go so far as attaching liens to your property to collect.

Here's an article on the topic: Get into Trouble Outdoors -- Who Pays for the Rescue? - TIME

In the context of USCG rescues, I'd like to see more after-incident boards of inquiry with judicial authority. If the mariner was grossly negligent, he/she could be compelled to attend remedial training or in extreme cases, be judicially prohibited from operating a vessel in waters within the jurisdiction.


----------



## outbound

Very sticky wicket. Since last go round have thought some on this. Still, think below needs improvement and further thought. 
1- statistically passage is safer than coastal. Believe that’s so because fewer %age of people do passages unprepared and on unsuitable vessels. However, there are a constant stream of folks who are the exceptions proving the rule.
2. It’s inappropriate to have people die when resources are standing idle which could save them.
3. It’s inappropriate to have people not take some level of personal responsibility for their actions.
Hence, if a mayday is judged to have been within some measure of appropriateness by a experienced jury no punitive action be taken. Be that conditions beyond skills of crew, mechanical failure, inter current illness, exhaustion or other state that a prudent person could judge placed life at risk. If the jury of mariners judged the mayday to have been frivolous then crew pay damages capped at the value of the vessel involved. Independent wrongful death torts could apply however. If repetitive frivolous maydays occur non monetary actions also occur. Depending upon specifics - unpaid labor at a coast guard station or other government facility, mandatory education and passing proscribed testing, incarceration or other actions as deemed appropriate.
Think there’s a general consensus that is bad news to place CG service people at risk to no good purpose but acknowledge one of their purposes is SAR and impeding SAR should not occur.


----------



## capta

chef2sail said:


> No way. Bad idea.
> 
> Only when there is an obvious hoax that is preplanned should their be " punitive renewmerable damages " to recover the costs.
> 
> I understand it puts assets in harms way potentially.
> I understand there is a monetary cost .
> I understand your intention is to prevent frivolous alarms, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
> 
> I however I have more faith and trust with the professionals of the CG to determine what actions need be taken. Not you sitting behind a computer or a civilian . I am sure they assessed the situation, with ALL the facts they knew at the time meaning they had more info than you and I though just reading the internet, and determined that a search was necessary.
> 
> Putting some predetermined deterrent with penalty of costs so people don't call does not make sense. It isn't done when you call the cops when you see something suspicious like a possible terrorist attempt. It isn't done when a neighborhood watch calls something in. More appropriate it ISNT done when someone files a missing persons report.
> 
> Again...I trust the professionals to evaluate the information and take what they deem are appropriate protocols in reacting to what they see. Any time wasted by restrictions or hesitations could have negative consequences


Again, *if* this story is as we have heard, this was a call to 911, not the CG. How difficult would it have been for the person who ended the call to recall 911 and tell them it was a mistake and everything was fine.
No, in this case it was a massive abuse of the system and they should be required to pay the whole SAR expenses, all of which could have been avoided by someone on the boat using a tiny bit of common sense, common courtesy and/or just plain good judgment. This is every bit as bad as those hoax calls you refer to.


----------



## patrickbryant

chef2sail said:


> Maybe explaining what was the actual emergency ( smoke / water) you mentioned. I have found that many nervous people are looking for confidence in the captain. It goes a long way to settling them down, how the captain reacts. That can set the tone in many guest situations.


There was no actual emergency, except for a seasick SF Bay sailor shipmate in consequent misery. Conditions were worse than predicted passing Pigeon Point on a passage from Half Moon Bay (Pillar Point) to Santa Cruz. This isn't rare: Pigeon Point juts out into the northerly winds creating a venturi effect with localized high winds to the south causing windwaves to stand up against westerly swells causing moderate cross-seas. Conditions were 25 to 30 knot northerly winds with 8 foot windwaves and 10 foot westerly swells at about 16 seconds. We were 8 miles offshore. The boat never heeled past 30 degrees (I was down to my second reef with a 50% jib) while sailing right up against but not exceeding hull speed (not surfing). Wing-on-wing configuration, sailing directly downwind. The bow would bury occasionally for a second scooping up some water on the foredeck, and there was occasional spray over the side into the cockpit. Myself: I was not only confident but clearly enjoying the ride. That confidence led my shipmate to conclude I was more than "confident", but, because I was completely calm, had crossed the "confidence" threshold into insanity.

In all due sympathy, those were conditions very unusual to a Bay sailor, even a very experienced Bay sailor, like my shipmate. One can sail a lifetime in the SF Bay and have no acquired tolerance to seasickness. The San Francisco Bay is just a big lake with a half-mile wide channel leading to the sea. Except in that channel, there are no swells in the Bay (only nasty awful short-period chop). There was no smoke or water in the cabin, and my asking for a check was only my way of keeping the person purposefully busy (which helps with seasickness) and directly demonstrating the boat was not in any peril of sinking. I thought that point was obvious in my previous post. Sorry if I didn't express that clearly.

The nearest harbors, Pillar Point and Santa Cruz, were each 20 miles away north or south, respectively. Diverting to a closer harbor was not an option. Conditions improved in less than 2 hours. My shipmate was in the throes of severe seasickness in an unfamiliar and perceived-threatening environment. We have sailed together many times since.


----------



## VIEXILE

Good God. I live near Penobscot Bay, although at the moment I'm looking out the window at Jost Van Dyke across Pillsbury Sound. When I spoke with my wife the other day, it was 14 friggin' degrees F in Maine. She wasn't happy I was down here working, and I was happy I wasn't performing morning snow removal. Back up on Tuesday.

Mid November is an incredibly bad time to do a delivery south. But it sounds like someone dropped the ball. SAR USCG should have been immediately contacted and called off. Sorry, but I agree this was as close to a fraudulent "remunerable" call as you can get.


----------



## drew1711

It is a matter of local policy, but for the most part, you can't "unmake" a 911 call. If you even dial the number, say nothing and hang up, they will use your phone's location to dispatch police to investigate. When a mistake is made, we owe it in good faith to call them back and explain, I agree, but don't count on them to accept your explanation and do nothing.

A mayday call on a VHF can be cancelled, of course, but not a 911 phone call. It would be interesting to know what USCG's policy is on a situation like this. 

We don't know because the skipper didn't think to call them and straighten it out. It's also quite possible, even likely, he had no idea there was a SAR effort out looking for him.


----------



## midwesterner

bristol299bob said:


> here you go
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2019-11-18/search-for-missing-sailboat-enters-3rd-day


This article reports on how they located them.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/missing-sailboat-maine-coast-guard-found-safe-journey


----------



## midwesterner

bristol299bob said:


> here you go
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2019-11-18/search-for-missing-sailboat-enters-3rd-day


This article reports on how they located them.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/missing-sailboat-maine-coast-guard-found-safe-journey


----------



## VIEXILE

No second guessing here. Just an absolutely DUMB ass time to head out of Somes Sound. Temps were in the single digits a few days ago, and "34F" when they headed out. Someone got some splanin' to do about the 3 AM phone 911 call that triggered all this. Even the old man says "I'm pissed, I want to know what the hell happened."


----------



## cherylchecheryl

There seems to be two camps--one for charging them full freight for this debacle, and one for not charging them at all.

What about a fine? Punishes folks for stupid things but doesn't bankrupt them like a full rescue cost could. I recently bought a PLB, and I believe that the instructions/literature mentioned fines. 

The PLB also doesn't need a paid subscription for emergency calls like inReach, so those on a budget don't have a monthly charge. 

People are always going to afford what they want to afford though anyway.


----------



## jtsailjt

I don't think that "obvious hoax" should be the criteria for forcing those triggering a very expensive search by calling 911 to take some responsibility for their misguided decision. If someone feels like they are in danger (even if it turns out to not be life threatening conditions) then they have acted in good faith when they call 911 and I wouldn't want to discourage that. But in this case someone apparently got scared and called 911 but then hung up or was forced to hang up by someone else aboard before they could explain that there was no emergency and no need for a search. It's not the initial calling of 911 (however unnecessary) that I have the biggest problem with, but rather it's the prematurely hanging up and apparently not making any effort to explain their actual situation so the search that the curtailed call predictably triggered could be curtailed or avoided altogether. Everybody knows you can't call 911, hang up and hope nobody notices. What they did wasn't a deliberate hoax but it was very irresponsible and cost a lot of money and effort on a lot of peoples part so all those aboard who had knowledge of this call and failed to contact the authorities to explain that there really was no emergency should be held responsible for the consequences their irresponsibility caused. I don't expect they can afford to pay for the whole rescue effort, but if it went down as the info we now have seems to indicate, they should be fined a very substantial amount of money.

Regarding earlier comments regarding Sartori, yes it's 20-20 hindsight to see what the lady or ladies did wrong, but that doesn't change that it's true and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Their panicked action disrupted lots of peoples lives and cost a small fortune and had much wider consequences to lots of people than their "emergency" that wasn't an emergency deserved. I suppose it was ultimately the owner/skippers fault for taking on such inexperienced and undisciplined crew so in that sense he bears some responsibility for the temporary loss of his boat, but I'd say that about 90% of the blame goes to the panicked crewmember who called Mayday when the conditions didn't warrant it and when their captain had a plan in place and had experienced worse conditions on that same boat. It amounts to mutiny when a subordinate crewmember makes an irrevocable decision and takes action that effects the entire crew and the voyage. I'm not saying captains are always right but before a crewmember of any vessel decides to override the captains judgment and override his authority by doing something like calling Mayday unnecessarily, they better be very, very sure that they will be proven right or expect to never be asked to crew again. Part of signing up to go to sea as crew is implicitly agreeing to put your trust for your life in your captains hands and then reminding yourself of that whenever you have doubts. If you can't do that, don't sign on as crew under that captain. You can discuss your thoughts or worries or suggest alternate courses of action to your captain, but ultimately whatever he/she decides is the course of action you need to support to the very best of your ability. Apparently the ladies on Sartori didn't understand any of that and they should have.


----------



## midwesterner

jtsailjt said:


> Regarding earlier comments regarding Sartori, yes it's 20-20 hindsight to see what the lady or ladies did wrong, but that doesn't change that it's true and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. ..... I'd say that about 90% of the blame goes to the panicked crewmember who called Mayday when the conditions didn't warrant it and when their captain had a plan in place and had experienced worse conditions on that same boat.* It amounts to mutiny *when a subordinate crewmember makes an irrevocable decision and takes action that effects the entire crew and the voyage. I'm not saying captains are always right but before a crewmember of any vessel decides to override the captains judgment and override his authority by doing something like calling Mayday unnecessarily, they better be very, very sure that they will be proven right or expect to never be asked to crew again. *Part of signing up to go to sea as crew is implicitly agreeing to put your trust for your life in your captains hands* and then reminding yourself of that whenever you have doubts.


Unfortunately, the age old maritime laws of the British Navy don't exactly apply to a non-commercial pleasure craft, taking friends along on a pleasure cruise. It's not clear if their agreement was that they would serve as active crew, or if they were just invited along for the ride. For some people who are not experienced sailors, it may seem like the equivalent of saying, "I'm not comfortable with your driving. Pull to the side of the highway and let me out."


----------



## chef2sail

Now we’ve graduated to MUTINY. 

Bit of a reach or overeaction.


----------



## jtsailjt

chef2sail said:


> Now we've graduated to MUTINY.
> 
> Bit of a reach or overeaction.


Not at all a reach or overreaction to call what the crew of Sartori did to their skipper mutiny. The reference to mutiny was in the second paragraph where I was addressing what the two women did to the owner/circumnavigator/ skipper of Sartori, nothing to do with Dove. Their panicked overreaction to conditions the captain had experienced many times before at sea cost him, against his will, to be removed from his perfectly seaworthy vessel. That sounds a lot like mutiny to me. They substituted their own (limited) judgment for his and overthrew his authority and it was only luck that he ever got his sailboat back.

I don't think this Dove incident amounted to anything close to that and that's why I didn't say what you seem to be suggesting I said in reference to it, but rather was a case of one panicky crew member starting to call for help but then reconsidering or another crewmember intervening, but whatever happened here, whoever aboard knew about the aborted 911 call should have made it a top priority to notify SAR forces that they were indeed OK so nobody would be wasting their time out searching unnecessarily. Considering all the assets expended and people inconvenienced, those who caused it should have to bear some responsibility.

But both of these cases involved subordinate crewmembers panicking to the point of using their own judgment to at least momentarily override the captains. Crew members need to understand that the captain is the captain because he is the ONE who is entrusted to make all the big decisions aboard his boat. It's not a committee and it's not like in a car where you can ask to be let out on the side of the road at any time if you don't like what the driver is doing. Crew members need to understand and accept that, or not go to sea as crew.


----------



## jtsailjt

midwesterner said:


> Unfortunately, the age old maritime laws of the British Navy don't exactly apply to a non-commercial pleasure craft, taking friends along on a pleasure cruise. It's not clear if their agreement was that they would serve as active crew, or if they were just invited along for the ride. For some people who are not experienced sailors, it may seem like the equivalent of saying, "I'm not comfortable with your driving. Pull to the side of the highway and let me out."


It may not be clear to you that they were crew but it is to me because I used to know one of the individuals involved and have heard her talk about this incident over drinks and she described it as crewing. It was just a couple years after this incident and she was living aboard her boat in Portland, Maine but she had agreed to help crew this boat for a free ride south and to gain offshore sailing experience. So she was definitely crew, and it's not just the laws of the British Navy that make it clear the skipper is solely responsible and is in charge of his boat, it's universal at sea and in the air. Even if you invited some friends along for the ride on your pleasure craft, that doesn't mean they have any legal standing to overrule the skipper/owner unless he's doing something that's clearly unsafe enough to make removing him from command a necessity. We're talking something like the skipper having a stroke or going insane, not just a judgment call you disagree with. Societal norms on land have changed but the law regarding this hasn't changed. He who has the responsibility also must have the power to do what's necessary to conduct a safe voyage in his judgment and that's as it should be. Of course if they are friends of yours and they feel unsafe, the polite thing to do would be to accommodate them as best you can even if you know their fears are entirely irrational. But you don't legally have to. In the case of the Sartori incident, when the young ladies wanted to get off the boat, the captain had a good reason for not accommodating them and this is that the approach to shore at night in a storm would likely have been much more dangerous than remaining at sea with nothing out there to bump into.


----------



## chef2sail

I read the statement from the CG which states that the original cell phone call To them from the Dove cut out and that no one asked for help specifically.....do you have and further information we haven’t seen ?


----------



## cherylchecheryl

jtsailjt said:


> It may not be clear to you that they were crew but it is to me because I used to know one of the individuals involved and have heard her talk about this incident over drinks and she described it as crewing. It was just a couple years after this incident and she was living aboard her boat in Portland, Maine but she had agreed to help crew this boat for a free ride south and to gain offshore sailing experience. So she was definitely crew, and it's not just the laws of the British Navy that make it clear the skipper is solely responsible and is in charge of his boat, it's universal at sea and in the air. Even if you invited some friends along for the ride on your pleasure craft, that doesn't mean they have any legal standing to overrule the skipper/owner unless he's doing something that's clearly unsafe enough to make removing him from command a necessity. We're talking something like the skipper having a stroke or going insane, not just a judgment call you disagree with. Societal norms on land have changed but the law regarding this hasn't changed. He who has the responsibility also must have the power to do what's necessary to conduct a safe voyage in his judgment and that's as it should be. Of course if they are friends of yours and they feel unsafe, the polite thing to do would be to accommodate them as best you can even if you know their fears are entirely irrational. But you don't legally have to. In the case of the Sartori incident, when the young ladies wanted to get off the boat, the captain had a good reason for not accommodating them and this is that the approach to shore at night in a storm would likely have been much more dangerous than remaining at sea with nothing out there to bump into.


Did your friend pretty much confirm what the captain of Sartori said? Many times there is "she said", "he said", and the truth.


----------



## capttb

The 911 call would be classed as "needless" not a crime, versus a "false" call which is only a misdemeanor anyway. They didn't do anything illegal.


----------



## chef2sail

capttb said:


> The 911 call would be classed as "needless" not a crime, versus a "false" call which is only a misdemeanor anyway. They didn't do anything illegal.


Certainly not a mutiny....lol


----------



## jtsailjt

cherylchecheryl said:


> Did your friend pretty much confirm what the captain of Sartori said? Many times there is "she said", "he said", and the truth.


You can read up about this incident or even watch the utube video of the "rescue" (which endangered many and killed one) if you're really interested. I don't think any of us would choose to go sailing in those conditions but I wouldn't abandon my boat as long as my rig was still up and the boat seemed to be handling it ok. The female crewmember had never been in any significant offshore weather and panicked, called Mayday and described to the Coast Guard her perception that they were in very dangerous conditions and were taking on water, etc. so the CG made the decision the crew of Sartori must be removed based on her description of conditions aboard, even against the skippers will. It's not a he said she said thing at all because they whole incident is so well documented. Their only disagreement (he said she said) was the judgment call whether conditions were "dangerous" enough to abandon the ship by calling in the cavalry. He had circumnavigated on Sartori, and she was a young, inexperienced sailor. Even with no one onboard, Sartori survived the storm just fine and was reunited with her owner a few days later and he resumed sailing her.

I wouldn't call her a "friend," more like a fellow member of an organization called the Maine Island Trail Association so I associated with her occasionally. The time she talked about it was in an informal setting and since it was before the movie about the storm came out I hadn't heard anything about it so didn't know what questions to ask. Others were talking with her about it and she seemed sort of embarrassed about it and didn't really say much other than that she thought they were going to sink and didn't trust the skipper when he said it would be OK and he' been through worse conditions before aboard that same boat.


----------



## VIEXILE

These guys abandoned ship the other day and were picked up by a freighter, dismasted. There is an article in the Bangor Daily News, but I refuse to pay to have advertising flashing in my face. You can actually read the articles on your phone, but not on your computer (after something like "4 free peeks"). Rescued on Nov. 19th by cargo ship Jaguar Max the day after the USCG tracked them down off Long Island. No further comment from me on this one.


----------



## drew1711

VIEXILE said:


> These guys abandoned ship the other day and were picked up by a freighter, dismasted. There is an article in the Bangor Daily News, but I refuse to pay to have advertising flashing in my face. You can actually read the articles on your phone, but not on your computer (after something like "4 free peeks"). Rescued on Nov. 19th by cargo ship Jaguar Max the day after the USCG tracked them down off Long Island. No further comment from me on this one.


By Bill Trotter, BDN Staff • December 4, 2019 5:32 pm 
Updated: December 5, 2019 10:12 am

"_The 911 call that prompted a two-day search last month for a sailboat off Mount Desert Island came from a boat passenger who said she was "cold and uncomfortable" and "was not sure she was going to get warm again," a U.S. Coast Guard spokesman said Wednesday."_

https://bangordailynews.com/2019/12...i-was-because-she-was-cold-and-uncomfortable/


----------



## drew1711

By Rob Wolfe, Portland Press Herald

NORFOLK, Va. - _"The three boaters who were feared lost off Mount Desert Island last month were pulled from their 40-foot sailboat near Norfolk, Virginia Nov. 19 according to the U.S. Coast Guard.

A Coast Guard official said that a cargo ship, the Jaguar Max, rescued the trio off the coast of Virginia. The ship's crew reported that the sailboat had lost its mast and its occupants were donning lifejackets.

At the request of the Coast Guard, the 750-foot ship had diverted course toward the sailboat and subsequently made visual contact with the boaters. But it had to hold off on picking them up until the next day because of high winds and seas."_

https://www.mdislander.com/maine-news/sailors-rescued-boat-abandoned


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Weird, because in the La Vagabond thread everyone says is safe to sail in November.

What a difference a thread makes


----------



## SanderO

This is too weird.... first a false alarm and then several weeks later the real deal and the crew is picked up by a freighter? Can't make this sh*t up!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Maybe the person who rang 911 a few weeks ago wasn't that stupid.

?


----------



## PhilCarlson

Free sailboat, slightly used, engine ran great when we shut her down. Needs mast and rigging (and a tow)....


----------



## Minnesail

I feel like there might be some operator error involved here.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnesail said:


> I feel like there might be some operator error involved here.


"Feel like"... The great legal level of proof required to hang a man.

:devil


----------



## hildamman

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Weird, because in the La Vagabond thread everyone says is safe to sail in November.
> 
> What a difference a thread makes


Context matters here. Mt Desert Island is at 44N & we are in December.

Look at Vagabonde's track - they stayed well South until they got close to their destination & then went North. If there was no weather window, the Vagabonde people would have waited for one before going North.

The Vagabonde people are seasoned sailors who know what they are doing. Not sure about the skipper of the Dove.


----------



## hildamman

hildamman said:


> Context matters here. Mt Desert Island is at 44N & we are in December.
> 
> Look at Vagabonde's track - they stayed well South until they got close to their destination & then went North. If there was no weather window, the Vagabonde people would have waited for one before going North.
> 
> The Vagabonde people are seasoned sailors who know what they are doing. Not sure about the skipper of the Dove.


My bad, looks like this was off Norfolk. Would be interested in the co-ordinates though.


----------



## DuffyN

Interesting thread. Don’t know the area at all but sounds like they be cruising in the wrong time of the year. Out here in Pacific Northwest you don’t go ocean sailing in the winter months, it is just too brutal. I remember one December day in winter many years ago at Shilshole Bay Marina, a kid comes up to me, can I get a ride to the store? I said, depends on where you came from. Hawaii! You’re on! He showed me their penciled path on a chart (no gps, phones back then), a number of big loops made when big storms hit and they had to run downwind. They had a stove fire and nearly lost it surfing down the front of a huge wave but fortunately the tires they were dragging caught hold....


----------

