# Rescued at Sea - Are You Prepared?



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)




----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

This would be a natural upgrade to the Safety at Sea course. The safety committee for the Newport-Bermuda race may be interested. They are detailed on that website. Many of the folks that wrote that program are affiliated.

Some of this material, such as helo-basket is, in fact, already covered.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

While it maybe obvious to many, it also covers which side of the boat you should launch your raft from. If it never occurred to you that one side is better than the other, you won't likely be in the state of mind to figure it out in the moment. So, for trivia, which is it?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

So it seems that what we need to start with is an outline for the curriculum? Should I go ahead and try to reach out to Gary Jobson?

I'm happy to give it a shot unless someone around here knows him personally and get this rolling.

(PS - Thanks Jeff/TD for moving this thread.)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Ron Trossbach at [email protected] is the guy you want. Ive certainly met him, but can't say I know him well. Retired Navy Captain or Admiral, IIRC.

He is the safety guy for the race and writes the safety publication.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - I just fired off an email to Gary Jobson. I'll let you guys know if/when I hear back.

(Doug - get back on here and start laying out your vision dude! Otherwise, we're going to run with it!)


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> While it maybe obvious to many, it also covers which side of the boat you should launch your raft from. If it never occurred to you that one side is better than the other, you won't likely be in the state of mind to figure it out in the moment. So, for trivia, which is it?


lee side?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

So I’m only a couple of weeks away for my trip from Las Palmas to Georgetown and all you guys can talk about is death and destruction at sea? Why can’t we discuss more important things like “the best lure to use in the Atlantic for Yellow Fin” or “favorite sushi recipes”? As AMVER is voluntary, it would ultimately be more risky to us yachtsmen if the governing authority encumbers the volunteers with more requirements just to satisfy us. I would rather be on the receiving end of a poorly executed pickup than not at all if the ship’s master (or owner) deems it too much of a hassle to respond. Any additional training lies with us yachtsmen, not the Liberian registered tankers. (The type of rescue they do is no less than what would be done for one of their own.) In seeing how difficult it is to make an open ocean transfer, could the most important training is to practice standing on a mechanical bull while changing a light bulb?

On a more practical side, you will always launch your emergency life raft on the leeward side of the boat. You will secure the raft’s painter so it is not entangled in life lines or other rigging before deploying the raft. A rescuing vessel will attempt to come along side to you windward, in order to minimize as much as possible, the effects of wind and sea.

As I mentioned before, there are great resources already out there to teach you on how to prepare for an emergency at sea. Take the Safety at Sea class. You can also take the preparation seminars for races like the Pac Cup or Transpac. My local OYRA and SSS does great safety briefings and presentations. Gain more practical experience before you venture offshore. Smack, you need to always remember that ocean sailing is inherently dangerous and risky. If you are uncomfortable with that, you need to stick to sailing in your local duck pond or perhaps take up golf.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

A unified "best practices" distributed among both AMVER participants, and yachters would go a long way to minimising danger, and streamlining procedure if both parties know and agree ahead of time exactly what will happen.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

peterchech said:


> lee side?


Well done.

Can you imagine the untrained randomly choosing the windward side, making a successful entry in to the raft and being pinned against the hull as the boat sinks and its rigging tears the raft to shreds.

Next, all should have hands on, practical training in actually entering a raft at sea. If you don't make a direct dive in, trying to climb in on a net ladder is much more difficult and more exhausting than one might imagine. Once you've tried it, you will want an inflatable entry ramp. Next, try righting a raft that inflated upside down.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

If somebody wants to offer a course in this stuff it is fine by me, but to make something mandatory requires way too much bureaucracy for my taste.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - I just fired off an email to Gary Jobson. I'll let you guys know if/when I hear back.
> 
> (Doug - get back on here and start laying out your vision dude! Otherwise, we're going to run with it!)


Okay, but this is really the guy that can get it into the curriculum of an existing renowned offshore safety seminar. He's not just a race volunteer. This guy has made a second career of safety while cruising offshore.

Ron Trossbach


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Okay, but this is really the guy that can get it into the curriculum of an existing renowned offshore safety seminar. He's not just a race volunteer. This guy has made a second career of safety while cruising offshore.
> 
> Ron Trossbach


Oh, I see. I'll hit him up too then. Thanks Minne.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

*Lee side*

Might be tough to lauch an inflatable to windward


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Wow! I keep finding more and more videos of these things (and adding them to the OP)! NONE OF THEM look pleasant.

It really does show how much training like this is needed. Think about your wife and kids having to deal with the difficulties shown in these vids


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

It is correct to have liferaft to leeward except if your boat is on fire - then you bring it up on the windward side.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I like Ralph Naranjo stuff as has circumnavigated with his family and i know him


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

capttb said:


> Might be tough to lauch an inflatable to windward


While a bad idea, why is it tough? The packaged raft will go over wherever you toss it. It doesn't get inflated until in the water. I could actually imagine someone thinking that the wind would help hold it close for boarding, without fully thinking through the consequences.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

> Rescued at Sea - Are You Prepared?


Only if THEY deploy a life boat... Wahh Wahhh Wahhhhh.....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Well, I just heard back from Ron Trossbach. Man that was quick!!! Great guy.

I've sent him a bit more clarification on the issue we're discussing. Who here has taken the SAS seminar? And was this issue of _transferring from your vessel to a ship _covered?


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I took the SAS in Annapolis prior to the 1998 BOR race, I don't recall any discussions regarding transferring crew from small vessel to a tanker. I still have my notes from the weekend, I'll check them out.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

Looks like there is a big difference in how a cruise ship and a cargo ship deal with rescues. Smack, have you seen the pictures of the Elle rescue? That was a cargo ship that draped a net over for a rescue with Elle coming alongside.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Smack, despite what the articles in the slick yachting magazines say, ocean sailing can be risky business and you will have to make some serious decisions about how much risk you are willing to impose upon your love ones. The other scary thought is you will most likely be most skilled mariner on your boat by a magnitude. How comfortable are you in taking their lives in your hands? I took my SAS at the California Maritime Academy. No direct discussion about climbing a Jacob’s Ladder. I did attend Skip Allen’s debriefing at SSS which he talked about his rescue.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Tempest said:


> I took the SAS in Annapolis prior to the 1998 BOR race, I don't recall any discussions regarding transferring crew from small vessel to a tanker. I still have my notes from the weekend, I'll check them out.


I also took the SAS in Annapolis around that year. The only thing covered was an actual CG helo pick-up in the Severn River. No big boat transfer. Thing I remember from the CG was let them dip the basket in the water prior to you touching it or you could get a shock (static electricity from the rotor blades).


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I have taken SAS in Newport, RI and Ron himself taught part of it. No recollection of transfer to a large ship, although the AMVR program was reviewed. That is, AMVR was discussed as your only hope outside several hundred miles offshore. That's about it.

Yes, Ron is a very nice guy, very knowledgable and very engaged in cruising safety.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - so those who have taken the seminar/course...would you guys like to see something like this added to the curriculum? 

That's basically Ron's question to me. And since I've not yet taken the seminar, I can't answer him. Hopefully he will come on here and join the discussion.

The bottom line is that this SAS thing should be something every sailor, racer or cruiser, takes. This is critical information.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I have also taken the SAS course in Annapolis and my recollections are the same as those above. One of the be3st courses I have ever taken I too rememeber the helo rescuers point about dipping the basket in the water before touching it. There were a lot of pertinent topics covered in oit like proper clothing, how to enter a liferaft etc. Was an eyeopener for me and many of the toipics even though common sense were good to identify strategically and go over so one would not have to think about them when either put in the situatuion to be rescued or to be the rescuer. 




I remember inquiring about other SAS rescue courses as the ir were others dealing in advanced topics such as medical care, survuval at sea safety, etc.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so those who have taken the seminar/course...would you guys like to see something like this added.......


Sure. How about adding sailboat to sailboat as well. The interesting question is how to teach this given all the variables in equipment on each vessel.

There may be some generic suggestions, such as never transfer from boat to boat. Attach line and transfer from life raft or water to boat maybe? In any event, I would be very interested in what Ron suggested.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - cool. I'll stay on Ron then. Again his point was that they are always very open to suggestions for improvement of the seminar curriculum from those who have taken it.

I'll let you guys know what I hear back.

On another note, let's get down to some brass tacks here. In watching all those videos (and many others over the years) - I'm seeing what appears to be a disturbing trend...virtually all the boats are still floating high with intact rigs.

That leads me to believe two things:

1. It seems very rare that anyone really ever "steps up" from a boat. They bail out because things become too much for them and their crew.

2. The "we are taking on water" mantra in rescue calls might be seriously over-stated. In other words, it's hard to "convince" someone you're really in trouble if your boat is tight and dry. So the "taking on water" becomes a critical part of the call, even if it's not a real factor in the "emergency".

I'm starting to think that if people understand the real _dangers involved in being rescued_ - it might push that call off a bit longer. In any case, it makes the necessity of preparing yourself and your crew/family to deal with some seriously intense misery for potentially very long periods of time paramount.

This is some thought-provoking stuff.

I think about Jeanne Socrates and what she had to endure after her knockdown off Cape Horn. And I have even more admiration of her. Freakin' rock star.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yet another...



JonEisberg said:


> Looks like we might be seeing another YouTube video soon, of another example of the extreme danger of bringing a small boat alongside a ship at sea in rough weather... Sounds like one of these crewmembers is very lucky to be alive, barely avoiding being "squished" after falling in the water between the two...
> 
> The NARC fleet really got pasted this time... The delivery I'm currently on originated in eastern LI Sound, and the owner originally just assumed I'd go via Bermuda... This year seems further confirmation, Don Street's take on the passage south is right on the money - that for anything less than large, fast, fully crewed yachts, a departure from the Chesapeake or Beaufort is the only way to go...
> 
> ...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here are the reasons for abandonment from the Elle (in the picture above):



> Jim Schweitzel said: "The winds were 40 to 90 knots, with waves bigger than I've ever seen them. They looked like houses.
> 
> "We decided to take a rest and hope that the storm would die down, but it was like sitting in a tomb. Eventually, we decided to call for help."
> 
> ...


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

My opinion on this is YOU have to prepare "yourself". Every book i've read preaches this mantra. Why would we want to push anymore "responsibility" on anyone else? It's not there problem, it's yours...

Now the additional instruction if taking a course is a good idea. I can get behind that.

I like this one: Riot crew prevail in unruly weather | Bermuda News

A bunch of young bucks rough it out and prevail! Lost steering three different times, three different ways!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yeah - I just read that story. You have to respect their willingness to deal with the crap.

Go the young punks!


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> Here are the reasons for abandonment from the Elle (in the picture above):


I thought they were sailing? Why is running out of fuel an issue?



> By the time we got out of that area, I had about 12 to 15 gallons of reserve fuel and half a tank, not enough to complete the journey in this weather," he said.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - I've posted this same thread on all the major sailing forums - looking for additional feedback. We'll see what comes next.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Smack,

Seriously mate - you're going to lose your street-cred pursuing such a good idea as seriously as you are! Of course, I'm giving a double-thumbs up on this and am slightly miffed that circumstances mean it won't carry across the pond to us Aussies 

Posting both to thank you for your efforts (& encourage you to keep on them) and for the automatic subscription that will allow me to easily follow your progress!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - cool. I'll stay on Ron then. Again his point was that they are always very open to suggestions for improvement of the seminar curriculum from those who have taken it.
> 
> I'll let you guys know what I hear back.
> 
> ...


Sorry, don't have the time for a proper reply, finally getting underway in the AM tomorrow...

As the RULE 62 disaster showed, there's really no reasoning with someone when _ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS GET OFF THE DAMN BOAT_...

The Triumph thread should have been about how Doug could have cobbled together a rig repair, for example - not about how the boat could have abandoned more elegantly...


----------



## HDChopper (Oct 17, 2010)

I am a thinking this eletronic age has got a lot of ppl out into deep water who shouldn't be there.

Any addition to any safty course can't be bad , but the veriables involved in boat to bost /boat to ship / boat to helo ect.. must be voluminous .

I am with Landlocked if you arn't ready...dont start none there won't be none.

I'll stick my neck out further and say Personally I would Never call for help , ( if one can't face this one shouldn't be playing with death) if my life is really in danger WHY in the world would I put someones else's life into danger to save my own?!?.....I am shure you will see by that statment putting one's loved ones into a boat and heading into the wild blue seem mighty selfish & crazy to me . . . Thay cant breath water!

In 45 years of rideing Motors Sicles I never once put a minor on the back ! any adult I rode , well the rules for rideing changed even to just go around the block .... 

OK rant over .. hammer if you must rawhide to the bone here lol.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

HD hit on this. It is often the crew that is the problem. If the crew is losing it, they become a serious liability to even a competent offshore skipper. First, there becomes even more to do, since you must comfort the distressed crew. Then, naturally, there are now fewer capable hands to help. Less sleep, more work, more stress, worse decisions........recipe for disaster. Ship ends up abandon.

Sure, there should be skills and materials to avoid the need for rescue, but there are circumstances that would be beyond anyone's ability. Those are not necessarily mechanical.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

HDChopper said:


> I'll stick my neck out further and say Personally I would Never call for help , ( if one can't face this one shouldn't be playing with death) if my life is really in danger WHY in the world would I put someones else's life into danger to save my own?!?.....I am shure you will see by that statment putting one's loved ones into a boat and heading into the wild blue seem mighty selfish & crazy to me . . . Thay cant breath water!
> 
> In 45 years of rideing Motors Sicles I never once put a minor on the back ! any adult I rode , well the rules for rideing changed even to just go around the block ....
> 
> OK rant over .. hammer if you must rawhide to the bone here lol.


Okay, I'll bite.

Do you put kids in a car and go zipping down the highway? They are a ton more at risk in a car on the highway than a boat at sea. Give me the sea over the road any day.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

remetau said:


> Okay, I'll bite.
> 
> Do you put kids in a car and go zipping down the highway? They are a ton more at risk in a car on the highway than a boat at sea. Give me the sea over the road any day.


Good issue, but there is an analogy to aircraft. Multi-engine aircraft have far fewer accidents than single engine aircraft. However, should you be in an accident in a multi-engine aircraft, it is far more likely to be fatal.

Probably some relevance to open ocean voyages.

Further, in the case of family in your car, if they get severely motion sick and become a distraction, you pull over. Problem solved.


----------



## KnottyGurl (Feb 8, 2011)

If the kids get car sick then your trip is planned around that. If the crew is not open water comfortable, then it would be prudent to do the same and stay coastal untill crew has experience to handle open water crossings and or passage making.
Just cuz the skipper has lots of experience, does not mean the crew can react in the same or even competent manner. This creates liabilities at ever level.
Skippers need to remember that some crew is there because they want to be with the skipper not necessarly the location or the rigors to get there.
I think i some cases it would be better to hire a crew and meet up with the others at the destination.

the logistics of a safe passage for crew and boat should be assessed for every passage, be it a coastal sail, gulf crossing or what ever


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> As the RULE 62 disaster showed, there's really no reasoning with someone when _ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS GET OFF THE DAMN BOAT_...


I think this is exactly right. And Minne's point above about crew being in this state is right on as well.

However, I think if I showed my wife and kids all the videos and we went over how difficult and dangerous "rescue at sea" really is - it would provide some extra motivation to stay on the damn boat a lot longer. Isn't that the main lesson Doug has mentioned learning from all this?

I think it's more about the ignorance of the realities than anything else.

(Thanks Bent!)


----------



## dmcMaine (Sep 1, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, you need to always remember that ocean sailing is inherently dangerous and risky. If you are uncomfortable with that, you need to stick to sailing in your local duck pond or perhaps take up golf.


Ponds? Golf? Nay Nay! That stuff is far too dangerous!
Alligator in pond bites off part of golfer's arm in South Carolina - ESPN


----------



## dmcMaine (Sep 1, 2010)

Seriously though. I think the best training addition in a safety at sea course could be accomplished primarily with classroom case studies.

Videos of "This is what it looks like"

Stories like the following that illuminate a lot of points:
EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Sailing to Hawaii...The First Attempt by Arnold Rowe

That story has loads of good stuff to learn from, and not all of it boils down to "don't take a Cat36 offshore" 

Probably the best practicum would be launching/inflating/boarding a life raft. Those things aren't the easiest things to work with, and some designs are much better than others.

I don't think the point should be "if-this-do-that" type training. But instead to highlight past incidents, and encourage students to begin thinking about rescues as something that might not just "happen to other people".

Also rescue professionals are people to listen to. 

In the Triumph thread, someone posted a link to an interview of a CG rescue swimmer. IMHO it is well worth a read. Rescue Swimmers Have Special Strengths


> What they're doing is completely surrounding themselves with something that will not sustain their lives. Now go do that, and it changes the way they get ready. It changes the decisions they make. I'm lost. My engine won't start. Should I call? No I'll wait. If you think you are surrounded on all sides with something that's trying to kill you, maybe you should call now.
> 
> I'd rather go out there when it's daylight. They wait until it's dark. They're scared.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

dmcMaine said:


> Also rescue professionals are people to listen to.


But in the case of the ship rescues - that's just it, there are no rescue professionals. It's a serious crapshoot.

Look at the ship's crew members in the videos. They're doing very little to help the victim up. Many are just taking photos as Doug mentioned. This is no CG rescue.

The bottom line is that you're pretty much on your own until you're on that deck. And that's sobering.


----------



## dmcMaine (Sep 1, 2010)

I meant in the context of training. What follows that statement is where I was going with it. Listen to what they say about their jobs, and the rescues they have performed.

People like Petty Officer Vittone are a treasure trove of information.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Gotcha. That makes sense.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There are so many variables in establishing a set of procedures: Crew composition and capability, equipment available, communications, configuration of both vessels, sea conditions, etc. that any plan has to be custom designed on the spot. That said, there must be some general guidelines such as in assessing the possible options at the time and putting them in some sort of logical order (i.e. if there is a boarding net or ladder on a commercial vessel, how will I get to it? Can my crew get to it and climb it?)

One thing everyone can do, is to regularly review the instructions and videos that come with liferafts, sea anchors, drogues, etc. so that as captain, you have no hesitation when it comes to using them. I have large-print, da-glo laminated 9X11" sheets with step-by-step instructions, packed with each of these type items in case someone other than me needs to deploy.


----------



## bjkrad (Nov 7, 2006)

My wife and I are about to “step up” to more serious coastal and (hopefully) to blue water experience together. So personally this is a timely topic. Having read some other initial reactions to Smackdaddy’s early efforts, I think they fall into the category of “two seemingly opposed points of view can be simultaneously valid”.

As a coastal cruiser over the last 10 years, I’ve done some homework, both book and experiential, but like most of us it is not as much as it could or should be. As a newbie blue water sailor seeing the videos and reading the personal experiences of others my gut reaction so far is that it is imperative to step up my knowledge and experience, so that these situations are avoided or minimized (duh). But what I think I got out of these recent discussions is that I now have a better perspective on where to put my efforts: 99.9% on how to avoid these situations, and 0.1% on how to “micromanage” my rescue. 

However, reality is reality. There are going to be more and more of these types of 0.1% events, no doubt about it, regardless of how any one individual steps it up personally. So adding curriculum (assuming it is not there now) on the “how to’s” and “when to’s” of calling and receiving assistance/rescue and how to participate in the rescue seems to me to be a good addition to any safety-at-sea course.

I think before attempting to revamp the AMVER system, (which I know next to nothing about, but will go there next) there needs to be a good ”accident analysis” effort. The video’s tell just a fraction of the story. Conclusions reached from casually reviewing them are dangerous-- you wouldn’t criticize bystanders watching an automobile accident rescue for not participating, if they thought the best efforts for the situation were already in place. (Yes, the bingo game in the background is a bit eerie!) Sadly, I also share the concern that a ship captain might change his threshold for participation if he feels vulnerable to a U.S. lawsuit or to an in-distress victim with false "expectations." A position statement or “best practice” approach at this stage is probably where efforts should be directed. Then based on response/outcomes consider adding regs.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I think you nailed it above bjk. To get things rolling, I'll put together a rough outline of what such a course offering might cover in this area - based on these discussions and the videos. I'll make it a public Google doc so that everyone (here on SN and in the other forums) can see it and offer input. Then we'll provide it to Ron and Gary Jobson for evaluation.


----------



## RXBOT (Sep 7, 2007)

Does anybody get a sense of [except 4 upside down cat] the boats did not fail the people did. To me this means those people should not have put themselves in those positions in the first place. Would those people have aquired the skills to make the rescue easier if available, unlikely as they did not aquire the skills so that they would not require rescue in the first place. Some people should not go out of their depth putting them and their loved ones at risk.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so those who have taken the seminar/course...would you guys like to see something like this added to the curriculum?
> 
> That's basically Ron's question to me. And since I've not yet taken the seminar, I can't answer him. Hopefully he will come on here and join the discussion.
> 
> The bottom line is that this SAS thing should be something every sailor, racer or cruiser, takes. This is critical information.


Smack,
Sounds like a good addition to the SAS course. Even if boat and crew are prepared, you never know what may happen:

Coast Guard assists vessel damaged off Kauai - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Thanks for your efforts Smack

One note, it seems the coast guard many years ago cut back on when they will tow, or un-ground a boat. They will rescue crew if lives are indanger.

Does anyone know the official CG policy on this? Say you are 50 miles off the US coast and have a demasting and you are unable or unwilling to attempt a jury rig to get back to port. What will the CG do for you? Are you responsible to get a salvage company to bring your boat back or would the CG provide any assitance? Will the CG always allow you to leave the boat floating or will they require you to scuttle it.

Smack, maybe above could be added to the SAS seminar although I would be intereted in any insight one might have.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If the boat is seaworthy enough to be towed, why would one need to call the Coast Guard in the first place? If they can get to you, a tow company typically can as well.

Maybe the CG will consider it of there are no towing services in your area.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> If the boat is seaworthy enough to be towed, why would one need to call the Coast Guard in the first place? If they can get to you, a tow company typically can as well.
> 
> Maybe the CG will consider it of there are no towing services in your area.


It would come down to money. A tow company could charge tens of thousands of dollars to tow a boat several hudred miles (remember- they need to go out and come back and you get charged for all). If you do not have tow insurance, or the tow cost more than the value of the boat and your insurance company does not authorize a tow, would the CG? I do not think they would but what is the official policy?

Found this article, provides some answers:
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/uscg.htm


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

CG expenses also have to be paid for, just not directly by the rescued. I have no problem with their modern policy of deferring to commercial services, when not in danger.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> CG expenses also have to be paid for, just not directly by the rescued. I have no problem with their modern policy of deferring to commercial services, when not in danger.


Agree, just trying to figure out what their official policy is. I have an offshore tow policy so hopefully, that would be of some benefit.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - first draft of the proposal is ready for everyone's review (you can't edit - you can just read):

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS WITH SHIP RESCUES AT SEA

Since I'm pretty clueless in all this (which obviously never stops me from trying), I'm specifically interested in feedback on the content from sailors/racers who have taken SAS training, know ISAF inside and out, or even who have been rescued in this way.

The bottom line is that this syllabus needs to cover all the critical stuff we can think of. We need to nail the content first, then you Grammar Nancies can hammer me for all my writing foibles.

Once we all get it squared away, I'll send it on to Ron T. and Gary J. for their consideration.

Thanks,

Smack

(PS - Doug, please email me with your thoughts and input as well.)


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> If the boat is seaworthy enough to be towed, why would one need to call the Coast Guard in the first place? If they can get to you, a tow company typically can as well.
> 
> Maybe the CG will consider it of there are no towing services in your area.


No wind with current dragging you down on a reef? One should be self suffecient, but there's always the exception to the rule. I think fear, and a unclear mind filled with fear causes most rescues. One might type the lack of experience, but where do you get the experience if you don't go offshore? It's a double edged sword, and I will stick to stepping up to the dink, or the deck awash before I leave the boat. Too many are found later safely afloat, and crew disappeared........*i2f*


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

imagine2frolic said:


> No wind with current dragging you down on a reef? One should be self suffecient, but there's always the exception to the rule. I think fear, and a unclear mind filled with fear causes most rescues. One might type the lack of experience, but where do you get the experience if you don't go offshore? It's a double edged sword, and I will stick to stepping up to the dink, or the deck awash before I leave the boat. Too many are found later safely afloat, and crew disappeared........*i2f*


The below is from previous link I posted. Notice the CG looks at 10 items to rate your degree of danger. One is "degree of apprehension of people on board". So two identical boats in same situation and same equipment failures can have different degrees of danger associated.

From CG:
The confusion and discontent results when the situation is classified as a non-emergency situation. How do we classify your situation? First, we must determine the degree of danger by considering ten factors. These factors include; nature of situation, reported conditions on vessel (medical, food, water, etc.), position accuracy or lack thereof, visibility, tide, current and sea conditions, present and forecasted weather, special considerations (age, health, etc.), reliable communications, degree of apprehension of people on board, and potential for situation to worsen. If we determine that any of these factors are applicable we will classify the case as an emergency situation and dispatch a boat to render assistance. If we are uncertain, or have any doubt, we will classify your case as an emergency and render assistance.

If we classify your case as a non-emergency situation we will switch you to our working channel 22A VHF FM and make the following statement, "According to the situation you have described, it appears that you are in no immediate danger at this time. It is Coast Guard Policy to defer such cases to an alternate means of assistance. The Coast Guard will, on your request, contact a friend, relative or commercial towing company to come to your assistance. It you do not have a friend, relative, or a commercial towing firm that you would like us to contact then we will make a marine information assistance broadcast (MARB) soliciting assistance from any one who would like to come to your aid."

If you do not have a friend, relative, or prearranged assistance we will issue the MARB. If no one answers our MARB within about ten minutes we are permitted to render assistance. Often, several of the local commercial towing services will respond to our MARB. Channel 22A is a Coast Guard channel and we will maintain net control. It is important that you become an educated consumer and chose the responder which is going to provide the best service for the best price. It is important to understand that who ever tows you for compensation must have a Coast Guard license with a towing endorsement. If the operator is unlicensed they are not permitted to charge you for services. You can consider their service to be the actions of a good samaritan.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard has determined that who ever provides assistance that their estimated time of arrival (ETA) be no more than one hour. Of course there must he exceptions to this, for example, you're disabled 50 miles offshore. It is unlikely that any one will be able to be on scene within an hour.

As I stated, the commercial towing vessel operators are required to be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard to help ensure that they provide a safe service. We have authority to respond to unsafe practices. We do not have authority to respond to what you may consider to be excessive charges or unethical conduct. These issues must be taken up with the better business bureau and/or the civil courts.

Your best bet is to take actions which will reduce your chances of needing assistance. Maintain your vessel in top condition. This should include the hull, motor and equipment on board. Have the Coast Guard Auxiliary complete a free courtesy marine examination of your vessel. Also, ensure that you possess the basic safe boating knowledge and skills by completing a Coast Guard Auxiliary Boating Skills and Seamanship Course. You can obtain answers to many of your boating safety questions and find out the location of the next boating safety course by calling the Coast Guard's Boating Safety Hotline at 1-800-368-5647. May all your boating be safe.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Here's a way to board a tanker...for a mere $100,000 Only 30 ft lift though.

:: Welcome to Jetlev ::


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Wow!!! 2600 views in a week!?!?!?

Thanks to everyone giving their feedback. And thanks to everyone who's reviewed the proposal doc (around 100 views to this point).

I'll stay on it!


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Nice Write-up Smack. Let us know what you hear back from Ron.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Tempest said:


> Nice Write-up Smack. Let us know what you hear back from Ron.


You got it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I'm getting some great input across all the forums. And pretty much everyone has acknowledged the need for some training like this.

I've sent the link to the draft to Ron T. and Gary Jobson. We'll see what pans out.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

More posting to this point on SA: Puma (dismasted & heading to Tristan de Cuhna under power) had a scary time just transferring diesel from a containership. This is a fully crewed boat racing 'round the world with a hand-picked crew of very experienced sailors.


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

OK, I watched the vids at the beginning posted by the OP'er. 

Something I do not understand is why so may are being lifted off of floating boats? I have crossed the Atlantic before (ok it was on a Navy ship) but I've always been told to not abandoned a boat that is floating. Sure there might be medical reasons but most of these vids show crews climbing up nets and ropes.

It kind of pisses me off to see healthy ppl calling to be removed from floating boats. Is it because they have insurance so they think what the hell I just F'ed up the rig and blew my sails to rags so why not cash in????? 

Watching the boats just float away from these so called sailors is sickening.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

neverknow said:


> .......Is it because they have insurance so they think what the hell I just F'ed up the rig and blew my sails to rags so why not cash in????? ........


I don't think so, it is very hard to get insurance for an ocean crossing. People abandon boats out of terror. They believe they will die. They may be right, in some cases, even if the boat is floating.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

Videos may show boats floating as people are lifted off, but it can be hard for us to know if they're down a foot on their lines due to leaks they've been able to just barely keep ahead of. Waves also look small from a big ship's deck. Even smaller from an airplane, so conditions look "normal", not dangerous. If it's too bouncy for anyone to take a video, of course, then we don't see one A video of waves - no boat, because it sank - would not be of much interest, visually, and people's heads floating in the water without a boat wouldn't show up unless you had a really good telephoto lens with gyroscopic stabilizers to keep it focused on the victims. 
So... we see pictures of people getting lifted off of floating boats.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

I was really hoping Doug would have cooled off enough to assist with this. I haven't seen anything posted from him, but then again, I saw that he was banned. Smack, did he ever contact you with any input?


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Just to let everybody know, Doug has been sent to camp for a couple of weeks. It is not a permanent ban.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Dean101 said:


> I was really hoping Doug would have cooled off enough to assist with this. I haven't seen anything posted from him, but then again, I saw that he was banned. Smack, did he ever contact you with any input?


Not yet. I've reached out a couple of times though. Maybe he'll cool off a bit and decide to help out. And I hope to see him around here some more. Dude's got stones.

Anyway, I'm putting the finishing touches on an article about the need for this type of training - as well as a presentation that could fit into the SAS curriculum and ISAF regs.

I've got some assistance by some guys that can make it happen if it's good enough. (And like there's any doubt it'll be good enough. I'm writing it!)

We'll see.

(Holy crap! Over 3500 views for this thread! That's cool.)


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

tdw said:


> Just to let everybody know, Doug has been sent to camp for a couple of weeks. It is not a permanent ban.


Doug is a perfect example of what I was talking about. He even said himself that he wishes he wouldn't have called for help and stayed on his boat longer.

I sometimes wonder if all the technology that we have these days gives skippers a easy way out. (or what they think is a easy way). Doug found out that the easy rescue he was expecting was not so easy. A skipper 25 yrs ago would have been forced to stay on his boat and save himself. In Doug's case looking back he probably would have.

If someone is in danger out at sea and they know that are alone with zero hope of rescued they will stay on the boat until it's completely gone. These days they can set off the EPIRP, and/or call for help on the SAT phone.

It wasn't all that long ago that there was no GPS so even if they could call for help via SSB they would not know within a 20 miles of where they were unless they could get a fix right than and there on the stars.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

*@ Tdw* I'm glad to hear it's only temporary. His comments and opinions prior to losing his composure were insightful.

*@ Smack* Man, you crack me up! I am glad to hear that positive things will come about from such a terrible event as Doug experienced.

*@ Neverknow* I partially disagree with you. I don't want to reopen here the discussion from another thread but Doug was not the one who initiallly wanted to abandon. It was his wife when she made him choose between her and the boat. I do agree that it *appears* that many of the rescues performed are from boats not in danger of sinking but I for one am not going to pass judgement on them. I have no idea whats going on with them at the time of the abandonment.

I have never been offshore on a small boat and I don't feel that over 5 years of sea time on a Carrier qualifies me to contribute much to this discussion, but I will say this; Through the course of researching boats and metally preparing myself for life as a future liveaboard and long distance cruiser, almost every book I've read tells readers that being prepared for the worst at sea is the best form of seamanship, the kind that will save your life. I agree with Neverknow that technology probably does give a person a perceived easy way out. But when you enter any number of crew into the equation, do you demand that they have the same stamina as yourself? How would you test that? Do you risk your relationship with that crewmember? That is exactly the situation in which Doug was placed and he made a decision. Everything discussed in the Triumph thread was in retrospect but it would be a tough call to make IMHO.

I sincerely hope that training on this type of situation becomes available. In that case, I think we will all owe some gratitude to Doug for stepping up and telling his story, regardless of the direction his thread went, and to Smack for taking the initiative to ensure that others are better prepared through training. Kudo's to you both!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Although this rescue was by professionals- it is awsome footage. Escpecially the helicopter pilot- after landing the craft ran out of fuel, 0 margin of error. 
Situation Critical - S01E06 - Hell on High Water - YouTube


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Another sobering tale:

Canadian sailors rescued from sinking ship in stormy Pacific - The Globe and Mail

And here's a video with the skipper of the boat:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/09/sea-rescue-hawaii.html

(Thanks to Jackdale who posted it in another thread.)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Another sobering tale:
> 
> Canadian sailors rescued from sinking ship in stormy Pacific - The Globe and Mail
> 
> (Thanks to Jackdale who posted it in another thread.)


Grateful for their rescue despite being in the water for 90 minutes and their rescuer crushing and sinking their boat.

It restores my faith in humanity.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Interview with the rescued skipper (above). Very compelling story.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*Insurance*



Minnewaska said:


> I don't think so, it is very hard to get insurance for an ocean crossing. People abandon boats out of terror. They believe they will die. They may be right, in some cases, even if the boat is floating.


I have not found it hard to get insurance - expensive, but not ridiculously so.


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

Hmmmm... well it seems you are or you aren't


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

QuickMick said:


> Hmmmm... well it seems you are or you aren't


That is correct. Based upon the number of posters that want advice on buying a $10k blue water boat to sail around the world with no experience, it isn't hard to imagine insurance being tough for many. There are equally as many experienced sailors who have never done an overnight passage.

My comment above was a reply to a suggestion that many abandon their boat, since insurance will just pay for it. I maintain that many or even most dont carry insurance on blue water international voyages. Some by choice, many/most because they or their boat do not meet underwriting standards.


----------



## dongreerps (May 14, 2007)

In preparation for deployment to Vietnam we were asked to climb a cargo net suspended from a platform on land. One fellow broke his prosthetic leg in the climb. (LSS) Point is that it is a lot harder to climb those nets than you would think. When survivors are having a hard time climbing, they deserve our consideration.
Smack: practice climbing a cargo net might be part of the training you are working on.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

dongreerps said:


> In preparation for deployment to Vietnam we were asked to climb a cargo net suspended from a platform on land. One fellow broke his prosthetic leg in the climb. (LSS) Point is that it is a lot harder to climb those nets than you would think. When survivors are having a hard time climbing, they deserve our consideration.
> Smack: practice climbing a cargo net might be part of the training you are working on.


Great feedback. Thanks don.

I'm in contact with a few of the USCG guys in charge of AMVER, a couple of master mariner captains, as well as the people working on the new ISAF regs edition - and am getting some great info.

Keep it coming!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Check out the November issue of Cruising World. Booyah.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - I just fired off an email to Gary Jobson. I'll let you guys know if/when I hear back.
> 
> (Doug - get back on here and start laying out your vision dude! Otherwise, we're going to run with it!)


Ok.... Doug here..... (while happily floating in our 1986 CT 56 Tai Chiao in Boston Harbor)..... the theme of this thread is VERY IMPORTANT for anyone trying to sail very far offshore: Be prepared to direct your rescue!

1. Do not call for a rescue unless you are REALLY sinking, or dying.

2. Before #1, do NOT try to sail a long time offshore unless you REALLY have the crew ready to do it. This generally disqualifies a husband and wife team.
The rigors of 24 X 7 X 30 + days? of life threatening physical efforts are too much for most people. This effort will drain you both to the point that you are quickly no longer able to handle what you could normally handle successfully. So, have a total crew of at least 4 people for a roughly 50 footer. Even then, this will be a serious challenge, so make sure this crew is comprised of strong, able, capable, experienced people.

3. If you are sinking or someone is dying, and have chosen to abandon ship, be aware that the transfer of people from a pleasure craft to a large freighter / tanker is a very dangerous undertaking. VERY DANGEROUS.
Which is again why you MUST comply with #1, because abandoning ship and transferring to a big mother of a vessel, can EASILY kill you. 
So..... here you go:

A. Since you can not transfer from your boat directly to the rescue vessel, (because your boat will probably be smashed to pieces and easily squish you), the better idea is to transfer to something more mobile, and ideally rubber / pliable, like a dinghy, a life pod, or as many life preservers as you can put together. Your goal is to create a new boat, but one which will not be destroyed by colliding with the freighter / tanker /rescue boat.
Bring paddles, bring any communication devices you might have - portable VHF, or a SAT phone; flares, water, cigarettes... ( just in case you are addicted, to be prepared for hours of floating / drifting), if you can, in the order I have listed.

B. Communicate with the rescue vessel about your plan to abandon ship by transferring to your dinghy or Life pod or life preserver barge and would appreciate it if they would approach you such that you are DOWNWIND of them. You want to be downwind, since they will block the wind, which will facilitate them throwing life buoys to you as opposed to them trying to throw life buoys INTO the wind!

C. Get into your transfer vessel, and caste off from your sinking boat.

D. Keep in communication with your rescuer, and using your paddle(s) help to position yourself to be able to catch the buoy they throw at you.

E. Be patient, stay calm, stay warm, stay ONBOARD your new boat until you really have a secure line secured to you to pull yourself & crew onboard / up to their deck.

The concept that the rescuer should be downwind of you is invalid, since the wind will not blow you to them unless they will REALLY come to a complete STOP in the water - otherwise, they will go right past you well before you can get to them. Believe me, that is true.

The worst thing which can happen is that you end up in the water. That is why you want to leave your sinking vessel by transferring to something you have which will float and will be pliable, i.e., a RIBBY, a dinghy, a lifepod, or ALL of your life preservers TIED TOGETHER.

Direct your rescue. It is MOST important to you, not your rescuer, keep that in mind. 

Sincerely,
Captain Doug
S/V Triumph


----------



## desert rat (Feb 14, 2013)

The secret to climbing a cargo net is for your hands to climb a single rope hand over hand while your feet climb the ladder like horizontals.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

desert rat said:


> The secret to climbing a cargo net is for your hands to climb a single rope hand over hand while your feet climb the ladder like horizontals.


Which is applicable only if the rescuer happens to have a cargo net deployed for you.

Our "rescuer" did not.

But, thanks for the addendum!


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Grateful for their rescue despite being in the water for 90 minutes and their rescuer crushing and sinking their boat.
> 
> It restores my faith in humanity.


Sadly, the link you published here is no longer valid.

However, in our case, the rescuer instructed us to sit back and let them handle it.... then they nearly killed us.

Granted we should not have called for "assistance", but it shouldn't have been so badly mishandled - thus the value of this thread!

I was in the water, frequently sinking until I vomited to regain buoyancy, for over 4 hours.
The rescuer approached me each and every single time with me being on their windward side - which caused their throwing of buoys to be ludicrous since they were only blown right back at them. I was screaming at them for hours to come to me on the other side..... 
They refused to deploy their lifeboats to pluck me out of the ocean, because the retrieval of it via cables was impossible due to the 10 foot waves - but it could have been towed until it was possible to retrieve it.
Which again supports the concept of this thread, that WE have to direct our rescue. The rescuers do not want to expose themselves to danger.

We are grateful for our rescue, which mostly occurred even though it was as mishandled about as much as could be.... thank God, and the fight to live.

As far as any faith in humanity, if (God forbid) you are ever drowning in the ocean, but can see 2 lifeboats remaining on the deck of your "rescuer" - throughout the most horrendous and traumatic event of your life - only then will you be in any position to quantify any "faith in humanity".

Fair winds.....
Doug Sabbag


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Sadly, the link you published here is no longer valid.
> 
> However, in our case, the rescuer instructed us to sit back and let them handle it.... then they nearly killed us.
> 
> .......


Why are you resurrecting an old thread to start this over again? We are all glad you survived and we learned something from your ordeal. Indeed, one may be able to better direct their own rescue. However, your rescuers have zero obligation to comply with your instructions and owed you nothing. Many feel your lack of gratitude is distasteful.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Why are you resurrecting an old thread to start this over again? We are all glad you survived and we learned something from your ordeal. Indeed, one may be able to better direct their own rescue. However, your rescuers have zero obligation to comply with your instructions and owed you nothing. Many feel your lack of gratitude is distasteful.


What I just did was provide my experience toward the subject matter of this thread: What and how to direct your own rescue.

Pointing out that the rescuers are not "obligated" to utilize all of their equipment toward a rescue, with my experience, is useful toward this goal.

This should be seen as proof of that which many people might not believe, as I found very hard to believe and accept myself.

This is not a matter of "gratitude", it is a matter of experience being applied toward future preparation on all levels. Avoiding this knowledge by calling it "distasteful" is counter productive. Though someone might not want to hear this experience, or might want to rationalize it, is outweighed by the value of dealing with it head on.

I did not direct our rescue, and experienced the ramifications of that. This thread's purpose is to enlighten someone else so that they will not depend upon the grace of God and or their own ability to fight for their lives, when their "rescuers" do as mine did; i.e., only what did not place them into harm's way.

Not everyone knows this as well as you might; I know I didn't. This thread's greatest value is to impart that knowledge into people's bone marrow, so deeply, that they do not sit back when their "rescuer" says they can and leave their lives in their hands.....


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Oh, and just to make this perfectly clear, you can not depend upon any "faith in humanity" to rescue you. Which is why I really hope anyone reading this realizes the importance of this thread: You should direct your own rescue as much as possible.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Which again supports the concept of this thread, that WE have to direct our rescue. The rescuers do not want to expose themselves to danger.


Doug, as you obviously know by now, as evidenced by the article I wrote and my offline conversations with you, I don't agree with your analysis. And I only say that now in this thread because your analysis _does not_ support the concept of this thread...not completely.

Yes, you should direct your rescue as much as possible in the planning stages when you are still part of the communication triangle (you, the CG, and the ship's captain). You should discuss the approach, the transfer methods, the details of your vessel, the liabilities of your crew and how that may affect transfer, etc. - and have enough knowledge of those transfer methods to actively plan with that captain.

BUT - when that ship arrives and the captain of that ship begins his work to rescue you, you are no longer in charge of the rescue...for many very good reasons.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BUT - when that ship arrives and the captain of that ship begins his work to rescue you, you are no longer in charge of the rescue...for many very good reasons.[/QUOTE]

Daddy -

As much as I respect and appreciate your depth of efforts towards the improvement of this situation, I would still - if ever in that situation again - follow the steps I outlined above.

The Captain of the Kim Jacob thought he had a plan until he realized we were a sailboat and he wouldn't be able to winch our boat to his deck, which had been his plan. Then he was in a reactive rather than a proactive mode.
Another words he had no idea what to do.

He would have greatly appreciated it if I had provided a plan. And, we ALL would have appreciated it too.

This thread provides a stage for that to be discussed.

You are correct that the rescue ship is in charge, but I am also correct that they might well not know what to do. And our experience supports the concept that having a plan ahead of time, then sharing that with the rescue ship is a lot better than not.

Because as has been bantered around to everyone's "disgust" is the fact that they are not obligated to place themselves into harm's way.

So, that being the case, it sure is a lot healthier to have a plan to avoid depending upon them to go above and beyond that. Something which works for them and for you... as my plan does.

Yes they are "in charge" but when it is your life on the line, you have to have a plan - and be ready to conduct it with their help.

I fully agree: communication is a requirement, but you have to have something to communicate. My list is a real good outline to start with.
It is based upon a real life experience.

Fair winds.....


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

I have conducted a few presentations of our medical evacuation. I have posted a pdf of the PowerPoint presentation.






This was not a Mayday, and we were not abandoning ship.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Well, given a fully functional vessel, less than 1 foot seas, less than 5 knot winds, and a stationary / stopped "rescue" vessel, as this medical evacuation video presents, a transfer of people CAN occur very smoothly.

Rarely would those be the conditions in a mayday / abandon vessel event.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, given a fully functional vessel, less than 1 foot seas, less than 5 knot winds, and a stationary / stopped "rescue" vessel, as this medical evacuation video presents, a transfer of people CAN occur very smoothly.
> 
> Rarely would those be the conditions in a mayday / abandon vessel event.


Absolutely - check out the second lesson learned.

But you were still on my mind during the process.

Navarino was doing 2 knots to maintain steerage - suction was an issue.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

DougSabbag said:


> they are not obligated to place themselves into harm's way.


When I went back and read the thread detailing Doug Sabbag's very interesting story, I was absolutely floored when he mentioned almost in passing that the Captain of the Kim Jacob actually went in the water himself to try and save Doug Sabbag. Talk about placing yourself in harm's way for some completely ungrateful <Deleted By CD>.

How he can have the gall to publicly chastise the Captain for this rescue is way beyond any sense of reason. And, still, years later, on it goes....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

You want to see what a GENUINELY INSANE rescue by ship looks like? Here (from the POV of the ship's captain):

Queens Birthday Storm 1994 - HMNZS MONOWAI










Imagine, as the rescuee, enduring this...


> It was therefore with some relief that we saw Bill and Robyn fall into the water just off their starboard bow. And we watched as this couple was pulled through the foaming seas for a distance of about 150 or 200 meters to MONOWAI. They spent quite a lot of the time actually under the water, especially Robyn and I remember remarking to someone at the time that she was obviously under water a lot of the time but we would 'just have to pump her out' when we got her on board.


Then saying this...


> I was told later that Bills first words on being brought over the deck were "Bloody hell you guys are great".


That's true commitment and gratitude ladies and gentlemen.

Well done Larry Robbins. Indeed.


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

i don't know how you guys feel about it, but - even in calm conditions - coming close to a big vessel scares the sh** out of me...
i do not want to know how it must feel and how nightmarish this must be in towering, braking waves, horizontal rain and howling winds...
i think i would rather throw myself in a revolving liferaft than coming close, yet being 'towed' to a steel wall the size of a 3 stories building which is rolling by 35-40°, threatening to smack you really hard...
honestly - the more i think about it, the more an inflatable rubber thingy like a liferaft looks like a featherbed, a soft cushion which is not going to hurt me apart from throwing me around a bit...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

capt vimes said:


> .....the more i think about it, the more an inflatable rubber thingy like a liferaft looks like a featherbed, a soft cushion which is not going to hurt me apart from throwing me around a bit...


There is something to be said for that. However, if I was stepping off a floating vessel into the raft, for the purpose of transferring to a ship, I would want the raft tethered to that ship first. The other matter to be considered is rupturing the raft, among all the hard stuff around you. Hence, a fairly certain connection and recovery.

The ultimate moral to the story is that an AMVER rescue is a voluntary last ditch effort, one half step above just letting you die out there. I would be massively grateful for that half step and hope I never require it.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

capt vimes said:


> i don't know how you guys feel about it, but - even in calm conditions - coming close to a big vessel scares the sh** out of me...
> i do not want to know how it must feel and how nightmarish this must be in towering, braking waves, horizontal rain and howling winds...
> i think i would rather throw myself in a revolving liferaft than coming close, yet being 'towed' to a steel wall the size of a 3 stories building which is rolling by 35-40°, threatening to smack you really hard...
> honestly - the more i think about it, the more an inflatable rubber thingy like a liferaft looks like a featherbed, a soft cushion which is not going to hurt me apart from throwing me around a bit...


As we we were approaching Navarino, one of my crew said"This is really exciting." I told him the I hated every 'effing" minute of it.

The liferaft would work well if abandoning, but not for a crew transfer. We would need the liferaft for the rest of the trip.

We had really quite calm conditions. Higher seas would have meant another strategy.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> The ultimate moral to the story is that an AMVER rescue is a voluntary last ditch effort, one half step above just letting you die out there. I would be massively grateful for that half step and hope I never require it.


I think this is a very, very important point. When you start this process - you really should consider yourself "imminently dead" - so that being dragged underwater through raging seas for 300 meters to the side of gigantic heaving ship sounds preferable to where you are currently - to the point that you'll thank the captain after he's had you "pumped out" once you're on board.

THAT is a "Mayday".


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

jackdale said:


> As we we were approaching Navarino, one of my crew said"This is really exciting." I told him the I hated every 'effing" minute of it.
> 
> The liferaft would work well if abandoning, but not for a crew transfer. We would need the liferaft for the rest of the trip.
> 
> We had really quite calm conditions. Higher seas would have meant another strategy.


there is one thing i will most probably never do - probably because one doesn't know what is happening in the future, but i have absolutely no intention to abandon a floating boat!
serious injuries or illness being the most likely exceptions...

and if the boat is going down, mayday call, activate epirb, go to the liferaft and hope that you are picked up within the next 48 hrs or so...
i will never ever leave a perfectly afloat vessel voluntary, no matter the conditions i am in!
get a boat you trust to withstand anything that is thrown at her, prepare yourself and the boat, do not cruise on a tight schedule, check weather reports constantly, keep an eye open for deteriorating weather signs...

have you heard of the prince de bretagne? a maxi cat a french man has taken for a record breaking trip from france to mauritius?
he capsized a few days ago in the middle of the south atlantic, but told the rescue team to not hurry and that he could wait a couple of days until it is more convenient for them...
he is fine and sound in the upturned main hull and there is no need to rush things.
HE is upside down, but floating and he sees no urgency to get rescued immediately and there are people out who leave a perfectly upright and overall floating boat? for what reasons?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

capt vimes said:


> ......HE is upside down, but floating and he sees no urgency to get rescued immediately and there are people out who leave a perfectly upright and overall floating boat? for what reasons?


I agree in principle. However, let's hope we never have to be tested to find out this answer. Terror, injury and illness can weaken anyone and it's judgement that goes first.


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> I agree in principle. However, let's hope we never have to be tested to find out this answer. Terror, injury and illness can weaken anyone and it's judgement that goes first.


you are absolutely right.
everybody cracks sooner or later... i have seen that during my share of military service i did and take my word - there you are brought to your absolute limits and well beyond...
you are forced in the middle of chaos, exhausted beyond anything, wet and freezing, with no real sleep for a week sometimes to keep a cool head, asses the situation correctly AND make the right decisions...

it is a rather good training, if you wanna cruise the wide oceans...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Move, shoot and communicate is not an unfamiliar set of priorities for me.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I was in the Peace Corps. I was trained to throw a Birkenstock with incredible accuracy.


----------



## vjmurph (Apr 17, 2011)

I was reading this at work, and just cracked up out loud. Nice one Smack.


----------



## mike21070 (Aug 21, 2012)

Smack,

I just finished up the epic thread regarding the S/V Triumph...and all I can say is "Wow!" Without getting into specifics, I was really impressed with how impartial you were during the entire thread. You tried to stay above the fray, and called Doug out when you felt it necessary. And this thread is a great idea...

So now I gotta ask: Where were you in the Peace Corps? I was in Guinea, West Africa. Our weapon of choice were old mangos; Birkenstocks were for too rich for us...we had Nikke, Nikfe, Addibbis and other assorted knockoffs.

(Didn't mean to hijack this thread, I'm just curious...)

Mike


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

mike21070 said:


> Smack,
> 
> I just finished up the epic thread regarding the S/V Triumph...and all I can say is "Wow!" Without getting into specifics, I was really impressed with how impartial you were during the entire thread. You tried to stay above the fray, and called Doug out when you felt it necessary. And this thread is a great idea...
> 
> ...


Mike - thanks for the compliment (though eyes the world over are now rolling). Personally, I'm more interested in digging into things to learn - not in dispensing "advice". So, I love being in the fray (as most around here will tell you) - but it's usually well intentioned buttkickery.

Yes I was in the Peace Corp for 2 years. My 3 choices for region on my application were Africa, South/Central America, and Eastern Europe.

I was assigned to 2 joyous years in the gorgeous Solomon Islands - where I lived in a large, airy home on a beautiful hill in Honiara overlooking Savo and Iron Bottom Sound. Hot and cold running water, a fridge with the envy of all my fellow volunteers..a butter softner (heh-heh), electric stove, plenty of cabinet room for our homemade brewery, and plenty of storage for my dive gear.

And I got to fly all over the country supervising renewable energy projects for the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Let's just say, it was the "Easiest Job I Ever Loved".


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> When I went back and read the thread detailing Doug Sabbag's very interesting story, I was absolutely floored when he mentioned almost in passing that the Captain of the Kim Jacob actually went in the water himself to try and save Doug Sabbag. Talk about placing yourself in harm's way for some completely ungrateful <Deleted By CD>.
> 
> How he can have the gall to publicly chastise the Captain for this rescue is way beyond any sense of reason. And, still, years later, on it goes....


He went in the water because he hadn't thought of towing their lifeboat to resolve the challenge of retrieving the lifeboat in the 10 foot waves. Had he thought of that, he would not have uselessly gone for a swim, while tethered to a line, and I would not have spent 4 hours drowning.

I am grateful that they hung around long enough (4 hours) to extract me from the ocean, against all odds, and in spite of so many errors.

So, as this thread's basis describes, there is a great value to being prepared with a plan in case you have to abandon ship. Knowing what will work to everyones' benefit is quite worthwhile.

Just accepting the occasional "loss at sea" as mine would have been except for my extreme resilience and fight for life spirit, does not gain anyone anything.

The Kim Jacob had equipment onboard and ready to deploy which would have accomplished extracting a person from the ocean much better than throwing buoys into the wind, until one just happened to make it to the person, who amazingly enough, was still fighting to keep afloat.

So, if you are where I was, (God forbid), advise the "rescuer" to use a lifeboat, retrieve the people, and then if the waves are too high to use the cables to raise the lifeboat, tow the lifeboat behind the main ship. Then the people in the lifeboat can be raised by lines, as the Captain of the Kim Jacob was, back up to the deck.

That was a plan which was not considered while I was drowning. The Captain of the KJ had his heart in the right place, but just had not thought of this solution. Which again brings us to the value of "being prepared", vis a vie, have a plan and discuss it with your rescuer.

Just telling a survivor to be grateful for being alive, and keep his mouth shut, is not going to help anyone or improve anything. Someone out there will read this and understand that it is worth utilizing all available resources intelligently as opposed to blindly accepting whatever happens to work, if at all.

Take it from this survivor, you do want to help design your own rescue. As I am sure the Captain of the KJ would have appreciated too.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Addendum.

I am not chastising anyone. I am sharing the specifics of how badly a "rescue" may occur when there is no plan of how to proactively proceed which leaves only reactive efforts and the grace of God as your hope. 

This thread tries to inspire a step beyond that, being devised and if needed, employed.

Nobody needs to feel chastised to use what happened to make the next one go smoother.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> He went in the water because he hadn't thought of towing their lifeboat to resolve the challenge of retrieving the lifeboat in the 10 foot waves. Had he thought of that, he would not have uselessly gone for a swim, while tethered to a line, and I would not have spent 4 hours drowning.
> 
> I am grateful that they hung around long enough (4 hours) to extract me from the ocean, against all odds, and in spite of so many errors.
> 
> ...


Doug, most every time you post your view of things, I just put my head in my hands.

As for the bolded part above, you're right. But neither is this kind thing...



DougSabbag said:


> Just accepting the occasional "loss at sea" as mine would have been except for my extreme resilience and fight for life spirit, does not gain anyone anything.


If you can stop patting yourself on the back for a few moments, you'll see that you had far less to do with your own survival than you want to take credit for.

You may eternally refuse to do so, but I (and I think most others) will always remain grateful to the USCG and the captain and crew of the Kim Jacob for saving you and your wife. They deserve that gratitude. Period.

Your mere ability to post about your ingratitude is a testament to _those people_, not your own "extreme resilience and fight for life spirit".


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> He went in the water because he hadn't thought of towing their lifeboat to resolve the challenge of retrieving the lifeboat in the 10 foot waves. Had he thought of that, he would not have uselessly gone for a swim, while tethered to a line, and I would not have spent 4 hours drowning.


Hmmm, seems like the time spent drowning grows longer with each re-telling... 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/757320-post10.html


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

They spent 4 hours throwing a buoy into the wind, which frequently was blown right back to them on the deck, about 100 feet high.

I took on so much water that I sank, until I vomited / ejected the water, which allowed me to regain buoyancy and get back to the surface - at least a dozen times - over that 4 hour period. This takes a toll on anyone's strength, which diminishes the probability of survival - as time goes on. 

In the last possible second, by the Grace of God, apparently the wind died and the buoy made it right to me. Had it not, I surely doubt I would have been on the surface 20 minutes later assuming the Kim Jacob would have circled around one more time.

For some strange reason, some people don't want to hear that this could have been accomplished much more effectively, efficiently, without depending upon the Grace of God, and the resilience of a 50 something year old dude. 

This reality has nothing to do with being "grateful" or anything related to that path. It has everything to do with helping people to be better prepared than I was, and than the Captain of the Kim Jacob was. 

So that the next time anyone is in this sort of a situation they have some ideas and some reasoning to employ in concert with their rescuer. 

Take your head out of your hands and use this information, instead of eschewing it as meaning I am not properly "grateful" to be alive. Learn from this event instead of making negative comments when all I am trying to do is help someone else. 

This has nothing to do with being grateful and everything to do with being better prepared. Knowledge is the key to that goal. Use it.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, seems like the time spent drowning grows longer with each re-telling...
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/757320-post10.html


And it seems Mr. Eisberg is still only interested in the minutia and finding reasons why this would never happen to him.

Please tell me how long you think I was in the ocean? Was it 3 hours and 36 minutes.... 3 hours and 42 minutes.... 3 hours and .....? Pardon me for rounding up.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

"If you can stop patting yourself on the back for a few moments, you'll see that you had far less to do with your own survival than you want to take credit for."

And if you can ever imagine the absolute terror of knowing you are going to die because you are just barely able to keep your head above the waves while being completely dependent upon someone doing something to pull you out of the ocean, and yet they don't deploy either of their lifeboats, then you can tell me who did the most to ensure my survival.

They took pictures and threw buoys into the wind while I experienced the pure terror of sinking and only rising again because my body ejected the water which was inside of me.
But, each time I managed to reach the surface again, it was only to face the reality that it was 100% on me to get to a buoy, in the short time(s) one was available, or die.

When the wind died which must be why a buoy actually reached me since I was so drained I couldn't swim 10 feet to get to one, and I grabbed it and put it over my head, and they pulled me up to their deck, I kept screaming for nearly an hour as the sheer terror which had overcome me had to drain away..... that and the pain from the hypothermia.

If I had not reached down as deep as I ever had or ever could to keep myself afloat during that entire period, I would not be here. Yes, they threw those buoys to me, and when one got to me they pulled me up to their deck, but, I put every single bit of my life force into surviving, while those on that deck took pictures.

You can not tell me that I "had far less to do with your own survival" than anyone else that day. No, I had FAR MORE to do with my survival than anyone else by far.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

Doug, I think that you had far more to do with keeping yourself alive for as long as you could than anyone else did while you were struggling in the water. You had no choice but to give it your all, knowing that if you gave up then you die. Simple as that. I also think you should let those hard feelings towards those that were on deck taking pictures go. They were not part of your rescue. Had they all jumped in in an effort to get to you, there would have simply been that many more survivors in the water to recover. To be honest, I think the Captain went well beyond what he should have done by going into the water to get to you. In my opinion it was his responsibility to direct the rescue, not to leave his ship to perform it. And unless that person was trained to handle a drowning victim, I think it would have been negligence on his part to order or allow anyone else to do so. That probably sounds harsh but that course of action only puts more lives at stake. Rescue swimmers are highly trained and skilled at doing that sort of thing. Deck hands are not. And I honestly don't believe that anybody on board a commercial ship is trained to perform a rescue. They just do the best they can.

I do agree that in the situation you were in, given the time you had prior to abandonment and the fact that you had communications, yes, you could have better discussed the operation and had a more definite plan of action but I do believe the KJ and those aboard her did the best they could at the time. They probably even thought of better ways they could have handled it when they had the benefit of hindsight but I don't think the bystanders not directly involved in the operation deserve to be painted in a picture of heartless, uncaring photo takers just waiting to see what happens next. They all deserve some gratitude for responding to the call and doing the best they could under the conditions in which they found themselves.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I say this in all seriousness. Doug, perhaps you are suffering from emotional trauma in the wake of this event, which would be very understandable. Clearly, you are still re-living the "absolute terror of knowing you are going to die" and unable to come to grips with what occurred that day. Consider seeking out someone to talk to so that you can process this stuff and try to move on with your life.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> And it seems Mr. Eisberg is still only interested in the minutia and finding reasons why this would never happen to him.
> 
> Please tell me how long you think I was in the ocean? Was it 3 hours and 36 minutes.... 3 hours and 42 minutes.... 3 hours and .....? Pardon me for rounding up.


Nah, I made it clear from the get-go that I had doubts about my own ability to survive your ordeal...



JonEisberg said:


> Dude has to be one hell of a swimmer, not sure I'd be able to last for 3 hours in the open ocean in those conditions...
> 
> ... I know my limitations, and realize I likely would have struggled to remain alive in those waters, and those conditions&#8230;


However, I would still like to think I might not have wound up in the water, to begin with 

We'll never know, of course...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/757677-post26.html


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

First of all, just because I write about the terror I experienced does not mean I am not past it. I am.

Then, just because I describe the fact that using a lifeboat would have been more effective and efficient than throwing life buoys into the wind does not mean that I am not either grateful or am angry with the crew of the Kim Jacob.

I made the biggest error of the day by allowing the "rescue" to even initiate. Which I mentioned many times, in many threads. Including this one where I point out that once you make that call you are opening yourself up to another life threatening situation, so it better be appropriate to do so.

Saying that the crew did all they could have is only true if you leave out the reality which is that they could have deployed a lifeboat, retrieved me, and then gone to their stern and towed the lifeboat from there. This would not have placed them in 'harms way' as much as the Captain did when he entered the water tied to a line. Had he thought of this, I am fairly sure he would have directed that to happen, rather than going into the water himself.

Which also supports the reality that his heart WAS in the right place. Just not his brain.
Which is why I keep on pointing out how this 'rescue' could have been conducted better.

So that if anyone else is in this sort of situation, as this thread's point is based upon, the rescuee and the rescuer can devise a better plan of action which works for all the parties involved.

Again, this has nothing to do with gratitude. This has everything to do with being prepared.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Mr. Eisberg still has not provided the specific amount of time which he believes I was treading water.

Since Mr. Eisberg made the comment that I am extending the time to 4 hours, how long do YOU think it was?

Either provide your specific time estimate, or please extend your apologies for making snide / snarky comments to me.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> I say this in all seriousness. Doug, perhaps you are suffering from emotional trauma in the wake of this event, which would be very understandable. Clearly, you are still re-living the "absolute terror of knowing you are going to die" and unable to come to grips with what occurred that day. Consider seeking out someone to talk to so that you can process this stuff and try to move on with your life.


Anyone who ever survives that level of trauma will be changed for the rest of their life.

There is no amount of counseling which can alter that fact.

All anyone can hope for is that the affected person is still functional and healthy in our society and in their lives. I am, on both accounts.

I have spoken with many people about this, and am quite comfortable with where I am in respect to that event. My wife and I are quite happy and comfortable as we enjoy our sailing lives.

Life does go on, and I am pleased as punch to be a happy part of it! 
Don't worry about me, really. I am usually found to be smiling....  probably more than most people.

Thank you,
Doug


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

I agree with you Doug, all the way up to the point of your post that I bolded.



DougSabbag said:


> First of all, just because I write about the terror I experienced does not mean I am not past it. I am.
> 
> Then, just because I describe the fact that using a lifeboat would have been more effective and efficient than throwing life buoys into the wind does not mean that I am not either grateful or am angry with the crew of the Kim Jacob.
> 
> ...


The crew DID do everything they could. You say that you would agree with that except for the fact that they did not use their lifeboat. Then you say that you're fairly certain the captain would have used it had he thought of it. I think it is safe to say that any man willing to tie a line to himself, abandon his command, and jump in the water to get you would certainly have launched the lifeboat had he thought of it. He didn't. So all the way up to the time you had already been recovered and it was a mute point, he DID do everything possible, everything he could think of. You just wont admit it. Maybe it's just the way you are saying it but your posts sound as if you're blaming the captain for not doing everything he could simply because using the lifeboat didn't occur to him. In my opinion, that's like comparing the actions and abilities of a merchant ship and crew who haul cargo from point A to point B to the actions and abilities of a Coast Guard cutter loaded with men and women trained and experienced in high stress rescue scenarios. This is only my opinion here but I think the KJ captain and crew got a whole lot more negativity from you than they ever deserved. I think that is why people are feeling like you have no gratitude.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Mr. Eisberg still has not provided the specific amount of time which he believes I was treading water.
> 
> Since Mr. Eisberg made the comment that I am extending the time to 4 hours, how long do YOU think it was?
> 
> Either provide your specific time estimate, or please extend your apologies for making snide / snarky comments to me.


Well, let's see...

The AMVER report cited in the post I linked to says 3:



> One of the Triumph sailors fell into the ocean while attempting to climb aboard the Kim Jacob but the crew kept a sharp lookout and recovered the survivor three hours after he fell into the water.
> 
> Amver, Saving Lives at Sea Since 1958: Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue


However, in your initial post #71 in the original TRIUMPH thread, you defined the time as "over 3 hours"... Fair enough, I doubt you had a stopwatch running for the duration...

So, based upon that, I'm guessing the actual time would still be likely _closer to 3 hours, than to 4_... In other words, somewhat _Less than 3:30_, otherwise most people, in their description of the time elapsed, would have probably gone with _almost_, or _close to 4 hours_, no? Anyway, hope that's specific enough for you...

In any event, I apologize for my smartass remark... I know as well as most sailors, how sea stories can often 'evolve' in re-telling over time...


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, let's see...
> 
> The AMVER report cited in the post I linked to says 3:
> 
> ...


Well, you're still only providing a half apology / half snarky reply. So, that isn't an apology at all.

The CG was kept out of the loop on purpose by the KJ during the 'rescue'. So, the specifics provided to them were limited at best. Which is part of why the CG in Boston (over a dozen officers) interviewed me for 1/2 a day once we returned to Boston.

If you had been there, you would know this, but you were not. So.... take it from me, the time I spent drowning was a lot closer to 4 hours than 3. Nevertheless, every second was like an eternity.

Apologize for your unproductive, disrespectful attempts to somehow diminish the event, or at least stay out of that which you won't accept, and could not possibly debate. You do not have a clue what you are talking about, and I really don't know why you would even be trying.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

"....would certainly have launched the lifeboat had he thought of it."

EXACTLY. Which is why I am bringing this up now. So, after reading about our story, I can only hope that you will now be better prepared to help your rescuer devise the best plan for the situation at hand.

I am NOT 'blaming' anyone for how things were handled. I am talking about this so that things could be handled better, next time. 

I am NOT being negative, I am simply sharing the truth of what happened. So that anyone of us can be better prepared should they be in that situation.

This is not negative, this is not laying blame on anyone, this is learning from history.
And I am pleased as punch to be alive to share this with you. Stop being negative with the messenger, and open your mind(s) to what can be gained from this experience.

That is all I am trying to discuss here. If anyone should be 'blamed' as I have repeatedly accepted, it is me for placing us into harms way in the first place. But, once you're there, you will really want to get out of there as smoothly as possible. Unlike how we were extracted from our predicament; yes of our own making.

No blame here, just positive efforts toward an improved general knowledge of how to be better prepared than anyone was on July 27th 2011 - roughly 1000 miles east of Boston.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

So, and I ask this only to get a better indication of your position, you accept that the Captain & crew actually *did* do everything they could do? That the issue was not one of effort & concern on their part, but of their knowledge in how best to retrieve you?

I have no dog in this fight and _**AM**_ reading this thread to improve my general knowledge on rescues. I simply see where people I respect in this thread are getting the impression of ingratitude. There is a big difference at being _"grateful to be alive"_ and _"being grateful to the captain for putting his life on the line to save yours"_.

Perhaps if you explicitly express the latter (i.e. gratitude to the captain for saving your life, not just at the fact you are alive) you'd dispel a lot of the misunderstanding in the thread? Not a demand, snark, or anything of the like - just a suggestion that might remove some of the hostility here. Do with it what you will.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> So, and I ask this only to get a better indication of your position, you accept that the Captain & crew actually *did* do everything they could do? That the issue was not one of effort & concern on their part, but of their knowledge in how best to retrieve you?
> 
> I have no dog in this fight and _**AM**_ reading this thread to improve my general knowledge on rescues. I simply see where people I respect in this thread are getting the impression of ingratitude. There is a big difference at being _"grateful to be alive"_ and _"being grateful to the captain for putting his life on the line to save yours"_.
> 
> Perhaps if you explicitly express the latter (i.e. gratitude to the captain for saving your life, not just at the fact you are alive) you'd dispel a lot of the misunderstanding in the thread? Not a demand, snark, or anything of the like - just a suggestion that might remove some of the hostility here. Do with it what you will.


The crew & Captain of the Kim Jacob DID do everything they thought of to do.
That is true.

What I have said many, many times is that this rescue could have been handled much better.

And, if you had read through the long / original thread on this event, you would have read, in numerous places, where I did state our gratitude for their efforts on our behalf.

*And, more importantly, when we were onboard the Kim Jacob, we thanked the crew WHOLE HEARTEDLY, repeatedly, to each and everyone of them.*

But, just to resolve this for your sake, we are extremely grateful for the efforts of the Kim Jacob on our behalf.

Having an idea of what to do would have also helped them, the crew and the Captain of the KJ, to extract us from our boat, without first smashing it, without my wife almost being lost at sea, and without me almost drowning.

That would have been appreciated and enjoyed by the KJ and by the Triumph, crews.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Doug, I appreciate and admire your honesty and candor regarding the tragic loss of your s/v Triumph. It takes a lot of guts to hold yourself up to the “Monday morning quarterbacking” that goes on in these message boards. What went on and the details of what happened are lost in the avalanche of messages. I was wondering if there is a synopsis somewhere or perhaps a listing of salient message numbers that we (I) could use as a reference? For example, did I read correctly that neither you nor your wife were wearing life vests during the transfer? And was the basis of confusion between the captain and you regarding the request for assistance - Was it a rescue/evacuation or a request for parts/fuel/water to repair/replenish your vessel?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, you're still only providing a half apology / half snarky reply. So, that isn't an apology at all.


Nah, I think I'll take a pass on going with a 'Full Apology', without a hint of snark...

It would sound no more sincere, after all, than your professed 'gratitude' for the efforts of the incompetent captain and crew of the KIM JACOB, who first smashed TRIUMPH to smithereens, nearly killed your wife, then watched you drown for 4 hours, before finally lifting a finger to effect your rescue...


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> Doug, I appreciate and admire your honesty and candor regarding the tragic loss of your s/v Triumph. It takes a lot of guts to hold yourself up to the "Monday morning quarterbacking" that goes on in these message boards. What went on and the details of what happened are lost in the avalanche of messages. I was wondering if there is a synopsis somewhere or perhaps a listing of salient message numbers that we (I) could use as a reference? For example, did I read correctly that neither you nor your wife were wearing life vests during the transfer? And was the basis of confusion between the captain and you regarding the request for assistance - Was it a rescue/evacuation or a request for parts/fuel/water to repair/replenish your vessel?


George, thank you!

On July 26th, at roughly 4:00 pm, roughly 1000 miles East of Boston, 2 starboard side (main sail) chainplates snapped, where they meet the deck. 
This was about 10 days after the oil cooler on our 4.236 Perkins fed ocean water into the engine.

So we were effectively stopped, without full sails or an engine.

I started to effect temporary repairs to the stays, but had allowed some water to enter the bilge all night long via the holes on the deck left from the broken chainplates.
My wife freaked out on the morning of July 27th when she saw the water in the bilge, (still under the oil pan of the engine), and called the CG on our satellite phone.

(I had spoken with them the night before, and had concluded to proceed on our own, thus the temporary repairs which were underway.)

The CG sent the nearest, (well actually the second nearest), Amver participating vessel, which happened to be the 900 foot Kim Jacob, tanker, to render assistance to us.

When they arrived we spoke over the VHF and the satellite phone. Their original plan was to hoist our boat to their deck, since that what they had last done for another Amver connected rescue. However, upon reaching us they realized we were a sailboat / with a keel, and that shot their plan down.

I had deployed a sea anchor / parachute, with a 500 rode, off our bow. The KJ decided to proceed just outside of our bow to grab our sea anchor with a grappling hook and thereby pull us via that rode to their stern.

When they proceeded past our sea anchor, they intersected it, which pulled us to the starboard side of the 900 foot KJ, and pulled is into the metal housing located on their hull, on their starboard side. With each wave we were squished into that box, which was their anchor housing. Our deck was pushed into the cabins, and our main mast was snapped like a twig.

As our boat was being pulled forward, this smashing effect was moving aftward from the bow toward the stern of the Triumph, by the way, she was a GulfStar.
Just before the smashing got to the transom, the sea anchor broke, which allowed the Triumph to pull away from the KJ.

I wrapped a line from the KJ around my wife and pushed her overboard while our vessels were still side by side. She was hoisted up to their deck, after she was dropped back into the ocean- then retrieved by 2 of the KJ crew using a cage.

The KJ circled what was left of the Triumph, (which took approx., 20 minutes each time), and I jumped overboard with a line they threw to me. Another 'messenger' line they had shot over the Triumph, (unbeknown to me), was caught on the back of my PFD, and pulled me back to the floating free Triumph, underwater, and backwards, away from the KJ.

Long story after that, (of apparently questionable duration per Mr. Eisenburg), while I fought to keep my head above water, and finally was able to reach a buoy thrown from the KJ with a line still attached to it.

We were dropped off in Canada, and flew back to Boston.

Fast forward a year, and to the day, July 27th, 2012, we closed on a 1986 Tai Chiao CT 56 beauty, and are readying her for another crossing..... 

There you go!
Fair winds,
Doug


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

"...neither you nor your wife were wearing life vests during the transfer? And was the basis of confusion between the captain and you regarding the request for assistance - Was it a rescue/evacuation or a request for parts/fuel/water to repair/replenish your vessel?"

We both had PFDs. Though mine happened to be the worst one onboard. Bad / quick selection form the large bag of much better ones.

Your other question is a very good one.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

To Eisberg:

Your description of the event are YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE.

YOU owe everyone an apology, including the KJ.

Sincerely,
Doug


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

So one fully "plans" their own rescue and instructs their rescuer how to do it. Your rescuer says, no thanks, we'll do it my way. I still don't want to launch the liferafts and I don't want to tear them to shreds towing them behind the boat in 10 ft seas. Then what? You win the smartest but deadest sailor award for being unwilling to do it their way? 

Don't bother answering. We all learned beggars can't be choosers in early elementary school. A huge narrative isn't going to change it.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Doug,  Thanks for the good write-up! Sadly, this chronology got lost in all the smoke and noise. I knew there was something about a life vest and for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how you could swim for three-four hours in the open ocean without one. I lost track of the facts. I also didn’t realize that they first tried to “capture” the Triumph using the sea anchor line. Am I stating it correctly that if all went well, they would have towed Triumph using this line? I had this confused with the two inch diameter steel cable they had on board for their own “emergency” towing. The metal housing on the ship – this is part of their anchor hawser? Not that it matter much, but was the tanker in ballast or fully laden? (I’m trying to get a feel for how high up the deck was from sea level). Knowing that hindsight is always “20/20”, have you given any thought about the possibility of using the life raft as a transfer station? I know a captain of an APL containership out of Oakland Ca., but as far as I know, he has never performed an at sea rescue. I’ll have to ask him the next time he is in town. My Dad’s DD rescued and towed a disabled German yacht to Cuba in the early 1950’s. I’ve got pictures and everything. But the big difference was his can displaced only 2,200 tons, was twin screwed and low to the water and not the size of a behemoth tanker.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> To Eisberg:
> 
> Your description of the event are YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE.
> 
> ...


Actually, I'd suggest my words are closer to being an approximation of _YOUR CHARACTERIZATION_ of events, and I doubt I'm the only one here who feels that way...

I wish I had a buck for every time you've described how the KJ - with almost willful malevolence - "destroyed" TRIUMPH by intersecting your 500' sea anchor rode... Of course, that collision might have been averted once it became apparent what was happening, with some quick work on your foredeck with a rigging knife...

At so many junctures, what transpired during the course of your rescue need not have happened... One person, and one person alone might have changed the outcome, I think we all know who that is...

There's nothing more I can possibly add, that hasn't already been said in the original thread... I'll take you at your word, if you say you were in the water for 4 hours rather than 3, of course it's silly to argue such a point, and I remain in absolute awe of your ability to survive that ordeal... Let's leave it at that...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

George - for a more complete picture, here are the links to the original telling of the story (many others but this is a pretty good overview):

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/775146-post71.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/775158-post77.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/775664-post123.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/775697-post126.html

You can see after the last one in that thread that things started to take a turn. Up to that point everyone had been pretty supportive.

It's a complicated story to be sure.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I'd suggest my words are closer to being an approximation of _YOUR CHARACTERIZATION_ of events, and I doubt I'm the only one here who feels that way...
> 
> I wish I had a buck for every time you've described how the KJ - with almost willful malevolence - "destroyed" TRIUMPH by intersecting your 500' sea anchor rode... Of course, that collision might have been averted once it became apparent what was happening, with some quick work on your foredeck with a rigging knife...
> 
> ...


Yes, the Triumph was destroyed by the KJ as I have said. That is unarguable, I have pictures.

Sure, there are many choices and actions which would have been better.

As far as running forward with a knife, to cut that rode, once it was REALIZED WHAT THAT WOULD LEAD TO, AND IN TIME NOT TO GET SQUISHED, gee, it seems pretty obvious that I did not see the need in time to cut the line.... haven't I paid for missing that opportunity enough? I need to hear you tell me I should have.... seriously?

Well, that is all history now, and though all those errors were made, Evelyn and I are still sailors... so go figure.

But, your interpretation of my thoughts are nevertheless just yours. Keep them to yourself, they are useless and could only lead to a downward spiral of any 'conversation'.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

You know my post that started this thread was entirely sarcasm. Now I feel like a Dr. Frankenstein. Please put wooden stake in this thread! Or close it, or ban the usual suspect.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> Doug, Thanks for the good write-up! Sadly, this chronology got lost in all the smoke and noise. I knew there was something about a life vest and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out how you could swim for three-four hours in the open ocean without one. I lost track of the facts. I also didn't realize that they first tried to "capture" the Triumph using the sea anchor line. Am I stating it correctly that if all went well, they would have towed Triumph using this line? I had this confused with the two inch diameter steel cable they had on board for their own "emergency" towing. The metal housing on the ship - this is part of their anchor hawser? Not that it matter much, but was the tanker in ballast or fully laden? (I'm trying to get a feel for how high up the deck was from sea level). Knowing that hindsight is always "20/20", have you given any thought about the possibility of using the life raft as a transfer station? I know a captain of an APL containership out of Oakland Ca., but as far as I know, he has never performed an at sea rescue. I'll have to ask him the next time he is in town. My Dad's DD rescued and towed a disabled German yacht to Cuba in the early 1950's. I've got pictures and everything. But the big difference was his can displaced only 2,200 tons, was twin screwed and low to the water and not the size of a behemoth tanker.


George,

The idea was to pull the Triumph to their stern to render assistance; not to tow it very far.

The KJ's deck was approximately 100 feet above sea level. Our 56' high main mast was dwarfed by their hull, with their deck well above the top.

Yes, the metal box was their anchor housing. Perhaps I am not calling it by it's official name.... sorry.

Yes, I should have used anything else to transfer us. Which is part of what I have written about in other threads. Before our deck was smashed, there was a bran new 4 person life pod in front of the main mast. It was squished. There was also a very nice 9 ' Boston Whaler on davits, off the transom. Should have used that. We also had about a dozen inflating PFDs, and another dozen regular PFDs, the orange ones. I grabbed a water skiing vest which I had picked out of the ocean a week or so earlier, and had left on the TOP of the PFD bag. That is why it was the most convenient one to grab.

The KJ Captain had insisted that we could relax, since they would handle this very smoothly. We had spent an inordinate amount of time collecting our valuables in preparation for the "smooth transfer" he promised. When everything 'hit the fan', things and priorities changed drastically in seconds.

And that is why I am writing this to everyone. The KJ Captain really would have appreciated any advisements I could have provided - and would have - if I had any to provide.

Plan A was trashed because we were a sailboat.
Plan B didn't work out because the KJ intersected the sea anchor rode instead of staying outside of it.
Plan C became: run for your lives.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Though I'd be happy to walk this one back if I hear otherwise from an actual ship's captain, I just don't believe it's feasible to tow a lifeboat behind a 900' ship for however many hundreds or thousands of miles it might take to reach port.

Doug, you say that the seas were 10'-15'...how would you expect this work?

I recall that we discussed the type of lifeboat you saw. These are the types of boats shown in photos of the KJ:



















And, yes, these have been towed in at least one circumstance I know of (the Captain Phillips hijack/rescue):










But, this was in a very controlled situation, in a small area, in non-storm conditions. How would this set-up work for hundreds or thousands of miles? Who's in the lifeboat?

Also, these are certainly not super-maneuverable boats. Definitely not what I'd call an ideal rescue platform.

Alternatively, one of the videos in this thread shows the rescue of a sailboat crew by a launch from the cruise ship Norwegian Gem. That launch (lifeboat?) is shown here:










As you can see in the rescue video...it is very maneuverable. I believe these are actually used to ferry passengers as well (i.e. - multipurpose boats - you can see the actual lifeboats on the ship in the background). So they are nothing like the behemoths above.










And though this type of boat is obviously a much better rescue platform, it's an even worse candidate for towing long distances. But, as is clear in the photo, the cruise ship is set up to launch and retrieve this boat easily (because of its special use). A tanker certainly isn't. Those lifeboats are intended to go only one way...OFF the ship.

So, I just don't see why you're so convinced your lifeboat-rescue-then-tow approach is the right one from a big picture standpoint. Sure, it would conceivably get to the victim in the water much more quickly...but then what? You greatly increase the risk and complexity by introducing more potential victims into the situation (you _still_ have to get that victim _and everyone who goes out in that lifeboat_) back onto the ship. Or are you saying you leave everyone in the lifeboat and just tow it and its passengers for days...hoping the weather holds?

I just don't see it.

(Again, any ship captains please feel free to chime in here. Or I can go back to the ones I interviewed for my article and get their input.)


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> So one fully "plans" their own rescue and instructs their rescuer how to do it. Your rescuer says, no thanks, we'll do it my way. I still don't want to launch the liferafts and I don't want to tear them to shreds towing them behind the boat in 10 ft seas. Then what? You win the smartest but deadest sailor award for being unwilling to do it their way?
> 
> Don't bother answering. We all learned beggars can't be choosers in early elementary school. A huge narrative isn't going to change it.


If, as we did, you have the luxury of time with solid communications, take part and participate actively in the plan to transfer the people from boat to boat.

In our case, we would have been much better off to have waved them off and slowly worked our way back to Boston without any 'rescue'.

Their lifeboats were metal, 36 person capacity vessels, with diesel engines. They would not have been torn to shreds. The KJ was only travelling at full speed of 8 knots. This would not have lost their lifeboat if they were towing it.

We were not beggars, we were people in distress, who did not need to be squished and thrown into the ocean. People CAN plan a transfer better than that.

That is all I am suggesting, i.e., try harder than we did to avoid that situation.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

We were only a few hundred miles from Canada. 350? Or thereabouts. Not thousands.

It took 1 and a half days to get to the coastline.

We could have towed it for the few hours until we would have found calmer seas. Hell, I would have paid for it with the $50K cash I had on me as opposed to drowning.

As far as getting the people back onto the deck from the lifeboat, well, the Captain had no problem being hoisted from the waters off their stern - so I don't see that as a problem.
Plenty of line was onboard. Behind their boat, it was fairly smooth water too!

Look, even he agreed when I asked him about this idea, (after I watched them deploy a lifeboat as a test), that it was a viable idea.... he just had not thought of it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Which type of lifeboat was it?



DougSabbag said:


> *We were only a few hundred miles from Canada. 350? Or thereabouts. Not thousands.
> 
> It took 1 and a half days to get to the coastline.
> 
> ...


With all of the caveats you've just mentioned for how and when it might work - I just don't see this being a standard technique that would be considered in an AMVER rescue situation. There's just too much risk.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Which type of lifeboat was it?
> 
> With all of the caveats you've just mentioned for how and when it might work - I just don't see this being a standard technique that would be considered in an AMVER rescue situation. There's just too much risk.


'Caveats' ?? Deploy a lifeboat, pick up the person, go to the tankers' stern, tie a long tow line to it after transferring the people up to the deck. 
Tow it until you can hoist it to the deck.

Sounds a lot easier than all the things that were done on July 27th.

If this is too much of a risk, then they should not participate in Amver.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> 'Caveats' ?? Deploy a lifeboat, pick up the person, go to the tankers' stern, tie a long tow line to it after transferring the people up to the deck.
> Tow it until you can hoist it to the deck.
> 
> Sounds a lot easier than all the things that were done on July 27th.
> ...


I'll let you work through that sequence again. You seem to be having a hard time visualizing this.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I'll let you work through that sequence again. You seem to be having a hard time visualizing this.


Nope, no problem visualizing that at all! Lower boat, pick up person, go to stern.
Transfer people, tow boat, hoist boat when possible.

Got it?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> > Originally Posted by smackdaddy
> > I'll let you work through that sequence again. You seem to be having a hard time visualizing this.
> 
> 
> ...


Probably just me, but the stern of that ship would appear to be perhaps the WORST area of her entire 900' length at which to attempt to transfer people from a lifeboat, in 10' open ocean seas...










Funny, but that transom bears a striking resemblance to the one on my boat... One thing's for sure, if I ever have to dive on my prop in a seaway, you can be damn sure I'm putting on my bicycle helmet before going over the side...

Scale up those proportions by a factor of 30, what might be a nasty bump on the head under the stern of my little tub could easily be a lifeboat or person crushed by the counter of that behemoth... I wouldn't care to be anywhere close to the stern of that ship in a small boat in the open ocean, in the conditions as described...


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Nope, no problem visualizing that at all! Lower boat, pick up person, go to stern.
> Transfer people, tow boat, hoist boat when possible.
> 
> Got it?


That does sound quite easy. Like it would go off without a hitch. But then, your Plan A and Plan B sounded simple at the time they were originally discussed but they didn't quite work out as planned either. And wasn't the captain tied off when he went into the water? That's not the same as getting lines to several people in order to hoist them. And what is the last guy up going to do? Hope the lifeboat will tend itself while he tries to catch a line so he can take his turn? What if he slips and gets injured while trying to do just that? As Smack said, you are putting others lives at risk in that scenario. And what happens if the towline snaps? Even if all hands were recovered, now there are 2 hazards to navigation floating around instead of one. I'm not saying that it couldn't work but there is as much chance of things going wrong using that plan as there were with plans A and B, only now you have more people in the water to worry about.

Did you run this idea by the Coast Guard at any time? I don't think placing additional lives and/or vessels in jeopardy are required when rendering assistance. Personally speaking, I would not want to live with the knowledge that an untrained Samaritan lost his life while trying to save mine.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> ....In our case, we would have been much better off to have waved them off and slowly worked our way back to Boston without any 'rescue'....


We'll never know how possible that may have been. Your description of an overwhelmed crew, failed motor and chainplates separated from the deck and taking on water don't make it sound like that was a realistic option.

You also mention above that the USCG "sent you" the second closest AMVER ship. To be sure, they asked the Kim Jacobs to help. You're lucky the KJ said yes. From your description of an exhausted and overwhelmed crew, the odds were against you making it.

Nobody that has called for a rescue is ever going to waive it off. If that were an option, one wouldn't have called.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

DougSabbag said:


> Anyone who ever survives that level of trauma will be changed for the rest of their life.
> 
> There is no amount of counseling which can alter that fact.
> 
> ...


That's good to hear. I guess it's just the way things come across on an internet forum. You appear to swing between irrational misplaced anger to normal happy go lucky guy, within a matter of minutes from one post to another. But, glad that all is good in your world.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Well Eisberg, apparently you are in direct conflict with the Captain of the Kim Jacob, since *that is where he entered the ocean from, and was retrieved from.*

By the way, that picture of the KJ, (*note the WATER LINE*), is obviously while she is empty of the oil she transports. 
When we were involved with her, she was riding a lot lower in the water, as she was on a delivery voyage.

Apparently, you have some issues with any _thoughts_ except your own. If *you* didn't think of it, you consistently try to diminish / discredit it. I suppose you are a lot of fun to be around, as long as everyone bows down to your superiority....

FYI, while underway, the area behind the KJ is the smoothest since the waves have been broken. And the KJ never came to a complete stop while we were being rescued.
So, perhaps that was part of the CAPTAINS reasoning when he selected where to enter the ocean from their deck.

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> That's good to hear. I guess it's just the way things come across on an internet forum. You appear to swing between irrational misplaced anger to normal happy go lucky guy, within a matter of minutes from one post to another. But, glad that all is good in your world.


You might note a direct relationship between my "tone" and the "tone" of the comment I am responding to.

When someone focuses on how this or that should never have happened, or they wouldn't have done it, or when they actually try to debate such minutia as exactly how long I was in the water, well, being a normal person, i.e., not being a trained public speaker, I respond accordingly, with normal human emotions.

My entire purpose for discussing this event, especially on this thread, is to impart to others that it is valid and desirable to help design your own rescue with your rescuer.

I refer frequently to the errors which were made as the various plans fell apart, in order to provide examples of how things can go wrong, as an inspiration to do a better job than we did to design the transfer of people from boat to boat.

I am not sharing these actions in order to be derided and pummeled with "you should haves", and even using pictures of what they think supports their reasoning.

This event went from "theoretically" having a plan, to fighting for our lives, in the blink of an eye. While these discussion have lasted for over 2 years, and still counting.

So, rather than redirecting _fault finding _toward _counseling advisements_, please apply your cerebral efforts toward pre-thinking how to transfer from your sinking boat to a very large vessel, in the open ocean especially if you plan to do much blue water cruising.

Thank you.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

DougSabbag said:


> I am not sharing these actions in order to be derided and pummeled with "you should haves"


Well, it seems that you have spent an inordinate amount of time sharing this story to deride and pummel _others_ (the Kim Jacob captain and crew) with "you should haves"....

I think that's the main issue that your critics in these threads have had. It seems odd that you have not spent an equal amount of time analyzing your own shortcomings -- like, perhaps, the decision to put on a ski vest that you had found floating in the ocean a week prior, despite many other more suitable PFDs. Sure, you mention it, but you hardly give it the attention that the KJ captain and crew get for their "errors."

There have been many published ocean survival stories, many of which were much longer duration than your 3-4 hours. The survivors usually tell their stories with great humility and gratitude for their ultimate rescue. But, hey, it's your story and you get to do with it what you will. I think I'll pass on the book, however.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> We'll never know how possible that may have been. Your description of an overwhelmed crew, failed motor and chainplates separated from the deck and taking on water don't make it sound like that was a realistic option.
> 
> You also mention above that the USCG "sent you" the second closest AMVER ship. To be sure, they asked the Kim Jacobs to help. You're lucky the KJ said yes. From your description of an exhausted and overwhelmed crew, the odds were against you making it.
> 
> Nobody that has called for a rescue is ever going to waive it off. If that were an option, one wouldn't have called.


Sir, if nothing else is learned from my story, it should be to not call for help unless you REALLY have no other options.

*After barely surviving the "help" which we received, were we to be in this situation again, BELIEVE ME, we would not make that call.*

The odds of surviving were *a lot higher *while we were floating, (if I had placed 2 pieces of duct tape over the small holes on the deck from the chainplates, all leaking would have been resolved), with food, water, communications, etc., and with temporary repairs being underway to enable a slow return to Boston then our odds became once our boat was destroyed, and we were in the ocean with people throwing buoys into the wind to try to reach us, while not being able to come too close so as not to run us over.

Before the help arrived, we had a bran new 4 person lifepod, a 9' Boston Whaler, dozens of PFDs, a sat phone, an EPIRB with GPS, not to mention a fine vessel which was not sinking, with everything from hot and cold running water, to TVs, computers, books, magazines, DVDs, cameras, art work / pictures, plenty of food, solar panels, a gas generator, plenty of tools, clothes, a sea anchor, an entire compliment of sails, lines, chain, spare parts, etc., etc., etc.

After the help arrived, in a fairly short amount of time, all of the above things were lost to us and I was barely able to keep my head above the water, which was 5 miles deep, 1000 miles out to sea. 
I didn't even have my glasses anymore. The Lifepod was squished, the PFDs and the Boston Whaler were out of reach. My entire communications "system" was my voice.

Sure, we were tired before they arrived; but in retrospect, that was a walk in the park compared to what happened next.

Waiving them off WAS the best option - and we should have done exactly that.
Nevertheless, we are thankful that the KJ did their best to render assistance.
When that is asked for, you sure do want it to be provided.

Just be VERY CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU ASK FOR.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> Well, it seems that you have spent an inordinate amount of time sharing this story to deride and pummel _others_ (the Kim Jacob captain and crew) with "you should haves"....
> 
> I think that's the main issue that your critics in these threads have had. It seems odd that you have not spent an equal amount of time analyzing your own shortcomings -- like, perhaps, the decision to put on a ski vest that you had found floating in the ocean a week prior, despite many other more suitable PFDs. Sure, you mention it, but you hardly give it the attention that the KJ captain and crew get for their "errors."
> 
> There have been many published ocean survival stories, many of which were much longer duration than your 3-4 hours. The survivors usually tell their stories with great humility and gratitude for their ultimate rescue. But, hey, it's your story and you get to do with it what you will. I think I'll pass on the book, however.


As far as the PFD selected, we were acting per the directions and statements from the Captain of the Kim Jacob. It was a sunny day, before noon, and he said to be calm and they would transfer us smoothly. We did not feel threatened, we felt relieved to be "in their hands". BIG MISTAKE.
Yes, we were tired, so it was wonderful to hear someone saying be calm, don't worry, we know what to do.

Then the plan fell apart.

Again, I am not sharing this story to deride anyone; not the KJ crew & Captain, and not myself or my wife. We are all alive and well, so something went right, didn't it.

But, I am sharing this story so that any of you who might find themselves in a similar situation, 
first: Do NOT call for assistance unless there really is NO other option.
Then: work with the rescuer toward a mutually acceptable transfer plan; while remembering how things went wrong for the Triumph.

Use what I am sharing instead of deriding it, or me, or anyone.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Sir, if nothing else is learned from my story, it should be to not call for help unless you REALLY have no other options.
> 
> *After barely surviving the "help" which we received, were we to be in this situation again, BELIEVE ME, we would not make that call.*
> 
> Just be VERY CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU ASK FOR.


This, I think, is great advice - and really should be the takeaway from all this in terms of calling in an AMVER rescue. That was made very clear to me by the ship captains I interviewed for my CW article.

At the same time, based on the recent CA racing boat tragedy we've discussed (_Uncontrollable Urge_) - and even the _Be Good Too_ to some degree - you can't wait too long to make the call.

It's a very sobering balance.



DougSabbag said:


> After the help arrived, in a fairly short amount of time, all of the above things were lost to us and I was barely able to keep my head above the water, which was 5 miles deep, 1000 miles out to sea.


Now you're confusing me. I thought you just said above that you guys were 350 miles from port. It was 1000?



DougSabbag said:


> As far as the PFD selected, we were acting per the directions and statements from the Captain of the Kim Jacob.


And are you now saying the captain of the KJ _told you_ to pick that specific pfd (the lousiest one in the stack)?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> That does sound quite easy. Like it would go off without a hitch. But then, your Plan A and Plan B sounded simple at the time they were originally discussed but they didn't quite work out as planned either. And wasn't the captain tied off when he went into the water? That's not the same as getting lines to several people in order to hoist them. And what is the last guy up going to do? Hope the lifeboat will tend itself while he tries to catch a line so he can take his turn? What if he slips and gets injured while trying to do just that? As Smack said, you are putting others lives at risk in that scenario. And what happens if the towline snaps? Even if all hands were recovered, now there are 2 hazards to navigation floating around instead of one. I'm not saying that it couldn't work but there is as much chance of things going wrong using that plan as there were with plans A and B, only now you have more people in the water to worry about.
> 
> Did you run this idea by the Coast Guard at any time? I don't think placing additional lives and/or vessels in jeopardy are required when rendering assistance. Personally speaking, I would not want to live with the knowledge that an untrained Samaritan lost his life while trying to save mine.


A line would be dropped over the transom - retrieved by the lifeboat people, and attached to the lifeboat to tow it. Another line with a snatch block on it, would be likewise dropped down to the lifeboat and attached to it, to be used to hoist each person up to the deck. This would work the same for the first, through the last person being hoisted to the deck.

I can understand the concept of not placing people in harms way. However, in broad daylight, on a sunny day, the above actions could easily have been accomplished without any feverish actions of heroism; i.e., could have been done step by step, calmly.

Instead, one person was fighting for his life for hours. And the entire KJ was "tied up" for over 4 hours. The above scenario would have accomplished the transfer smoothly, and most likely quicker, allowing the KJ to get back to their business faster.

I would have happily offered which ever crew wanted to volunteer to extract me via one of their lifeboats, at least $1000 cash. I suspect there would have been volunteers. Many of those guys were being paid around $1500 a month.

If anyone is going to agree to save anyone, they really should attempt to do it as smoothly as possible, or not at all. The CG fully agreed that what went down was not smooth, however, they can not mandate any specific actions from Amver participants.

So, again, it is up to the rescuer and whoever they are trying to extract, to devise a good plan, which works best for all parties. This is a good thing, not to be dismissed, as opposed to trying to argue / debate against making coordinated viable plans.

There is no logic on this planet which supports not coordinating a plan amongst the parties. That is all I am trying to suggest doing.
You can not fault that, or shoot any holes in that logic. 
Learn from our experience, instead of diminishing / eschewing it. 
It is only to your benefit to do so. Disregarding it is folly.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> This, I think, is great advice - and really should be the takeaway from all this in terms of calling in an AMVER rescue. That was made very clear to me by the ship captains I interviewed for my CW article.
> 
> At the same time, based on the recent CA racing boat tragedy we've discussed (_Uncontrollable Urge_) - and even the _Be Good Too_ to some degree - you can't wait too long to make the call.
> 
> ...


Oh God.... what is your confusion?

We were 1000 miles from Boston, a few hundred from Canada, OK? 
Look at a map to see how that could be, but you should not be confused.

No, of course he did not suggest which PFD to use. As I have stated numerous times, I grabbed the one on the top of our PFD container. MY ERROR ALONE.
But, I was acting with the belief that we would be somehow smoothly transferred without any concept of having to jump in the water. So, I was provided and believed false information, which drove my actions.... *Thus, this thread*.

Had I pre-seen what would occur, I would not have focused on any PFDs, I would have waived them off. Or, I would have used the Boston Whaler to transfer us; or our lifepod, but I did not have accurate "pre-knowledge" to act from. So, many things went wrong.

Again, the value of this thread is that we need to coordinate the transfer plan from vessel to vessel. And, it sure does help having the experience of the Triumph in the back of your mind while doing so.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - just trying to keep the facts straight.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Well Eisberg, apparently you are in direct conflict with the Captain of the Kim Jacob, since *that is where he entered the ocean from, and was retrieved from.*


I certainly am, it would appear... The most mind-boggling aspect of this entire story for me, has always been the fact that the KJ's captain chose to go into the water himself, and I freely admit to being unable to offer a good explanation to why he would choose to do so from the stern, as opposed to closer to amidships...

The only rationale I can come up with, is the possibility that he thought the potential suction effect running alongside the hull might make it difficult/impossible for him to have distanced himself from the ship...



DougSabbag said:


> By the way, that picture of the KJ, (*note the WATER LINE*), is obviously while she is empty of the oil she transports.
> When we were involved with her, she was riding a lot lower in the water, as she was on a delivery voyage.


Of course, but that would only place that stern counter overhang closer to a lifeboat beneath it, and certainly would not lessen the sharpness of that 'corner' where the ship's topsides meet the transom...



DougSabbag said:


> Apparently, you have some issues with any _thoughts_ except your own. If *you* didn't think of it, you consistently try to diminish / discredit it. I suppose you are a lot of fun to be around, as long as everyone bows down to your superiority....


Apparently, you have some issues with any _opinions_ expressed other than your own 

It is simply my _OPINION_ that any attempt to come alongside a vessel of that size, in the open ocean with a significant sea running - whether it be in a 53' Gulfstar, or the Boston Whaler on your stern, or one of the ship's lifeboats, or while swimming in the water - would be best done roughly _AMIDSHIPS_, in the ship's lee, as opposed to the stern...

Of course, perhaps that's just me... Although, that was the original plan in snagging your sea anchor, to wind up bringing TRIUMPH _alongside_ the KJ, and in her lee, correct?

Perhaps someday I may modify that opinion... If I were to _EVER_ witness a harbor pilot boarding or disembarking a large ship at the _STERN_, for example - that might cause me to reassess my thinking...

My hunch is that I won't be seeing any such attempt, any time soon, however... Pilots worldwide appear to have become settled in their agreement that the stern of a large vessel - particularly in a seaway with the smaller boat rising and falling 10' with the swell - is probably not the safest spot from which to clamber aboard...

My apologies for going so far as to "even use a photo to support my reasoning", I realize that's completely beyond the pale


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - just trying to keep the facts straight.


39-24. 66N 053-14. 310W was the CG noted position.

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl...75659&ll=39.53857,-52.75659&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> I certainly am, it would appear... The most mind-boggling aspect of this entire story for me, has always been the fact that the KJ's captain chose to go into the water himself, and I freely admit to being unable to offer a good explanation to why he would choose to do so from the stern, as opposed to closer to amidships...
> 
> The only rationale I can come up with, is the possibility that he thought the potential suction effect running alongside the hull might make it difficult/impossible for him to have distanced himself from the ship...
> 
> ...


Well, it is sad to witness you while being "mind boggled". Perhaps you should have some discussions with a tanker Captain.

The original plan was to bring the Triumph to the KJs' STERN. Bringing her amidships is a smashing disaster. We had MASTS which break when meeting the hull of the KJ. The Triumph (as any smaller vessel would do), was rocking side to side. The KJ hull slopes outward. Try to picture that if you can.

The Triumph is not a PILOT BOAT, she was a ketch rigged sailboat.

When I hear a sincere apology for any of your snarky snide opinionated know it all blustering, I'll let you know.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> A line would be dropped over the transom - retrieved by the lifeboat people, and attached to the lifeboat to tow it. * Another line with a snatch block on it, would be likewise dropped down to the lifeboat and attached to it, to be used to hoist each person up to the deck. * This would work the same for the first, through the last person being hoisted to the deck.


I believe most people who viewed any of those YouTube videos posted in the original thread, that showed the difficulty those cruise ship crewmembers had in re-attaching the lifting cables to the lifeboats and shore tenders upon their return to the ship, would realize "attaching" a line to a small boat rising an falling in open ocean waves, is probably not the best idea...

Pretty much for the same reason that CG helicopter rescues offshore are not conducted by securing a line or cable to the boat they're evacuating


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> I believe most people who viewed any of those YouTube videos posted in the original thread, that showed the difficulty those cruise ship crewmembers had in re-attaching the lifting cables to the lifeboats and shore tenders upon their return to the ship, would realize "attaching" a line to a small boat rising an falling in open ocean waves, is probably not the best idea...
> 
> Pretty much for the same reason that CG helicopter rescues offshore are not conducted by securing a line or cable to the boat they're evacuating


When deploying the line from the deck, it would help to extend a lot of additional line so that there is plenty of SLACK. So, the person on the lifeboat has a loose line in their hand to attach to their bow. Once attached, the deck person takes up the appropriate amount of slack.

This is the plan to avoid the challenge of attaching the lifting cables.

What IS your problem? Just can't accept anything which YOU didn't think of??
How long will you endeavor to shoot holes in that which you don't want to accept?

FYI, while you are playing Debby Downer, the guy is drowning in the water.....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Debby Drowner?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

So, now that we have discussed the various minutia of the details of our event, hopefully enough to satisfy those who needed them, let's return to the primary point of this thread:

'Rescue at Sea - Are you Prepared?'

If you plan to do some blue water cruising, whether extended or just for a few weeks this summer, it would really be wise to be aware that it is in your best interests to take a proactive stance on any rescue attempts / actions which might be called for on your behalf.

So, initially, remember how very dangerous ANY rescue / transfer can be, so that you do not make that call unless there is *absolutely no other recourse *for you.

Then, don't sit back and assume you will be taken care of by the rescuer(s).
(*unless they are the USCG*.)

The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so.

It is very nice of them to render whatever assistance which they will, but, they are not trained to do so, and won't necessarily have a very good plan of how to transfer you and your passengers to their vessel.

Therefore, especially after having read about the events of July 27th 2011 for the S/V Triumph, it is extremely important to work and communicate in a delicate / careful manner with your rescuer in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable plan. I said a 'delicate / careful manner' because you could only too easily be asking them to do something they might be concerned about doing.

As much as they might endeavor to calm you down, you should also be mentally prepared to present your idea(s) in a calm and rational manner so as not to frighten them - needlessly.

If you really do have a workable smooth transfer plan in mind, present the step by step process to them calmly, with confidence, so that they will do it.

And, be prepared to offer up some monetary reward to whichever crew volunteers to go above and beyond their call of duty. 

Fair winds,
Doug


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> As much as they might endeavor to calm you down, you should also be mentally prepared to present your idea(s) in a calm and rational manner so as not to frighten them - needlessly.
> 
> If you really do have a workable smooth transfer plan in mind, present the step by step process to them calmly, with confidence, so that they will do it.
> 
> And, be prepared to offer up some monetary reward to whichever crew volunteers to go above and beyond their call of duty.


I was with you up until these points. Oh well.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I was with you up until these points. Oh well.


Well, hopefully if you are (God forbid) in this sort of a situation, you will apply that overall concept for your own benefit. Because your life might well depend upon making a successful coordinated plan with whoever you are talking to on the radio.

You sure don't want to be screaming into the mike what you want to be done.
You want to be calmly describing what you see as your best plan in such a manner that the person you are asking for this assistance feels confident of your plan too.

And, you should also remember that money talks. Especially with people who frequently take home minimum wage. An extra $1000 ea., might inspire a couple of guys to jump into their lifeboat. Or, at least it might highlight how much you need this to be done.

The "oh well" statement is more appropriately applied to whoever doesn't apply these human interaction techniques and just accepts whatever is thrown their way....


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

DougSabbag said:


> The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so.


Really, again? This is getting to the point of comical, assuming your earlier assurances that you are of sound mind are true.

Not sure why you think you are so exceptionally superior to the captain of a tanker when it comes to overseeing the operations of the tanker. What, again, is your experience in this regard?

I'm sure the captain of the Kim Jacob (again, ya know, the one who jumped in the water to try to save your butt) would get a chuckle--or else be downright pi$$ed--if he were to read some of your rantings on here.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, hopefully if you are (God forbid) in this sort of a situation, you will apply that overall concept for your own benefit. Because your life might well depend upon making a successful coordinated plan with whoever you are talking to on the radio.
> 
> You sure don't want to be screaming into the mike what you want to be done.
> You want to be calmly describing what you see as your best plan in such a manner that the person you are asking for this assistance feels confident of your plan too.
> ...


Okay - I'll try to clarify once more.

In those 3 points, I think you're making a critical error in judgement. That is - _you are not in control of this rescue_. Period. You are certainly _a critical participant in the planning_ - providing information to both the CG and Captain that might affect the transfer, and even _requesting_ various means of transfer, yes - but you're not in charge. You are not in a position to dictate or direct. One of the biggest reasons for this is that you're ignorant when it comes to that ship and its capabilities (equipment, crew, maneuvering, best extraction points, etc.). You don't have a clue.

Your statements about trying "not to scare them" and presenting _your_ "step by step process to them calmly, with confidence, so that they will do" what _you_ want them to do - continues your ongoing mindset that you know better than they how things should be done. You don't.

Additionally, your idea of offering "An extra $1000 ea." to "inspire a couple of guys to jump into their lifeboat." - is a horrible idea. Again - the captain of that ship is in charge of every decision made on that ship. You should respect that. Trying to buy your way into control? Really?

What happens when the Captain says "no" to your directives? What do you do then?

I know perfectly well I'm not going to disabuse you of your perspective. But after the research I've done and the interviews I've conducted on this issue with those absolutely in the know, I am confident that your perspective is flat wrong. That is the "oh well".


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> Really, again? This is getting to the point of comical, assuming your earlier assurances that you are of sound mind are true.
> 
> Not sure why you think you are so exceptionally superior to the captain of a tanker when it comes to overseeing the operations of the tanker. What, again, is your experience in this regard?
> 
> I'm sure the captain of the Kim Jacob (again, ya know, the one who jumped in the water to try to save your butt) would get a chuckle--or else be downright pi$$ed--if he were to read some of your rantings on here.


Which part of this bothers you so much: "The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so."

It is a reality which does not indicate anyone's superiority whatsoever.

And I am sure the Captain of the KJ would agree with that statement 100%.

What IS comical, is that you would find any fault with reality. And, my experience with this is FIRST HAND, been there, done that. When were you last rescued by anyone?

Look, I have shared this earned wisdom with you for YOUR benefit. If you don't like it, fine. But, I surely do not require any degradation for my effort.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - I'll try to clarify once more.
> 
> In those 3 points, I think you're making a critical error in judgement. That is - _you are not in control of this rescue_. Period. You are certainly _a critical participant in the planning_ - providing information to both the CG and Captain that might affect the transfer, and even _requesting_ various means of transfer, yes - but you're not in charge. You are not in a position to dictate or direct. One of the biggest reasons for this is that you're ignorant when it comes to that ship and its capabilities (equipment, crew, maneuvering, best extraction points, etc.). You don't have a clue.
> 
> ...


Your research and interviews did not include the experience I had while talking on the radio with the Captain in the ocean. *He was open to ideas, when he realized his plan was moot.
Sadly, I did not come up with one. *

If he says no, you both rethink what to do. Again and again, until a good plan is arrived at which is mutually agreeable.

People can mutually think together. Don't discount that reality. The Captain of the KJ was dismayed that neither of us thought of the lifeboat towing idea until we were in Canadian waters. When I broached that concept with him as they were deploying a lifeboat in a test, he dropped his head, and said: "We're not the CG, I didn't think about that."

That is reality.... sometimes even the "Captain" doesn't see the best solution.
People are just people, work with that reality.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> If he says no, you both rethink what to do. Again and again, until a good plan is arrived at which is mutually agreeable.
> 
> People can mutually think together.
> 
> ...


I can agree with that for the most part - IF it goes both ways. _Most of the time_, its _the rescuee_ who doesn't see the best solution. He typically can't.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me that people seem hell bent on not accepting that anything "better" can be devised than what a "Captain" thinks of. We are just people, no matter what hat we might have on.

And a *truly good Captain *will appreciate and accept the best plan if presented to him or her correctly.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I can agree with that for the most part - IF it goes both ways. _Most of the time_, its _the rescuee_ who doesn't see the best solution. He typically can't.


Well, I did.

In the first place, while treading water I was screaming to them to come to my other side, so that they wouldn't be throwing the buoys INTO the wind, but would throw them WITH the wind.

Then, sadly, when in Canadian waters, I broached the lifeboat towing idea directly to the Captain, who agreed - but explained he had not thought of it because he is not a member of the CG, he is a tanker Captain.

So, again, people thinking together, CAN come up with the best steps TOGETHER.
Two heads are better than one. When that is disregarded, everyone suffers.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, I did.


Okay.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that people seem hell bent on not accepting that anything "better" can be devised than what a "Captain" thinks of. We are just people, no matter what hat we might have on.


Nobody is saying that cannot happen. They are simply saying that the plan you come up with at the time is not necessarily the best either.

Oh, and that trying to usurp control of the crew from the captain of another vessel through bribery is a *Bad Thing* - something I agree with strongly enough to post again in this thread. The captain of the vessel is responsible for his crew - you trying to step in and pay them undermines his authority to carry out that responsibility.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> Nobody is saying that cannot happen. They are simply saying that the plan you come up with at the time is not necessarily the best either.
> 
> Oh, and that trying to usurp control of the crew from the captain of another vessel through bribery is a *Bad Thing* - something I agree with strongly enough to post again in this thread. The captain of the vessel is responsible for his crew - you trying to step in and pay them undermines his authority to carry out that responsibility.


And the plan the Captain comes up with, (as in my case), might also not be the best one - thus the concept of WORKING TOGETHER.

The monetary reward concept would flow through the Captain, perhaps as he (if he chose to) asked for any volunteers.

That is not usurping anything; that is providing the Captain with an additional resource to use, at his discretion.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Doug, I honestly can't understand why you're getting so much flak on this thread. I think your advice is very helpful and, like all advice, one can chose to follow it or not. I've never been in a rescue situation at sea and hopefully I won't ever be. Your account has been very illuminating indeed and it's given me a lot to think about if I ever find myself in one.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

copacabana said:


> Doug, I honestly can't understand why you're getting so much flak on this thread. I think your advice is very helpful and, like all advice, one can chose to follow it or not. I've never been in a rescue situation at sea and hopefully I won't ever be. Your account has been very illuminating indeed and it's given me a lot to think about if I ever find myself in one.


Thank you very much! I am also amazed at the battle I am in to simply share some wisdom to apply as appropriate, based upon our hard earned experience.

More information is better than less. Two heads are better than one.
*But nothing is as dangerous as a closed mind.*

Have a great day!


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> And the plan the Captain comes up with, (as in my case), might also not be the best one - thus the concept of WORKING TOGETHER.


Again, no-one is arguing you shouldn't. It is when you claim (as you did earlier) that you should take control of the rescue that people disagree with you. Working together to come up with a good plan is a Good Thing. Taking control of the rescue, when it involves the crew under the command of the rescuing boat's captain, is another thing entirely.



DougSabbag said:


> The monetary reward concept would flow through the Captain, perhaps as he (if he chose to) asked for any volunteers.


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I read:
_"And, you should also remember that money talks. Especially with people who frequently take home minimum wage. An extra $1000 ea., might inspire a couple of guys to jump into their lifeboat."​_...to mean that you were offering it to the crew in order to sway their judgement. Captains are pretty often taking home somewhat more than minimum wage and hence are unlikely to be swayed by the offers of $1K _to crew members_ so they risk their lives.



DougSabbag said:


> That is not usurping anything; that is providing the Captain with an additional resource to use, at his discretion.


The crew is _already_ his resource to use. If he determines their capabilities are not up to the task, they're not up to the task. An extra $1K isn't going to make them more skilled, just more likely to risk their lives. As a captain, offering inducement to place added risk on their lives (when the captain's responsibility is *not* to do so) is, in my opinion, a Bad Thing.

A plan is either good or bad on it's own merits. If you need to be bribing the crew (through the captain or otherwise), you are essentially admitting there are risks to the lives of the crew in the plan but you want them to try anyway, right?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> Again, no-one is arguing you shouldn't. It is when you claim (as you did earlier) that you should take control of the rescue that people disagree with you. Working together to come up with a good plan is a Good Thing. Taking control of the rescue, when it involves the crew under the command of the rescuing boat's captain, is another thing entirely.
> 
> I am not suggesting 'taking control'. I am only suggesting taking part in devising the action plan.
> 
> ...


The 'reward' is meant as an inducement to go above the call of duty, i.e., beyond what they signed up for. This is not necessarily an offset to 'risk' as much as it is to extra WORK.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

You get what you pay for / money talks. Two heads are better than one. A closed mind is a dangerous thing. More (information) is better than less. 

These are sayings which have stood the test of time and are to some degree the basis of some of my advisements.

Working together with your rescuer to devise a mutually agreeable transfer plan is a good idea.

Sitting on your duff and leaving it all up to them, is not a good idea. 

Doug & Evelyn Sabbag & the S/V Triumph can attest to that REALITY. 

Stop fighting experience - stop fighting for the sake of fighting. It is pointless and tiring to do so.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> I am not suggesting 'taking control'. I am only suggesting taking part in devising the action plan.


And, as I stated, no-one is against that. So long as, once the plan is being executed, the control rests with the captain of the rescue boat.



DougSabbag said:


> Not meant as an intention to 'sway any judgment' Only meant as an additional resource for the Captain to use at his discretion when / if asking for any volunteers.


And, as I already stated, the crew are already his resource to use. The captain should be making plans based on the capabilities of the crew, not on how much extra risk they're willing to take on because they can be bribed to risk their lives.



DougSabbag said:


> They are not in the military. These are private citizens who are working a JOB. Therefore, money does talk. Don't ever doubt that.


I don't doubt that. However, as my understanding goes, the captain is responsible for their safety, not their wallets. No matter how much money you put on the table, the captain's responsibility should be to weigh the risks to the crew's life against their capability. These risks do not change based on how much money you offer - people are just willing to ignore more risk for higher payment.



DougSabbag said:


> The 'reward' is meant as an inducement to go above the call of duty, i.e., beyond what they signed up for. This is not necessarily an offset to 'risk' as much as it is to extra WORK.


OK, with that in mind, I have to ask again for clarification as to whether _"the issue was not one of effort & concern on their part, but of their knowledge in how best to retrieve you?"_

If it was not an issue of effort & concern - money doesn't change anything. By bringing up that things might have been different if you chose to offer the crew money, you imply their efforts were less than what they could do safely.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> And, as I stated, no-one is against that. So long as, once the plan is being executed, the control rests with the captain of the rescue boat.
> 
> And, as I already stated, the crew are already his resource to use. The captain should be making plans based on the capabilities of the crew, not on how much extra risk they're willing to take on because they can be bribed to risk their lives.
> 
> ...


Look buddy, I get it that YOU wouldn't consider offering any money to anyone to save your ass. Wonderful. Don't do it.

I would offer money to someone who is WORKING for money, to do that which they are not being paid to do. And if that inspires the sailor to get off his ass and make an extra effort, I am glad.

But, you can just keep treading water.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

If you still need 'clarification' on how life works, ask your father.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Unless anyone has any intelligent questions to ask, I am sure I have provided what is useful to those who CAN think on their feet, and I am done here.

Those who choose to wallow in 'clarifications' and minutia, can do so until the cows fly, without me.

Fair winds.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> The original plan was to bring the Triumph to the KJs' STERN.


Ahh, my bad, I don't recall your mention of that initially... From your original account of the incident, and your recitation of the "Lessons Learned", I had somehow gotten the impression you were expecting to be brought *alongside* the KJ:



> You do not bring a 50 foot sailboat *alongside* a 900 foot oil tanker in 10 to 15 foot seas, unless you do not care about what will happen.
> 
> You don't bring a 50 foot sailboat *alongside* a 900 foot tanker without having some major issues.





DougSabbag said:


> Bringing her amidships is a smashing disaster. We had MASTS which break when meeting the hull of the KJ. The Triumph (as any smaller vessel would do), was rocking side to side. The KJ hull slopes outward. Try to picture that if you can.


I don't know, the hull of the KJ for most of her length looks pretty _vertical_, to me... Like most large ships, the only place where the hull actually slopes outward, is at the bow, and the stern...

I'm well aware of the sort of calamity likely to ensue bringing a large sailboat alongside a 900 foot tanker in 10-15 foot seas - the possibility of dismasting, or a crewmember being crushed between the two vessels during the transfer perhaps being the most likely, or deadly... That's why I wrote the following, in part, in Posts #119 and 121 of the original thread:



> As I believe Doug already hinted at, in such a situation, it really is part of the responsibility of those being rescued to aid in the transfer, and attempt to diminish the risk by effecting the transfer from a tender or liferaft, rather than from the mother ship itself&#8230;
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Look buddy, I get it that YOU wouldn't consider offering any money to anyone to save your ass. Wonderful. Don't do it.


I don't have a problem paying for saving my life. I am stating that, as a captain is _already there to save your life_ and needs to balance that task _against the risks to his crew's safety_ - the money won't make any difference to a good captain.



DougSabbag said:


> I would offer money to someone who is WORKING for money, to do that which they are not being paid to do. And if that inspires the sailor to get off his ass and make an extra effort, I am glad.


Not my point, but I can see you're not likely to respond to the point given it's been asked explicitly twice, so I won't try again.



DougSabbag said:


> But, you can just keep treading water.





DougSabbag said:


> If you still need 'clarification' on how life works, ask your father.


And now you're just being an ass.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> So, now that we have discussed the various minutia of the details of our event, hopefully enough to satisfy those who needed them, let's return to the primary point of this thread:
> 
> 'Rescue at Sea - Are you Prepared?'
> 
> ...





copacabana said:


> Doug, I honestly can't understand why you're getting so much flak on this thread. I think your advice is very helpful and, like all advice, one can chose to follow it or not. I've never been in a rescue situation at sea and hopefully I won't ever be. Your account has been very illuminating indeed and it's given me a lot to think about if I ever find myself in one.


I don't think for the most part that people are giving him flak for trying to share lessons learned. I think people, myself included are challenging some of his conclusions and advice and he is not taking that very well. I don't believe that anyone disagrees with him when he gives advice about being absolutely sure of the necessity of a call for help or discussing primary and alternate plans for that help so everyone involved knows what is going on and what to reasonably expect. I would think that if the situation allows that type of preplanning, it would be stupid not to. But then he goes on to make statements that beg to challenged and gets pissed when someone does exactly that.

Take the following statements that Doug made for example;

"The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so."

"It is very nice of them to render whatever assistance which they will, but, they are not trained to do so, and won't necessarily have a very good plan of how to transfer you and your passengers to their vessel."

Stating that AMVER participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path is ridiculous. It breeds mistrust from the start. You would have to ask the parent company of the KJ how much money that 4 hour event cost them for an exact amount but I would be willing to bet it was quite a bit more than the suggested bribe amount. I doubt Doug paid anything to the company to help recoup that loss. Had their own best interest truly been at the top, the Kim Jacobs would have never diverted from its course in the first place. And of course the crew would not want to place themselves in harms way. For one, they are not required to even while rendering assistance, and secondly, they should not because of Doug's later statement that they are not trained to safely do so.

And I will not argue the fact that, because they are not trained in search and rescue techniques and procedures, they may very well NOT have the best plan. They will have to improvise as the situation dictates. But pointing out the fact that by placing untrained people in the very situation you are trying to extract another from, you are putting more lives at risk will only draw the very flak you speak of rather than productive dialog. I agree that two way discussion in planning is a very smart thing, but in the end, it lies with the rescuer to ultimately evaluate their own capabilities and decide how best to proceed. Bribing crew or dictating the actions of another vessels captain is just ridiculous. Expecting someone to go beyond what they believe they are capable of and then demeaning them when they don't, or suggesting the art of bribery to tempt someone who may be financially hurting into doing something that could possibly get them killed is arrogance of the lowest sort.

If that's the sort of flak you mean, well then I guess I'm guilty as charged.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Dean, I disagree with a lot of what Doug has said, especially the idea of offering money to crew. I guess it won't be part of my plan if I get myself into a rescue situation. I'm a big boy and I can take someone's advice (or parts of it) without getting all worked up about the parts I don't agree with. What I found interesting and useful in Doug's advice was the following:

(1) Don't abandon your boat assuming the rescue is going to be the easy way out. Stay with the boat and only call for help if it is going down. 
(2) Don't assume your rescuer knows what he's doing or has the best plan in mind. It may be his first attempt and he doesn't have sufficient training.
(3) Discuss the steps with your rescuer before you start the rescue. Get both sides clear on what will happen.
(4) Use your dinghy to get to the rescue boat or buoy in the water.
(5) Put on a good life jacket from the start.

I think those are the points Doug is making.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

copacabana said:


> What I found interesting and useful in Doug's advice was the following:
> 
> (1) Don't abandon your boat assuming the rescue is going to be the easy way out. Stay with the boat and only call for help if it is going down.
> (2) Don't assume your rescuer knows what he's doing or has the best plan in mind. It may be his first attempt and he doesn't have sufficient training.
> ...


Those are all good points and I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with them. I'm definitely not, I haven't seen JonEisberg or SmackDaddy do so either.



copacabana said:


> I think those are the points Doug is making.


They're not the only ones, though, and it's when someone disagrees or even questions _the other points_ that he seems to wig out.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> Those are all good points and I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with them. I'm definitely not, I haven't seen JonEisberg or SmackDaddy do so either.
> 
> They're not the only ones, though, and it's when someone disagrees or even questions _the other points_ that he seems to wig out.


Nicely put. And you have to wonder what sort of impressions some of those questionable statements are making for the people reading them on this forum who have no experience with this sort of thing and are assuming that someone like Doug has all the correct answers. Kinda like what Doug initially thought at the beginning of his ordeal before he realized too late that he needed to question what was happening.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Tough crowd. I swear, if some of you guys were on that boat in the Sea of Galilee, and you saw Christ walking on the water, you’d complain that he wasn’t a very good swimmer. You don’t have to take Doug’s advice, but don’t bait him and when he reacts in kind, don’t chastise him for it. For me an AMVER rescue is exceedingly rare. The only person I’ve had the opportunity to dialog about AMVER rescues is Doug. I’ve read Skip Allan and Ronnie Simpson’s accounts and what has impressed me is how different the individual situations all were. I like the conclusions that copacabana drew from this incident. I would also add: Expect things to go rapidly from bad to worse and have a back-up plan for that “worst case scenario”; Be prepared to act quickly as events change. a window of opportunity maybe only seconds; You have the most to gain in saving your life, so do everything in your power to do so.

For me, one of the things I’m re-thinking is putting a life-raft canister on the coach roof (under the boom on my boat). I am leaning now towards a valise style that I would pre-position in the cockpit beforehand. I am “planning” on the fact that my rig will come down at the worst opportunity during the rescue. I am planning also on wearing my rescue radio on my person so if I’m knocked overboard, I can still communicate. (I do this now, but I will always do so in the future.)

This notion of monetarily incentivizing the rescuers has come up pretty late in this discussion and it certainly falls under the concept of doing everything in your power to save your own life. I don’t know if I personally would do it or not. I know that Ronnie pretty much only had the clothes on his back when he landed in China and hardly any money for food, lodging or travel expenses. How much cash do we carry on our boats while cruising anyways? (Thread drift to theft and piracy!). 

(warning: weak attempt at humor follows) Say, you do communicate your willingness to “tip” a rescuer and that person throws you a line and begins to reel you in. About halfway, he says “where’s my money?” You protest that he didn’t really do anything extraordinary. He lets the rope slip a little. The guy standing next to him now wants money too. You protest to the captain and he says “I want a thousand dollars for the use of my ship”. What do you say? “I’m a little short on cash, do you take credit cards?”

Smack, did I read correctly that you wrote an article on this subject? Can you post it here so we all can benefit from your research and scholarship?


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

DougSabbag said:


> And the plan the Captain comes up with, (as in my case), might also not be the best one - thus the concept of WORKING TOGETHER.
> 
> The monetary reward concept would flow through the Captain, perhaps as he (if he chose to) asked for any volunteers.
> 
> That is not usurping anything; that is providing the Captain with an additional resource to use, at his discretion.


The guy jumped in the water, and saved your life, what more do you want him to do? It was a successful event as you are alive period. You seem extremely ungrateful that they saved your lives. His plan worked, your posting here is proof of that and end of story. He was in command of the mission period, you asked them to save you. You were not doing him a favor to let him save you.

Could it have been done better, perhaps but I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect him to drop a life boat for your use. Letting the life boat down could put him in a position that he was not meeting his obligations to his crew, that is who they are intended for, and required to have by law. His first priority is his crew not you. You were in no position to give any directions. If he has read this I am sure he is sorry he answered the call.

Perhaps it is just your attitude that is the issue. It seems to be true in the big boat postings where you compare an average size cruising boat to a scooter, or in the live aboard posts you call anything less than 50 foot a day sailor and unfit for anyone but a homeless person to live on. You may not intend to come off as condescending and holier-than-thou, but almost every post you make here comes off that way. I see this turning ugly again, and someone getting a vacation from the forum again. History repeats itself.

I know if I had someone jump in the water and save me after my boat failed out there, I would certainly not be second guessing his motives, or his plan. I would be thanking him.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

I do not think I have posted this.





 * Rescue me * from *Jack Dale* 
It is presentation I am doing on AMVER; it is a medevac.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

I'd like to check it out, jack, but I'm getting the following...
[ image removed ]

*Edit:* Jack fixed it. Awesome


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

BentSailor said:


> I'd like to check it out, jack, but I'm getting the following...


try again. I edited the page.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Working now. Thanks a lot (if only tech support was always that quick, eh?  )


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Has anyone ever been in their dinghy or liferaft in 10-15 foot seas 1000 miles out? Is it really a good plan to abandon your boat for a dinghy or liferaft to attempt a transfer to a 900 foot tanker? The idea scares me almost as much as going in the water with just a PFD, and I'd probably rather risk a dismasting. What about cutting the rig down and letting it go, since you are abandoning the boat anyway?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

miatapaul said:


> The guy jumped in the water, and saved your life, what more do you want him to do? It was a successful event as you are alive period. You seem extremely ungrateful that they saved your lives. His plan worked, your posting here is proof of that and end of story. He was in command of the mission period, you asked them to save you. You were not doing him a favor to let him save you.
> 
> Could it have been done better, perhaps but I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect him to drop a life boat for your use. Letting the life boat down could put him in a position that he was not meeting his obligations to his crew, that is who they are intended for, and required to have by law. His first priority is his crew not you. You were in no position to give any directions. If he has read this I am sure he is sorry he answered the call.
> 
> ...


And here we go with the above, and the others too, where nobody can accept that the transfer of people from boat A to boat B can be done better if discussed and coordinated better between the two parties.

Everyone just wants me to say thank you, without discussing what can be learned from the experience.

By offering everyone advice based upon our real life experience out there, I am not diminishing the "thank you" part of that experience, I am sharing the fact that I am here only by the Grace of God and the will to live.

The KJ Captains' plan B, to acquire the sea anchor and use that rode to pull us to their stern, went awry when they intersected the rode to that parachute.

It was a viable plan, but when it went wrong we were pulled alongside the KJ, and pulled forward, as the KJ proceeded, into their anchor housing, smashing our boat with each wave. The KJ Captain was very distraught about this turn of events.

So, instead of just saying "thank you" because we still managed to survive, I am sharing the experience with all of you so that you might do better than we did.

The KJ Captain and I talked about what to do. He was open to ideas. This is not blasphemy to do.... yes, the Captain is the ultimate authority, however assuming he wants to realize success, he is open to suggestions and ideas.

It is not condescending to discuss better ideas for your benefit, (and even God forbid, for us too), as opposed to your desired: "thank you", period.
*The two are NOT mutually exclusive. *

On those "better ideas", you said: "I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect him to drop a life boat for your use."

Well, the KJ Captain did AFTER we all managed to live through the results of not having done that. Because AFTER the event, when he heard the idea of towing the lifeboat to resolve the issue of not being able to retrieve it using their cables, he realized that would have worked. All of you who are going to great lengths to shoot holes in that idea are wasting your time and your faculties.

A tanker moving at 8 knots can tow their own lifeboat until they can hoist it to their deck. The KJ Captain agreed with that too. He just hadn't thought of it.

I am not second guessing their MOTIVES, I am providing the experience that there were better plans to select from, and the Captain of the KJ would have been open to exploring those plans too had we done so.

This is not being ungrateful, this is being BETTER PREPARED than we were.

*Whether you like it, or not, and whether you even admit it, or not, because you have read this story, you WILL be better prepared should you be in this situation.*

That is all my goal can be, and I have met that goal.

You're welcome.
Doug Sabbag


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> Be prepared to act quickly as events change. a window of opportunity maybe only seconds; *You have the most to gain in saving your life, so do everything in your power to do so.*
> 
> For me, one of the things I'm re-thinking is putting a life-raft canister on the coach roof (under the boom on my boat). I am leaning now towards a valise style that I would pre-position in the cockpit beforehand. I am "planning" on the fact that my rig will come down at the worst opportunity during the rescue. *I am planning also on wearing my rescue radio on my person so if I'm knocked overboard, I can still communicate.* (I do this now, but I will always do so in the future.)
> 
> This notion of monetarily incentivizing the rescuers has come up pretty late in this discussion and it certainly falls under the concept of doing everything in your power to save your own life.


George is applying, at least conceptually, what he has read here. George will be better prepared than those who disregard and go to great lengths to diminish the validity of what I have shared.

Whether I am an ass or not, George is a smart man.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> Has anyone ever been in their dinghy or liferaft in 10-15 foot seas 1000 miles out? Is it really a good plan to abandon your boat for a dinghy or liferaft to attempt a transfer to a 900 foot tanker? The idea scares me almost as much as going in the water with just a PFD, and I'd probably rather risk a dismasting. What about cutting the rig down and letting it go, since you are abandoning the boat anyway?


My first reaction to the choice of a PFD or a small boat to effect a transfer, is to share that the issue of hypothermia is something to avoid if at all possible.

The dismasting is a violent dangerous event which occurs all around you, and your passengers. You can easily be very badly hurt by that falling debris.

Also, the extreme violence of your boat being smashed alongside a tanker / freighter is something you do not want to be a part of.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

*Dean101 said this:* "Take the following statements that Doug made for example;

"The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so."

"It is very nice of them to render whatever assistance which they will, but, they are not trained to do so, and won't necessarily have a very good plan of how to transfer you and your passengers to their vessel."

Stating that AMVER participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path is ridiculous. "

*Me responding:*

No Dean, it is the reality that they will generally not place themselves into 'harms way' to save you. That is a critical issue you need to accept.

Perhaps I worded that concept inappropriately by not also saying that they are there to render assistance, which is a good Samaritan thing to do.

So, yes they are there to help you, but their own safety is held to a higher level than yours.
However you need to word that, fine do it, but accept that reality.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> For me, one of the things I'm re-thinking is putting a life-raft canister on the coach roof (under the boom on my boat). I am leaning now towards a valise style that I would pre-position in the cockpit beforehand.


Smart move... IMHO, there are few worse or more vulnerable places to store a liferaft, I'm surprised it's still so commonly seen... Last fall I delivered a Wauquiez Pretorian 35 that had its raft mounted forward of the dodger, it drove me nuts, especially the extent to which it impeded visibility forward from the cockpit. How anyone could tolerate such an arrangement is completely beyond me...

The cockpit is a good bet, could you find the space forward of your steering pedestal? One of the best arguments in favor of the more compact Winslows, they can often be tucked inside a cockpit locker, without the need for a much bulkier cannister... Even it you simply stow it somewhere below, in an unused quarterberth for example, that might be a far better solution than mounting it on deck...

One benefit of a tiller steered boat, the 'dead zone' beneath the tiller can serve as an ideal spot for a raft... Extremely secure, easily accessible, and with the added benefit of reducing the cockpit volume somewhat in the event of being pooped...


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> *Dean101 said this:* "Take the following statements that Doug made for example;
> 
> "The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so."
> 
> ...


AMVER participants are ships over a certain gross tonnage. They are out on the high seas in order to pursue their commercial interests as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Their own best interest would be their bottom line, not diverting to render assistance at no small expense to that bottom line. It's a voluntary program. They are not forced to participate, but they do. And did in your case. Perhaps it would have been better had they actually thought the way you think they do and served their own best interest by ignoring the call. Maybe nobody would have showed up, you would have been forced to make repairs and limped back to Boston, learning in the process the lessons you are sharing now without most of the trouble those good Samaritans caused. If their own best interests were really at the top of the decision path, they wouldn't be participants in a voluntary program such as AMVERS.

As far as the individuals aboard any ship placing their safety above my own? I don't need to accept it because I don't expect it. Why? Because those individuals most likely have people in their lives that mean more to them than a stranger and given the choice between me, the stranger, and their wife, kids, family, etc., I expect them to choose family every time and no hard feelings about it. You chose your wife over the risk of placing strangers in harms way by abandoning a boat that you admit did not need to be abandoned. You said you could have made temporary repairs and limped back to Boston, 1000 miles was it? When Canada was 350 miles I think you said? But you were willing to put the lives of others in harms way under those circumstances just to fulfill the wishes of your wife. So how can you expect others to place your needs above the needs of their own families? You didn't. No Doug, I don't have to accept it because I don't expect it.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> AMVER participants are blah blah blah.
> 
> As far as the individuals aboard any ship placing their safety above my own? blah blah blah.
> 
> But you were willing to put the lives of others in harms way under those circumstances just to fulfill the wishes of your wife. blah blah blah.


Once again, you're in a pointless effort to once again try to diminish advisements provided to you for your benefit.

On the one hand you paint the Amver particpants accurately as going out of their way to render assistance. And you accept that their safety is paramount to them.

*But, you couldn't accept my way of saying the same thing.*

So, which is really more important? That you have the last say, or that you try to dance around accepting what I am saying?

Or, are you just trying to get some more knives into my back with your snide snarky questions about why we called the CG?

*You opinion that we placed others in harms way uselessly is ludicrous when you accept that WE suffered much more of the "harms way" result than ANYONE ELSE DID THAT DAY.*

If you really don't need to learn anything to be better prepared for blue water cruising, because you already know it all, then stop reading this thread.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Dean101 said:


> AMVER participants are ships over a certain gross tonnage. They are out on the high seas in order to pursue their commercial interests as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Their own best interest would be their bottom line, not diverting to render assistance at no small expense to that bottom line. It's a voluntary program. They are not forced to participate, but they do. And did in your case. Perhaps it would have been better had they actually thought the way you think they do and served their own best interest by ignoring the call. Maybe nobody would have showed up, you would have been forced to make repairs and limped back to Boston, learning in the process the lessons you are sharing now without most of the trouble those good Samaritans caused. If their own best interests were really at the top of the decision path, they wouldn't be participants in a voluntary program such as AMVERS.
> 
> As far as the individuals aboard any ship placing their safety above my own? I don't need to accept it because I don't expect it. Why? Because those individuals most likely have people in their lives that mean more to them than a stranger and given the choice between me, the stranger, and their wife, kids, family, etc., I expect them to choose family every time and no hard feelings about it. You chose your wife over the risk of placing strangers in harms way by abandoning a boat that you admit did not need to be abandoned. You said you could have made temporary repairs and limped back to Boston, 1000 miles was it? When Canada was 350 miles I think you said? But you were willing to put the lives of others in harms way under those circumstances just to fulfill the wishes of your wife. So how can you expect others to place your needs above the needs of their own families? You didn't. No Doug, I don't have to accept it because I don't expect it.


I think this is very well stated, Dean.

At the end of the day, judging by the back-and-forth above, I think many of Doug's viewpoints are relatively sound. The problem is - this is a very, very complex issue. And Doug is pretty singularly focused on a limited part of that issue _as it relates to his single experience_. And that's perfectly understandable. Furthermore, as he's said a few times - he doesn't always express himself well. And he obviously get the details muddled. Additionally, he has a set of personal priorities that many don't share, and that also makes the conversation difficult.

So, to me, his story and resulting viewpoint provides a lot of food for thought. And that's very, very good. Pick what you want from it and apply it as it makes sense to your mind and to your situation.

As Doug has said, and as I hammered home in the article, the bottom line is that WHATEVER means of transfer is used to move from your boat to a ship - it's going to likely be very dangerous. Therefore, you should definitely familiarize yourself with as many of the transfer techniques as you can - and be ready to help plan the transfer in the early stages, while still knowing _it's not your call in the end_.

Most importantly, according to Captain Evans Hoyt, one of the ship captains I interviewed for the article, this really should be an absolute last resort...just like _stepping up_ into a life raft. This is the way a ship captain views it. And if you don't view it the same way, your expectations will be way off. If you do truly look at it as a life-or-death call - you can't help but be grateful if you actually survive it...no matter how messy it might be.

Don't forget this specific example: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1357105-post98.html


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

*Not one single person responded to this statement:*

Everyone just wants me to say thank you, without discussing what can be learned from the experience.

By offering everyone advice based upon our real life experience out there, I am not diminishing the "thank you" part of that experience, I am sharing the fact that I am here only by the Grace of God and the will to live.

The KJ Captains' plan B, to acquire the sea anchor and use that rode to pull us to their stern, went awry when they intersected the rode to that parachute.

It was a viable plan, but when it went wrong we were pulled alongside the KJ, and pulled forward, as the KJ proceeded, into their anchor housing, smashing our boat with each wave. The KJ Captain was very distraught about this turn of events.

*So, instead of just saying "thank you" because we still managed to survive, I am sharing the experience with all of you so that you might do better than we did.*

The KJ Captain and I talked about what to do. He was open to ideas. This is not blasphemy to do.... *yes, the Captain is the ultimate authority,* however assuming he wants to realize success, he is open to suggestions and ideas.

It is not condescending to discuss better ideas for your benefit, (and even God forbid, for us too), as opposed to your desired: "thank you", period.
*The two are NOT mutually exclusive. *

On those "better ideas", you said: "I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect him to drop a life boat for your use."

Well, the KJ Captain did AFTER we all managed to live through the results of not having done that. Because AFTER the event, when he heard the idea of towing the lifeboat to resolve the issue of not being able to retrieve it using their cables, he realized that would have worked. All of you who are going to great lengths to shoot holes in that idea are wasting your time and your faculties.

A tanker moving at 8 knots can tow their own lifeboat until they can hoist it to their deck. The KJ Captain agreed with that too. He just hadn't thought of it.

I am not second guessing their MOTIVES, I am providing the experience that there were better plans to select from, and the Captain of the KJ would have been open to exploring those plans too had we done so.

*This is not being ungrateful, this is being BETTER PREPARED than we were.*

Whether you like it, or not, and whether you even admit it, or not, because you have read this story, you WILL be better prepared should you be in this situation.
That is all my goal can be, and I have met that goal.

You're welcome.
Doug Sabbag


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Once again, you're in a pointless effort to once again try to diminish advisements provided to you for your benefit.
> 
> On the one hand you paint the Amver particpants accurately as going out of their way to render assistance. And you accept that their safety is paramount to them.
> 
> ...


My intent is not to "diminish advisements" or to "shoot holes" in in your ideas. My intent was to point out your hypocrisy in expecting much more concern for your safety than you do for theirs. My comments about your idea regarding deployment of a lifeboat were not meant to shoot holes in your idea but rather to point out aspects of that idea that you either did not address or dismissed as simple and not relevant. You had your reasons to initiate an abandonment and I wont second guess them. You were there and I wasn't but changing my post to read "blah, blah, blah", as if that is what I said wont change the fact that they are valid points. You just simply dismissed them. It actually just highlights your tendency to take any comments challenging your ideas as a personal attack or a dismissal of ALL of your thoughts and conclusions.

People are going to take away from this what they will, and I will be the first to say that much of what you say has good merit. Just because I point out my own thoughts on specific points and try to pose what I perceive as possible flaws to certain ideas you have stated does not mean that I disagree with EVERYTHING you have to say. Maybe Smack is right and it is just the wording you use but when challenged on any subject you seem to either dismiss it or take it as a personal attack, expecting your ideas and conclusions to be the only logical choice.

*I'm not trying to attack you Doug and if I come off that way then I apologize.* But regardless of our experience levels, my opinions are as valid as yours so if you want me to respect your opinions then I expect that same respect in return. You have convinced me on certain points and have reinforced ideas we share in common on others. But not everything. I would love to examine ideas of how better to conduct these types of situations where both parties are untrained in SAR procedures but that can't happen if your ideas, such as launching a lifeboat, are the only valid ones and unimpeachable.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> And here we go with the above, and the others too, where nobody can accept that the transfer of people from boat A to boat B can be done better if discussed and coordinated better between the two parties.


Nobody said that. That's pure fantasy.



DougSabbag said:


> Everyone just wants me to say thank you, without discussing what can be learned from the experience.


No-one said that either. More fantasy.



DougSabbag said:


> By offering everyone advice based upon our real life experience out there, I am not diminishing the "thank you" part of that experience, I am sharing the fact that I am here only by the Grace of God and the will to live.


...and the efforts of the captain & crew of the KJ. God, will to live, _and the people that actually fished you out of the water_. Let's not forget their role in your being alive today.



DougSabbag said:


> It is not condescending to discuss better ideas for your benefit, (and even God forbid, for us too), as opposed to your desired: "thank you", period.
> *The two are NOT mutually exclusive. *


Again, no-one is saying otherwise and no-one has stated you cannot discuss ideas for the benefit of all concerned. If you believe that, you've been misreading everyone's posts for sometime now.

Copacabana summarised some good, pretty much universally agreed points we can take from your experience:
(1) Don't abandon your boat assuming the rescue is going to be the easy way out. Stay with the boat and only call for help if it is going down. 
(2) Don't assume your rescuer knows what he's doing or has the best plan in mind. It may be his first attempt and he doesn't have sufficient training.
(3) Discuss the steps with your rescuer before you start the rescue. Get both sides clear on what will happen.
(4) Use your dinghy to get to the rescue boat or buoy in the water.
(5) Put on a good life jacket from the start.​We accept they are good points. However we can, and do, disagree with other bits of advice you've given (e.g. offering cash to the crew to induce them into plans they otherwise wouldn't carry out). I don't believe that is a good idea. I'm allowed to think that, & express that disagreement, without you wigging out.

That's the point of a _discussion_, Doug, for people to _discuss_ what's put forward. Not just for you to dictate what you believe would work and for everyone to accept it without question. We know what didn't work from your harrowing experience. What might work instead is something we can all have input on, not just yourself.

If the fact that others might disagree with your suggestions is distressing (and it appears it is), perhaps it is better you take a break. I'm not saying this to get rid of you, I'm pointing out that there is no reason to continue reading that which you know will upset you.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> My intent is not to "diminish advisements" or to "shoot holes" in in your ideas. Nevertheless, here you go - doing exactly that.
> 
> My intent was to point out your hypocrisy (No Hypocrisy here!)in expecting much more concern for your safety than you do for theirs. I only expect people to WORK WITH THE RESCUE PEOPLE, in order to BETTER UTILIZE THEIR EFFORTS TO RESCUE US, WITHOUT placing them in harms way at all.
> 
> ...


Nothing is unimpeachable, EXCEPT what would have been better to do on July 27th 2011 - THAT IS DONE... ACCEPT IT. What is best to do somewhere else, to someone else, might be entirely different. And I am glad to have, if only slightly, added something into your mind of things to do if sinking.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Gentlemen, operational awareness and planning teaches us that when the original plan fails, move on and execute the back-up plan and not go back and dwell on the plan that didn’t work. I’m moving on to the next plan.

(True Story) A couple of years ago some people I know were sailing on the Ha Ha on a J120 when they suffered a whale strike that sank thier boat within minutes. As I stated previously, I am leaning towards a valise style life raft. I will either store it below (we did this all the time on the race boats) or perhaps up against the pedestal. (Note that I have the wildly inappropriate Catalina 34 and not some other boat so unless someone wants to trade me straight across for a Sabre 42…). My local marine metal fabricator even suggested I install a permanent table in the cockpit which would serve as a frame for holding the valise.

So, I am looking for suggestions of what brand/model life raft would work for me? Crew size will be no more than four, most often two or three. Realistically, I don’t envision being further offshore than 200 NM, but I am contemplating doing the Longpac as well as a run to/from the PNW from San Francisco. I am doing the west coast of Mexico first. I want to have a pretty good idea what I want before going into the spring boat shows.

As a follow-up question, what to put in the ditch bag? There was a great thread a while back on the subject but it was more geared towards a mid-ocean type emergency and I couldn’t figure out on how to store it all. My “design criteria” for having to be in the raft is 12-48 hours. I want to be able to stuff all this into my ACR “Rapid Ditch” bag.

Doug, what kinds of things did you collect when it was time to abandon Triumph? 

Gentlemen, you may fire when ready.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Nothing is unimpeachable, EXCEPT what would have been better to do on July 27th 2011 - THAT IS DONE... ACCEPT IT. What is best to do somewhere else, to someone else, might be entirely different. And I am glad to have, if only slightly, added something into your mind of things to do if sinking.


Regardless of what you think Doug, you do not know my intent, hence the reason for me expressing it. Thank you for dismissing it.

In my book, anybody expecting more from someone than they give in return is a hypocrite. I used your reason to abandon in contrast to your expectations of the KJ crew, all of which you documented across the two threads, in an attempt to help you see it. No snarkyness implied. Sorry you choose to take it that way.

Your idea of using the lifeboat also has potential problems of which myself and numerous others have tried to make you aware of in an effort to further the discussion. Regardless of whether you and the KJ captain believe it would have worked, you have no way of knowing for a fact it would have since your other plans had already failed and it does not eliminate the fact that those flaws existed on the only day that matters to you. Again, thank you for assuming we were all attacking your idea out of some perverse conspiracy to belittle your traumatic experience.

I won't speak for anybody else but if my concerns about your idea failed, then man up and explain why rather than arrogantly dismissing them. I never said your idea wouldn't be better than what actually transpired but yes, I CAN and I DID question it for a second. Just because it might have been better than what happened, that DOES NOT mean that it was in any way fool proof and free of other potential problems such as those suggested to you by others. What CAN NOT be questioned is the fact that you continue to remain adamant that everyone is trying to shoot your idea full of holes and dismiss any attempts to explain to you that we are presenting different perspectives to discuss while you are acting like there is no validity or purpose to them.

Your only goal here that I can see after having read both threads is that you want to make your statements for those that follow without any rebuttal being allowed. You've made some good points here. Copacabana stated several which Bentsailor reiterated. But, again, not all of them are without flaws, even in the context of your specific event, place, and time. If you did not want to hear anything critical about your statements, you probably shouldn't have posted them on an open forum.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> Gentlemen, operational awareness and planning teaches us that when the original plan fails, move on and execute the back-up plan and not go back and dwell on the plan that didn't work. I'm moving on to the next plan.
> 
> (True Story) A couple of years ago some people I know were sailing on the Ha Ha on a J120 when they suffered a whale strike that sank thier boat within minutes. As I stated previously, I am leaning towards a valise style life raft. I will either store it below (we did this all the time on the race boats) or perhaps up against the pedestal. (Note that I have the wildly inappropriate Catalina 34 and not some other boat so unless someone wants to trade me straight across for a Sabre 42&#8230. My local marine metal fabricator even suggested I install a permanent table in the cockpit which would serve as a frame for holding the valise.
> 
> ...


George - you probably have already guessed this - but I'm using ISAF OSR Cat 1 as the guide for my equipment. There is a great list for your grab bag in 4.21.3. I won't be doing the survival suits, so pick and choose.

I'm like you. We likely won't be more than 200 miles off a coast at any time. So I'm leaning far more toward the coastal category than true off-shore. However, 200 miles is approaching the edge of typical helo range for the USCG...so it's tricky.

ISAF has a lot of very good recommendations. And you just bend it whatever way you need to based on your needs. At least that's the way I see it.

Do you go with offshore rigs like a Viking or a $6K Winslow or a $5K Plastimo or $2K Revere? Or do you go with sub $2K coastal options?

At the end of the day, I'll insist on a canopy and ballast bags. The waves in the Gulf can get pretty steep. We'll see. Oh, and I agree with you about the valise.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean, I am fairly sure you're a fine man. I've spoken my mind, made my opinions known.
You're probably a damn fine sailor too. Hopefully you'll never have to make that call requesting assistance. Hopefully, nobody will.
I am glad you've read the words I've typed here about our event.
As I've said numerous times, more information is better than less, and now you have more than you had.
Good luck, fair winds, sail on,
Doug


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

George,

You asked: "Doug, what kinds of things did you collect when it was time to abandon Triumph? "

Well George, sadly, we were acting on the assumption that everything would go smoothly in the transfer, so we collected the things we considered irreplaceable. We were liveaboards on our way to live in Europe. We had everything we owned onboard. And, all was lost.

Our actions were not those of someone abandoning ship with the concept that we might be floating for days, or longer.

Smackdaddy provided viable resources for generally accepted things to have on hand. 
Beyond that, I have no unique ideas.

What I can suggest for blue water cruising is to have enough crew onboard to share the workload throughout the time you're underway so that you, and they, don't get worn down.

Assume that the weather will be bad, the waves will be high, the wind will be strong, and prepare for that scenario. Maybe not all the days and nights will be hell, but don't expect that to be your case. Plan for every single day and night to be very, very tough, and therefore have a crew who can handle that.

Any weak parts of your vessel will break, so try to have spares / replacements for what you already know is weak. For instance, if the chainplates are more than 10 years old, expect them to break.
If the oil cooler is older than 5 years, replace it.

The nights will frequently be nights of terror. A tough DAY, is very easy to handle compared to a tough night. When you can't see the size of the waves coming at you, you will be wondering and dreading what your imagination tells you could be bearing down on you.

Your boat will feel very small, no matter how big she might be. As she is pitching and rolling amongst the unknown, and when you see the anemometer rising, you will ask yourself why you are doing this. And being completely alone, i.e., the only boat for many, many miles, doesn't set well with most people either.

So, prepare for that with a strong crew of people who can handle that, for extended periods.

That is my best advice.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Smack, I had the opportunity to bring two race boats up to Cat1 compliance as well as my own boat. I also have copies of the safety list for Newport-Bermuda, Chi-Mac, PacCup, Transpac and a thing called Ontario 300. The ditch stuff is all pretty generic. We had to have the ditch bag assembled for our PacCup pre-race inspection and that ran to three bags of stuff. Being an ocean racer, I understand the requirements and happily comply. My ditch bag is on the boat right now but it is set up use near shore (designed around Dave White of Heatwave fame recommendations). But now as I contemplate this thing called cruising, there is a myriad of other things that are competing for space in my somewhat small boat so I need to edit down and was hopeful for someone to write what they have in their ditch bag right now. for example, Before we raced, all of us would put our wallets, passports, plane tickets etc. in ziplocs and placed that in one of the ditch bags. In keeping with the “worst case scenario” idea, is there a waterproof pouch or something I could keep at the bottom of the chart table?

I like the Viking 4 person offshore raft, but that was when I was thinking about canister. I would want to store the valise in an aft lazarette when in harbor, but the opening is a little small for the liferaft package. The Winslow was in the running too. Again, this is where I like to hear from some real world experiences. I want the canopy and ballast bags as although I’m not planning on spending a lot of time in one, I counting on it being very rough while I'm waiting for my pick up.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I kind of figured you knew. The wallets and passports, etc. in a ziplock in the grab bag is a great idea. The USCG guys made sure to mention that when I talked to them. Apparently some people forget that stuff.

One thing I'm definitely going to have is either a solar still or a hand-pump desalinator.

PS - My bag's getting full too.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

For whatever entertainment, I just added some pictures to my Sailnet Album.
They show the KJ crew, Captain, us, and 1 of me swimming......

You might notice how I have my arm around the Captain, and am smiling quite broadly indicating my great appreciation.

And... for the hell of it I just re-read about 25 pages of S/V Triumph Lost in the Atlantic and it was a person named ChrisNcate who pretty much turned the tide of my already unstable emotional state.

Many people, even JonEisberg, defended me. Thanks again.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Dean, I am fairly sure you're a fine man. I've spoken my mind, made my opinions known.
> You're probably a damn fine sailor too. Hopefully you'll never have to make that call requesting assistance. Hopefully, nobody will.
> I am glad you've read the words I've typed here about our event.
> As I've said numerous times, more information is better than less, and now you have more than you had.
> ...


Doug, the feeling is mutual. I too have stated my opinions and as your post seems to indicate, maybe it's best if we just leave it at that. I'm with you 100% in the hope that nobody will ever need to make that call. I will point out that you are wrong with that damn fine sailor comment. I'm not. But I hope to be some day so thank you for the compliment. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Regardless of our disagreements it takes a mighty big man to tell your story to the world the way that you did so soon after your horrific experience. For that you have my respect.

Good luck and fair winds to you also.
Dean


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I hate to do this when things are calming down - but I think it's important in the context of this discussion.

I've made no secret that I've been very skeptical about the lifeboat-rescue-tow scenario. But Doug, you kept insisting above that when you brought it up, the Captain put his head in his hands and lamented that he didn't think of this idea that would so obviously work. So, I gave it and you the benefit of the doubt. But in reading back through the Triumph thread, I came across this quote of yours - soon after the incident (link to the post below):



> I was standing next to the Captain, as this deployment was happening. Well, you can imagine how I was seething inside to see that they do have these life boats and could have deployed one to get me, rather than just watch as I sank and by herculean afforts managed to rise again.
> 
> So, I asked him, (nicely), why didn't you deploy a life boat to get me?
> 
> ...


http://www.sailnet.com/forums/775679-post124.html

THAT is certainly what I would expect him to say. It sounds much more reasonable than where your story has evolved to now.

It seems you are so committed to this idea of yours that you're changing the story to substantiate it. So - until I hear _directly from a captain_ that your proposed technique is sound, I remain very skeptical. I know where to get some answers on this though. So I'll check.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

caberg said:


> Has anyone ever been in their dinghy or liferaft in 10-15 foot seas 1000 miles out? Is it really a good plan to abandon your boat for a dinghy or liferaft to attempt a transfer to a 900 foot tanker? The idea scares me almost as much as going in the water with just a PFD, and I'd probably rather risk a dismasting. What about cutting the rig down and letting it go, since you are abandoning the boat anyway?


Well, I haven't done it, but I'd still favor that approach, I think it poses far less risk than attempting to bring a large yacht alongside... One misstep attempting to grab that ladder while the boat is rising and falling 10-15 feet, one could easily be crushed between the two hulls... That happened during the evacuation of a Beneteau during the 2011 NARC rally, and that crewmember is remarkably fortunate to have survived... that same misstep or fall between a tender or liferaft, obviously not quite as critical...

"Cutting the rig down" would seem to entail even possibly greater risk, not to mention it would only be possible if the mast was deck stepped... It would involve a tremendous amount of additional dangerous and tiring work in preparation to abandon, as the rig would also have to be cut completely free, especially if you still had the capability to maneuver alongside the ship under your own power...

Lastly, it could be highly counter-productive, as without the rig in the boat, the sharpness of the rolling would be increased considerably, and thus exacerbating the difficulty of moving about the boat, and safely making the transfer to the ship...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I haven't done it, but I'd still favor that approach, I think it poses far less risk than attempting to bring a large yacht alongside... One misstep attempting to grab that ladder while the boat is rising and falling 10-15 feet, one could easily be crushed between the two hulls... That happened during the evacuation of a Beneteau during the 2011 NARC rally, and that crewmember is remarkably fortunate to have survived... that same misstep or fall between a tender or liferaft, obviously not quite as critical...


As for the dinghy approach, watch the Fiji Water rescue video in my OP in this thread. It's certainly not a sure thing. Freakin' scary.

Like everything, much of it depends on conditions.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I'm not certain that most dinghys wouldn't capsize in 10-15 foot seas with the associated winds. I guess you could try to still cling to it while you hope the tanker can maneuver to you, but that does not sound like much improvement over just jumping in the water in the first place.

As for deploying the liferaft, it is an entirely foreign vessel for most people and they have no idea how it will react to the conditions. I'm sure many models have less chance of capsizing than a dinghy, but I still don't like the idea of abandoning the boat for a liferaft. I guess if you're fairly certain you'll be heading for the liferaft one way or another anyway, then it's a moot point.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I hate to do this when things are calming down - but I think it's important in the context of this discussion.
> 
> I've made no secret that I've been very skeptical about the lifeboat-rescue-tow scenario. But Doug, you kept insisting above that when you brought it up, the Captain put his head in his hands and lamented that he didn't think of this idea that would so obviously work. So, I gave it and you the benefit of the doubt. But in reading back through the Triumph thread, I came across this quote of yours - soon after the incident (link to the post below):
> 
> ...


Smack,

I do not see the difference between what I said then and what I am saying now, or for that matter what I will say tomorrow.

As you just quoted, he said that he didn't think of it because they are not the CG. That is not saying because they couldn't tow their lifeboat; it is because he is not trained to rescue people, he is a tanker Captain. If he said that they couldn't tow it, I would have asked why.... but of course, he did not say that!

You're looking for that which does not exist, i.e., a reason to not tow a lifeboat.
And, I really have to wonder why? 
Evelyn and I were there; we experienced what we experienced; the Captain said and did what I have stated; yet some people here feel a need to doubt these realities.

This is where it gets very frustrating. When people just refuse to believe the truth. I am not a writer of fiction / books. I am a computer programmer who, as a professional, has made a good living adhering to accuracy, and remembering tiny little details of computer systems.

*When I asked why he didn't deploy the lifeboat he said they couldn't retrieve it via the cables because of the waves. When I said how about towing it until you could, he lowered his head and said: "I didn't think of that, I am not the Coast Guard." *

That is as close to the exact words as I can remember. Instead of 'I', he might have said 'we', but that is about the only possible change from the exact quote.

By the way: LOOK AT THE PICTURES I POSTED IN MY ALBUM. And tell me what wave height you see.
10 - 15? No. Please check that out. Sure, there were waves, but not 10 - 15 footers!!!!


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> I'm not certain that most dinghys wouldn't capsize in 10-15 foot seas with the associated winds. I guess you could try to still cling to it while you hope the tanker can maneuver to you, but that does not sound like much improvement over just jumping in the water in the first place.
> 
> As for deploying the liferaft, it is an entirely foreign vessel for most people and they have no idea how it will react to the conditions. I'm sure many models have less chance of capsizing than a dinghy, but I still don't like the idea of abandoning the boat for a liferaft. I guess if you're fairly certain you'll be heading for the liferaft one way or another anyway, then it's a moot point.


FYI, in the case of the Triumph on July 27th 2011, (*see the pictures in my album), the waves were NOT 10 -15 footers.*

But, regardless, you don't want to expose yourself to hours of hypothermia.
So, being in a dinghy, IS better than swimming.
Believe that.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> You're looking for that which does not exist, i.e., a reason to not tow a lifeboat.
> And, I really have to wonder why?
> 
> By the way: LOOK AT THE PICTURES I POSTED IN MY ALBUM. And tell me what wave height you see.
> 10 - 15? No. Please check that out. Sure, there were waves, but not 10 - 15 footers!!!!


As for the why, I am very skeptical that what you're proposing with the lifeboat is a sound or a safe approach. I know you're convinced of it - but there is virtually no info I can find on its testing or actual use. So, because this thread is about transfer techniques we sailors need to learn about, and then discuss with the Captain as alternatives, this is a very important issue. Your insistence that this is a great solution doesn't simply make it so.

As I said, I am reaching out to a group of ship captains I spoke to for the article. I'll let you know what I hear back. I may very well be wrong - or not. We'll see.

As for the waves, it was you who said the seas were 10'-15'. Your quote from the original thread:



> You do not bring a 50 foot sailboat alongside a 900 foot oil tanker in 10 to 15 foot seas, unless you do not care about what will happen.


If that's not the case, then what were the _actual_ wave heights? Tiny little details are important.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

caberg said:


> I'm not certain that most dinghys wouldn't capsize in 10-15 foot seas with the associated winds. I guess you could try to still cling to it while you hope the tanker can maneuver to you, but that does not sound like much improvement over just jumping in the water in the first place.
> 
> As for deploying the liferaft, it is an entirely foreign vessel for most people and they have no idea how it will react to the conditions. I'm sure many models have less chance of capsizing than a dinghy, but I still don't like the idea of abandoning the boat for a liferaft. I guess if you're fairly certain you'll be heading for the liferaft one way or another anyway, then it's a moot point.


In raising this issue initially in the original thread, I tried to make it clear that the transfer to a tender or liferaft would only be made at the last possible moment, after the boat was close alongside and in the ship's lee, and a tether had been secured to the ship, and the tender being used merely as a sort of 'stepping stone' between the boat being abandoned, the the rescuing ship...



smackdaddy said:


> As for the dinghy approach, watch the Fiji Water rescue video in my OP in this thread. It's certainly not a sure thing. Freakin' scary.
> 
> Like everything, much of it depends on conditions.


Actually, I think the video just before that one - "Sea Rescue 2008" - is a a good illustration how perilous the movement directly from the yacht to the ship's ladder can be, even in what appear to be comparatively tame conditions...

Even after the evacuee has made the safe transfer to the ladder, he might still be at great risk - especially in large seas - of being pinned between the boat and the ship, until he gains sufficient elevation above the water...

Also, on most boats, the point of departure from the deck is not likely to be very far aft of the mast (that boat appears to be almost more of a cat rig, similar to an old Hunter Vision)... Again, it wouldn't take much in a large swell, for the bow line from the yacht to the ship to go sufficiently slack, and allowing the boat to move backwards to a point where the person on the ladder could easily be struck by the rig...

For sure, all of these procedures are fraught with great risk, none of these are by any means "a sure thing"...

That's why I've always argued, the better course of action would have been to have stabilized TRIUMPH's failed starboard shrouds with a jury rig similar to that got Killarney Sailor safely to Grenada recently, and headed cautiously on port tack towards Cape Breton Island or Newfoundland...


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> I'm not certain that most dinghys wouldn't capsize in 10-15 foot seas with the associated winds. I guess you could try to still cling to it while you hope the tanker can maneuver to you, but that does not sound like much improvement over just jumping in the water in the first place.
> 
> As for deploying the liferaft, it is an entirely foreign vessel for most people and they have no idea how it will react to the conditions. I'm sure many models have less chance of capsizing than a dinghy, but I still don't like the idea of abandoning the boat for a liferaft. I guess if you're fairly certain you'll be heading for the liferaft one way or another anyway, then it's a moot point.


Let's review the situation.

You're in a heavy boat i.e., thousands of pounds / not a dinghy, which you are abandoning. You want to transfer to a relatively HUGE vessel which is in your vicinity. IF you bring the two boats next to each other, your boat will most likely, (unless it is a very calm sea), be rocking and smashing against the hull of the freighter / tanker / HUGE vessel.

That is a very violent action wherein any human beings, being made of very delicate materials, could only too easily be severely injured by the massive violence of thousands of pounds of force as your vessel smashes against a relatively unmoving solid steel object.

So, it is very important not to bring these two objects into direct contact with each other, if you can avoid it. Of course there are Pilot Boats which do this frequently, but my Gulfstar 50 ketch rigged sailboat was not a Pilot Boat.

Anyway, to accomplish that transfer, you can try for a kamikaze type run - get your boat to their hull and grab for a ladder, or line, and hope that you hold on and your boat FALLS AWAY without smashing you while you scramble up the ladder.

OR, you can use a much smaller vessel which will not kill / squish you if your body gets between it and the huge vessel.

A rubber inflatable dinghy still could hurt you, but compared to a fiberglass hull backed by tens of thousands of pounds of mass, the probabilities are on your side that you will live through a dinghy smashing you.

Now, why use a boat at all? Why not just jump in the water? HYPOTHERMIA will wear you down. Depending on the water temp, it could be very quick.

In our case, the Kim Jacob never came to a complete stop. So, if they didn't get you on pass 1, it took them 20 minutes to come around to try again.

If, as I was, you are swimming in the water, time is running against you being there when they arrive. And with each pass which occurs, the chances are only plummeting further.

So, IMHO, you really do want to transfer from vessel a to vessel b in a small vessel.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Also, on most boats, the point of departure from the deck is not likely to be very
> 
> For sure, all of these procedures are fraught with great risk, none of these are by any means "a sure thing"...
> 
> That's why I've always argued, the better course of action would have been to have stabilized TRIUMPH's failed starboard shrouds with a jury rig similar to that got Killarney Sailor safely to Grenada recently, and headed cautiously on port tack towards Cape Breton Island or Newfoundland...


Jon, I fully agree. And as I have mentioned many, many times, the biggest thing to learn from the Triumph episode is to not call for assistance unless ALL other options have been exhausted.

I already had one of the 2 shrouds re-connected / secured, with at least 65 lbs of tension. And I would have been just as capable of doing the same thing with the other one too.

So, in retrospect, the crew of the Triumph regrets calling for assistance.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> As for the why, I am very skeptical that what you're proposing with the lifeboat is a sound or a safe approach. I know you're convinced of it - but there is virtually no info I can find on its testing or actual use. So, because this thread is about transfer techniques we sailors need to learn about, and then discuss with the Captain as alternatives, this is a very important issue. Your insistence that this is a great solution doesn't simply make it so.
> 
> As I said, I am reaching out to a group of ship captains I spoke to for the article. I'll let you know what I hear back. I may very well be wrong - or not. We'll see.
> 
> ...


PLEASE look at the picture of me swimming on my album and estimate the size of the waves. Honestly, I am not sure. However, 10 - 15 is not what they were. Perhaps 5 - 10??

Wave height increases as people tell stories. But the pictures are accurate.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Smackdaddy,

When you talk to whoever you talk to, remember that the KJ was travelling at 8 knots when she was fully underway. She has a single screw, and was fully loaded.

Their lifeboats were 32 person capacity vessels, i.e., not a tiny thing, and therefore capable of handling some seas. 

For towing, as anyone would, I assume the KJ crew would have played out a substantial length of the towing line, but would try to match the related wave action to the mother ship, so as to minimize any jerking action.

This is quite doable.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

I just found a wave height chart:

37 km/hr (23 mi/hr) 139 km (86 mi) 10 hr 1.5 m (4.9 ft) 

So, according to this, if the wind is at 23 MPH, (which is in the neighborhood of what we measured, give or take a few), for 10 hours, the waves would be about 4.9 feet.

Which is not fun for swimming, but not 10 - 15, an therefore a dinghy could be towed through that.

Plus, if you look at the pictures on my album, I am confident you will agree those waves were clearly less than 10 feet high. There were only scattered whitecaps!


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

DougSabbag said:


> And... for the hell of it I just re-read about 25 pages of S/V Triumph Lost in the Atlantic and it was a person named ChrisNcate who pretty much turned the tide of my already unstable emotional state.


He has done that to more than one person!


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

DougSabbag said:


> PLEASE look at the picture of me swimming on my album and estimate the size of the waves. Honestly, I am not sure. However, 10 - 15 is not what they were. Perhaps 5 - 10??
> 
> Wave height increases as people tell stories. But the pictures are accurate.


I get an error when trying open up the album.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

Food for thought
None of these videos show a normal lifeboat but different types of FRB's
Normal lifeboat's and equipmet is not designed to lift the life boat back on board the vessel.

This is on flat water





Testing recovery methods 


> This was an exercise using the DACON SCOOP method of recovery. The wind was over 40 knots and seas over 5m. The video was taken by the vessel's crew for the 5th. (exercise) casualty. This is a standard method we use when weather conditions make it difficult to launch our Fast Rescue Craft. It is worth noting that our lookout spotted the casualty at over 1000 metres.







Again flat water





These guys do this for a living


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

knuterikt said:


> Food for thought
> None of these videos show a normal lifeboat but different types of FRB's
> Normal lifeboat's and equipmet is not designed to lift the life boat back on board the vessel.
> 
> ...


The KJ Captain's first plan was to hoist our entire vessel onto their deck, because according to him, that was how they rescued the previous AMVER rescue mission they accepted. It was only because of our keel that he realized that would not work..

So, with that in mind, they could hoist up any number of lifeboats all day long.

Not to mention that their lifeboats are attached to cables which are lowered and raised to their deck. 
The only issue with that is that it would be dangerous to attach the cables to the lifeboat in the water, with the boat bouncing from the waves.

Thus the idea of towing the lifeboat the few hours it would have required to reach calmer / Canadian waters; and then raise it.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

miatapaul said:


> I get an error when trying open up the album.


I wonder if everybody gets error messages looking at my album pictures??????

Well, if you email me at DougSabbag @ AOL I will send them to you.

Also, I posted a wind / wave chart which indicated that at 23mph the waves should be around 4.9 feet. 
37 km/hr (23 mi/hr) 139 km (86 mi) 10 hr 1.5 m (4.9 ft)

So, I am guilty that my initial claim of 10 - 15 foot waves was an exaggeration. 
Believe it or not, that was unintentional.

If you look at the pictures, there is one with the remains of the Triumph, while in the trough of the waves and you can graphically estimate that the waves are about equal to the deck, i.e., roughly 5 feet high.

Perhaps you have a setting on your computer which is limiting these pictures?
Can you see other peoples' albums??


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> I wonder if everybody gets error messages looking at my album pictures??????
> 
> Well, if you email me at DougSabbag @ AOL I will send them to you.
> 
> ...


Considering the circumstances, I think you have the perfect excuse for getting it wrong.

I'm having the same problem with the error message.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

I posted these videos so people who sit safely in the their chairs can get an idea what it looks like and the challenges involved in a recovery at sea.

The videos show crews who do this regularly as part of preparation for the real thing.

In the North sea there are Stand by ships all year around waiting for an accident we all hope will never happen.

The oil rigs have Freefall lifeboat's to use in an evacuation scenario, one of the stand bye vessels tasks is to recover the crew from these lifeboats.

But these crews have better equipment and better training than the average merchant ship that might be diverted to help a sailboat in distress.

I was not there - you was, I'm not second guessing what you experienced.
So my thoughts is of a general nature.



DougSabbag said:


> The KJ Captain's first plan was to hoist our entire vessel onto their deck, because according to him, that was how they rescued the previous AMVER rescue mission they accepted. It was only because of our keel that he realized that would not work..


Lifting a boat requires either two slings or a lifting hook on the boat..
Putting slings under the boat in heavy sea is (close to) impossible, my boat does not have a central lifting point.
The mast and keel would both be problematic while lifting at sea.



DougSabbag said:


> So, with that in mind, they could hoist up any number of lifeboats all day long.
> 
> Not to mention that their lifeboats are attached to cables which are lowered and raised to their deck.
> The only issue with that is that it would be dangerous to attach the cables to the lifeboat in the water, with the boat bouncing from the waves.


There is a distinct difference between the FRB's in the video's and traditional life boat lifting arrangements.

The FRB's have one central lifting point and a crane that can reach so far out from the ships side that you can hook and lift without getting to close.
You notice that the first step is to connect the painter to prevent the boat from spinning when the lifting hook get attached.
Doing this quickly and safely requires lots of training in benign conditions.

Normal lifeboats is primarily designed for evacuation.
They hang from two davits (fore and aft), and the davits don't reach far out from the ships side. 
The most dangerous part in recovering a lifeboat is hooking onto both ends in a swell. Just try to imagine what will happen if you manage to hook onto one..
The lifeboat will hang from one end.

Conventional lifeboat with gravity davit systems.









Freefall lifeboat, 











DougSabbag said:


> Thus the idea of towing the lifeboat the few hours it would have required to reach calmer / Canadian waters; and then raise it.


The problem with towing a small boat behind a large vessel is the speed you can safely keep without tow line breaking and give a safe passage for the "passengers".

The merchant captain will also be under pressure to complete the voyage without to much delay.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

DougSabbag said:


> I wonder if everybody gets error messages looking at my album pictures??????


If I follow this link http://www.sailnet.com/forums/members/dougsabbag-albums.html
I get this message


> Invalid Album specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator


Maybe you must make it available for others to view?


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> I wonder if everybody gets error messages looking at my album pictures??????


Same happening here too, mate. Could be just another bug in the SailNet album/gallery software. I've had nothing but trouble with them since I joined _*shrug*_

FWIW, when trying to post images here, I simply use TinyPic. Free, anonymous, scales images to fit the forum, and works every time (even if I have to type in the occasional capture after viewing an ad). That said, I tend to do it for one image at a time, it would be a little tedious to add ten/fifteen images in a row to it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay, I started a thread over at a professional maritime forum called gCaptain - where captains and mates of every kind of ship you can think of hang out. I know about the place because I interviewed the guy who started that forum for my article - John Konrad V. He's a Master Unlimited and has done just about everything (including being an author, offshore expert for large media companies, adventure sports filmmaker, etc.) He's a great guy - very professional - and was very generous with his time.

The consensus among the guys that _actually know_ is that the lifeboat rescue scenario is _possible_ - but presents too many problems and risks to be practical. And towing is pretty much out of the question.

One of the Captains there, Kennebec Captain, has written quite a bit on lifeboats (Kennebec Captain: Lifeboat Safety) - and has a tremendous amount of experience, starting with the USCG, then NOAA, then deep-sea on tankers, container ships, you name it. He even made use of lifeboats in a rescue at one time. Here's his conclusion:



> I've been sailing deep-sea for a while. I have used the ship's lifeboats in a rescue. The conditions in this case were far too rough to even consider using them. It's just not safe.
> 
> As far as towing, it is possible in theory but in practice it's not going to happen even if it was safe to launch, which it wasn't.


Lifeboat As Rescue Platform?

So - I'm satisfied. These guys are the experts. Period.

An FRB or cruise ship launch is one thing - a ship's lifeboat is another entirely. Yes, it IS possible. But it's not practical. So you should probably learn about and prepare for other means of transfer.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> An FRB or cruise ship launch is one thing - a ship's lifeboat is another entirely. Yes, it IS possible. But it's not practical. So you should probably learn about and prepare for other means of transfer.


This from an email that I received from the Captain of the Navarino with his thoughts on our medevac



> I had the port life boat which is also assigned as rescue boat on the ready as plan B in case the turicum would not be able to approach. My considerations were that this is a hard to manoeuvre large and very light lifeboat and most crews have neither the experience in manoeuvring it near other vessels nor in operating it in the open seas. The drills we conduct with the life boats are in the ports with no wind or wave and with the minimum amount of persons in it.


And that was in calm waters.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Well, I am sure all those captains will be wrong as soon as Doug returns.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

There's some useful -- and enjoyable -- comments from the guys in that thread. Thanks for sharing it here.



> In a rescue on the high seas you better accept and be grateful for whatever method the responding ship proposes and executes. If you don't like it, get rescued by someone else.





> What happens if they're towing a lifeboat and suddenly NEED that lifeboat? Now the ships crew suffers.





> requesting the crew to launch their only means of escape in an emergency in order to pick up someone from the sea because it's more convenient for the castaway sounds just... wrong.





> The lifeboats are not designed to maneuver. No rudders. Underpowered. Just as likely it would have come crashing down on the guys head as it was to rescue him.





> If they were able to get him on board ship from the water that's strong evidence that that was the right move. The ship's crew deserves a lot of credit for maneuvering that big ass tanker around and picking him up.


And what most here have been saying for years:



> I agree that criticizing successful rescuers is bad form especially in public.He should STFU.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, I started a thread over at a professional maritime forum called gCaptain - where captains and mates of every kind of ship you can think of hang out. I know about the place because I interviewed the guy who started that forum for my article - John Konrad V. He's a Master Unlimited and has done just about everything (including being an author, offshore expert for large media companies, adventure sports filmmaker, etc.) He's a great guy - very professional - and was very generous with his time.
> 
> The consensus among the guys that _actually know_ is that the lifeboat rescue scenario is _possible_ - but presents too many problems and risks to be practical. And towing is pretty much out of the question.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that link, smack, very interesting... Looks like I'm not the only one who believes the frequency of abandonments of sailing yachts offshore appears to be on the increase... 

Some of those guys don't seem to think very highly of the crew of BE GOOD TOO, either...


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, I started a thread over at a professional maritime forum called gCaptain - where captains and mates of every kind of ship you can think of hang out. I know about the place because I interviewed the guy who started that forum for my article - John Konrad V. He's a Master Unlimited and has done just about everything (including being an author, offshore expert for large media companies, adventure sports filmmaker, etc.) He's a great guy - very professional - and was very generous with his time.
> 
> The consensus among the guys that _actually know_ is that the lifeboat rescue scenario is _possible_ - but presents too many problems and risks to be practical. And towing is pretty much out of the question.
> 
> ...


Smack, this is how you represented this issue:

"On one of the sailing forums, we've been discussing the case of a man who was rescued in 2011 by a large tanker* in 10'-15' seas*. During the alongside hoist attempt*he errantly jumped from his boat *into the water (not tied in) and was quickly separated. It took the tanker over 3 hours to finally get back to him and pull him out.

Gee Smack, I thought I went to great lengths to more accurately estimate the waves at around 5'!? Then you seem to be painting me "..._he errantly jumped from his boat_.." in a fairly negative light, which is leading the respondents to likewise react. Thanks.

*He is convinced *that one of the ship's lifeboats could have been launched to pluck him from the water, then towed for the couple of days to port afterward - since it was too rough to re-cable the lifeboat and bring it back up. *More concerning to me, he is actively promoting this as a technique distressed sailors should "forcefully request" in an AMVER rescue.*

*Again, Smack, painting me in a adversarial posture: "He is convinced.... more concerning ..... he is actively promoting ..... FORCEFULLY REQUEST... ???? WTF?*

Can you guys give me some feedback on this technique? I'm very skeptical that it's a sound technique, but I certainly don't have the experience to know for sure one way or the other. I knew this was the place to get real answers.

My goal with the article and with my continued interest in AMVER rescue is that we sailors take far more responsibility for understanding how you guys do things so that we are better partners in the rescue. AMVER participants definitely go way above and beyond. And we sailors should be willing to do whatever we can to make your job of rescue easier and safer."

*Then, Smack you really lead them to your attitude as in this paragraph, above.
Wow, great impartial representation to their site. Thank you.*


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

No worries. I tried to stay out of the personal stuff and just focus on their opinions of the technique. And I definitely wanted to link it here so it would be part of this conversation - but also so you guys could see exactly what I was saying so you could make your judgements for yourselves as to whether it's a fair representation of the issue.

As I said there, my main concern is that this information is accurate. That's critical as we sailors try to learn more about this stuff so we're prepared to be better partners in the rescue if that day ever comes.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Smack I did see this response from one of the respondents on that site: 

"Of course, he can suggest a method and if he's very experienced, at least I (as a volunteer SAR boat crewman) would welcome any advices how to carry out the rescue operation in a better way. "


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> No worries. I tried to stay out of the personal stuff and just focus on their opinions of the technique. And I definitely wanted to link it here so it would be part of this conversation - but also so you guys could see exactly what I was saying so you could make your judgements for yourselves as to whether it's a fair representation of the issue.
> 
> As I said there, my main concern is that *this information is accurate*. That's critical as we sailors try to learn more about this stuff so we're prepared to be better partners in the rescue if that day ever comes.


Representing the waves at 10' - 15' is not accurate. So much for your main concern. And by adding your adjectives and leading the respondents with YOUR opinions, you didn't "stay out of the personal stuff.."


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Smack, this is how you represented this issue:
> 
> "On one of the sailing forums, we've been discussing the case of a man who was rescued in 2011 by a large tanker* in 10'-15' seas*. During the alongside hoist attempt*he errantly jumped from his boat *into the water (not tied in) and was quickly separated. It took the tanker over 3 hours to finally get back to him and pull him out.
> 
> ...


Doug, I started that thread 25 hours ago. Look at the time stamp. This was just before you started changing your story about the wave heights. Don't blame me for your error.

I presented your story exactly as I have read it here. I have no need or desire to sugar-coat anything.

If you want to put more nuance into it - feel free to sign up over there and correct my presentation of the facts. As for "forcefully requesting", I just don't know how else to describe what you're advocating here:



DougSabbag said:


> The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path. They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so.
> 
> It is very nice of them to render whatever assistance which they will, but, they are not trained to do so, and won't necessarily have a very good plan of how to transfer you and your passengers to their vessel.
> 
> ...


These are your words.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Smack: Once you posted this event happening in 10' - 15' seas, that colored many of their responses, as in:

"As far as using the lifeboats for rescue in 10-15 foot seas; there is considerable risk to launching. I would not even consider trying to recover in seas that rough unless I could make a good lee with no rolling. Not likely it could be done safely."

Now, if you had actually stated 5' seas, and had mentioned that the Captain went into the ocean on a tether to try and get the "errant sailor", you just might have received more positive responses.

Feeding that site false information, and holding back other information can only receive inaccurate / invalid responses.

In the data processing world we call that: Garbage in, Garbage out.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Doug, I started that thread 25 hours ago. Look at the time stamp. This was just before you started changing your story about the wave heights. Don't blame me for your error.
> 
> I presented your story exactly as I have read it here. I have no need or desire to sugar-coat anything.
> 
> ...


MY OWN WORDS WERE THESE: " it is extremely important to work and communicate in a *delicate / careful manner *with your rescuer in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable plan. I said a 'delicate / careful manner' because you could only too easily be asking them to do something they might be concerned about doing."

Which is CLEARLY NOT "forcefully requesting", is it????????
Yet, YOU posted the forcefully requesting words there, and are telling us back at SN that these are my words?!


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

So, considering the inaccurate representation of the environment, then colored by personal pre-judgments, and even augmented by such inflammatory terms as FORCEFULLY REQUESTING, I really can't accept the responses you received on that site as being valid.

What I CAN accept as being representative of reality, is that the KJ Captain went into the ocean himself, and when we discussed the option of using a lifeboat, and towing it, his only reason for not doing that was because he had not thought of it.

At least one of the respondents over there did indicate a willingness to work with the rescuer, and numerous responses indicated the possibility of towing a lifeboat, though there was a general confusion over the type of lifeboat in question. i.e., whether it would have the ability to steer it, (the KJ lifeboats had diesel engines and full steering), etc., which therefore, again, received inaccurate responses.

Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

And, I do not need to sign in on that site and ask how THEY would respond, since I already experienced FIRST HAND the real life interaction and responses from an AMVER participating Captain and Crew involved in a real life rescue operation, and am sharing that here, for everyones' benefit.

But, go ahead, keep on trying to build a case of why that can't be true.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

knuterikt said:


> The FRB's have one central lifting point and a crane that can reach so far out from the ships side that you can hook and lift without getting to close.
> You notice that the first step is to connect the painter to prevent the boat from spinning when the lifting hook get attached.
> Doing this quickly and safely requires lots of training in benign conditions.
> 
> ...


Years ago, when I was in the Navy, we were making a personnel transfer by 26' motor whaleboat. Our ship had the normal mechanized two davits (fore and aft). After making the transfer, the boat returned to the ship which was moving at the prescribed 5 kts. and the painter connection was made successfully after several attempts. The sea was calm except for a significant swell. The blocks on either of the lifting cables were large, heavy steel blocks with multiple strands of cable (think of a vang block and tackle except much bigger) with a large pelican hook at the end. The pelican hook is hinged at roughly midpoint of the hook to aid in threading the hook through the lifting pad eye on the boat. If the hook is successfully passed through the eye, the operator quickly closes the hook and secures it in place by lashing a lanyard around the upper shank of the hook. Now, when the load is applied to the hook (vertically), the design is such that the hook will not open and will take the load. In the swell, the ship alternately rolls away from the boat and then towards the boat. Same thing in rough seas. One moment, the blocks are swinging overhead, the next minute they are in the boat swinging wildly about as two crew members try to get the pelican hooks through the boat's lifting eyes, and then secured by wrapping/tying the lanyards around the closed hooks. The forward hook must be hooked first, then the after hook. Assuming that this is done without smashing someone's hand, there is still the problem of the ship rolling. When the ship rolls towards the boat, the blocks and cables go slack, then, as the ship rolls in the other direction, tight, snatching the boat upwards out of the water. As the hoist is attempting to lift the boat, a point is reached where the boat is alternately snatched out of the water, only to be slammed down again into the water as the ship rolls the other way. Not only is it be slammed against the water and jerked into the air, it is also swinging against and slamming the hull. Only when the boat gets up to top of the lift is this slamming motion stopped. The boat crew is taking a beating in all this, and if one looses balance and gets hands or arms between the boat and the hull, or under the loose blocks, very serious injuries will occur.

In our case, as the boat was being alternately slammed down and jerked up, the forward block went slack, fell to its side, and then as it was jerked up, the pelican hook was on its side, taking the load on the hinged portion. The boat weight broke the light line lashing as the hook opened and the bow of the boat stayed in the water while the ship roll continued away from the boat, lifting the stern block and boat clear of the water. The bow of the boat then goes into the water like a scoop, partially swamping. The five people on the boat were dumped into the sea. Fortunately none were hurt except for the man on the forward hook, who did sustain a minor hand injury in the hook up process. We had been towing a target float the previous day and had a tow line drying on the second deck. A couple of quick thinking sailors threw loops of this line over, and two of the boat crew were able to grab it and they were recovered by our ship. The other three were recovered by an accompanying ship. Eventually we got the boat secured back on board and continued on our way. The boat received major damage in the process and the boat crew could have easily been badly injured or killed in the process.

So just remember, even using lifeboats, which some seem to think have little risk, there is serious danger to the rescuers. Of course, those wanting to be rescued often seem to be only concerned for themselves, with little regard to those who have gone out of their way, at great expense, and some danger to their personnel. It seems to me, that rather than being critical of the rescue techniques of the rescuers or the outcome of your boat, the rescued should be very, very thankful about the rescue, however messy it might have been.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Just a note

When I was preparing my presentation I checked out a whole bunch of videos of rescues using Jacob's ladders, cargo nets and rescue boats. The rescue boats were RIB's and the vessels used to take tourists ashore, not lifeboats.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, I started a thread over at a professional maritime forum called gCaptain - where captains and mates of every kind of ship you can think of hang out. I know about the place because I interviewed the guy who started that forum for my article - John Konrad V. He's a Master Unlimited and has done just about everything (including being an author, offshore expert for large media companies, adventure sports filmmaker, etc.) He's a great guy - very professional - and was very generous with his time.
> 
> The consensus among the guys that _actually know_ is that the lifeboat rescue scenario is _possible_ - but presents too many problems and risks to be practical. And towing is pretty much out of the question.
> 
> ...


Great effort Smack! And it's appreciated! I read the thread you linked to and it was illuminating. Definitely different perspectives involved and I can't help but think how interesting it would be if there was a forum that included both of those perspectives in one place. That could be educational for all involved.

Again, thanks for the effort you put into this. I don't subscribe to Cruising World so is there any other way to read your article?


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

NCC320 said:


> Years ago, when I was in the Navy, we were making a personnel transfer by 26' motor whaleboat. Our ship had the normal mechanized two davits (fore and aft). After making the transfer, the boat returned to the ship which was moving at the prescribed 5 kts. and the painter connection was made successfully after several attempts. The sea was calm except for a significant swell. The blocks on either of the lifting cables were large, heavy steel blocks with multiple strands of cable (think of a vang block and tackle except much bigger) with a large pelican hook at the end. The pelican hook is hinged at roughly midpoint of the hook to aid in threading the hook through the lifting pad eye on the boat. If the hook is successfully passed through the eye, the operator quickly closes the hook and secures it in place by lashing a lanyard around the upper shank of the hook. Now, when the load is applied to the hook (vertically), the design is such that the hook will not open and will take the load. In the swell, the ship alternately rolls away from the boat and then towards the boat. Same thing in rough seas. One moment, the blocks are swinging overhead, the next minute they are in the boat swinging wildly about as two crew members try to get the pelican hooks through the boat's lifting eyes, and then secured by wrapping/tying the lanyards around the closed hooks. The forward hook must be hooked first, then the after hook. Assuming that this is done without smashing someone's hand, there is still the problem of the ship rolling. When the ship rolls towards the boat, the blocks and cables go slack, then, as the ship rolls in the other direction, tight, snatching the boat upwards out of the water. As the hoist is attempting to lift the boat, a point is reached where the boat is alternately snatched out of the water, only to be slammed down again into the water as the ship rolls the other way. Not only is it be slammed against the water and jerked into the air, it is also swinging against and slamming the hull. Only when the boat gets up to top of the lift is this slamming motion stopped. The boat crew is taking a beating in all this, and if one looses balance and gets hands or arms between the boat and the hull, or under the loose blocks, very serious injuries will occur.
> 
> In our case, as the boat was being alternately slammed down and jerked up, the forward block went slack, fell to its side, and then as it was jerked up, the pelican hook was on its side, taking the load on the hinged portion. The boat weight broke the light line lashing as the hook opened and the bow of the boat stayed in the water while the ship roll continued away from the boat, lifting the stern block and boat clear of the water. The bow of the boat then goes into the water like a scoop, partially swamping. The five people on the boat were dumped into the sea. Fortunately none were hurt except for the man on the forward hook, who did sustain a minor hand injury in the hook up process. We had been towing a target flow the previous day and had a tow line drying on the second deck. A couple of quick thinking sailors threw loops of this line over, and two of the boat crew were able to grab it and they were recovered by our ship. The other three were recovered by an accompanying ship. Eventually we got the boat secured back on board and continued on our way. The boat received major damage in the process and the boat crew could have easily been badly injured or killed in the process.
> 
> So just remember, even using lifeboats, which some seem to think have little risk, there is serious danger to the rescuers. Of course, those wanting to be rescued often seem to be only concerned for themselves, with little regard to those who have gone out of their way, at great expense, and some danger to their personnel. It seems to me, that rather than being critical of the rescue techniques of the rescuers or the outcome of your boat, the rescued should be very, very thankful about the rescue, however messy it might have been.


Thanks for sharing this! I did 10 years as a rescue swimmer/crew chief in H-3's and later the H-60's so all our personnel transfers were by hoist, not boat. Your story reinforces the points I was trying to make about plans rarely going as discussed and what can happen when you put more untrained people in an already dangerous situation. I'm fairly sure that all hands aboard commercial ships are trained in loading, launching, and surviving in a lifeboat but that is a bit different from launching, recovering a survivor, securing the lifeboat, and recovering personnel and said lifeboat to the ship. I still maintain that there is too much risk involved in placing untrained people into an environment from which you are already trying to recover others.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm trying to think of another example where someone was a failure and then insists others learn their self diagnosed lesson, unwilling to accept their autopsy could be as wrong as their untested assumptions were during the failure itself. 

There is a pattern.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Thanks a lot for linking that smack. It's good to get the actual captains of the vessels taking the added risk to rescue people getting involved in the discussion.



caberg said:


> Well, I am sure all those captains will be wrong as soon as Doug returns.


As it sayeth in the prophet's scriptures...
Caberg 2:14 _"And lo, we saw it come to pass and it was disappointing."_


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm trying to think of another example where someone was a failure and then insists others learn their self diagnosed lesson, unwilling to accept their autopsy could be as wrong as their untested assumptions were during the failure itself.
> 
> There is a pattern.


One of the reasons I subscribe to sail magazine is that it features a story wherein the author tells of his mishap. In the sidebar they then list what they did right and what they did wrong. It's really up to the reader to pick and choose their lesson. I enjoy the format as well as gleaning lessons from the story that the author may not mention.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm trying to think of another example where someone was a failure and then insists others learn their self diagnosed lesson, unwilling to accept their autopsy could be as wrong as their untested assumptions were during the failure itself.
> 
> There is a pattern.


Not that I claim to be like these folks, but FYI:

1 Henry Ford: While Ford is today known for his innovative assembly line and American-made cars, he wasn't an instant success. In fact, his early businesses failed and left him broke five times before he founded the successful Ford Motor Company.

2 R. H. Macy: Most people are familiar with this large department store chain, but Macy didn't always have it easy. Macy started seven failed business before finally hitting big with his store in New York City.

3 F. W. Woolworth: Some may not know this name today, but Woolworth was once one of the biggest names in department stores in the U.S. Before starting his own business, young Woolworth worked at a dry goods store and was not allowed to wait on customers because his boss said he lacked the sense needed to do so.

4 Soichiro Honda: The billion-dollar business that is Honda began with a series of failures and fortunate turns of luck. Honda was turned down by Toyota Motor Corporation for a job after interviewing for a job as an engineer, leaving him jobless for quite some time. He started making scooters of his own at home, and spurred on by his neighbors, finally started his own business.

5 Akio Morita: You may not have heard of Morita but you've undoubtedly heard of his company, Sony. Sony's first product was a rice cooker that unfortunately didn't cook rice so much as burn it, selling less than 100 units. This first setback didn't stop Morita and his partners as they pushed forward to create a multi-billion dollar company.

6 Bill Gates: Gates didn't seem like a shoe-in for success after dropping out of Harvard and starting a failed first business with Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen called Traf-O-Data. While this early idea didn't work, Gates' later work did, creating the global empire that is Microsoft.

7 Harland David Sanders: Perhaps better known as Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame, Sanders had a hard time selling his chicken at first. In fact, his famous secret chicken recipe was rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant accepted it.

8 Walt Disney: Today Disney rakes in billions from merchandise, movies and theme parks around the world, but Walt Disney himself had a bit of a rough start. He was fired by a newspaper editor because, "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas." After that, Disney started a number of businesses that didn't last too long and ended with bankruptcy and failure. He kept plugging along, however, and eventually found a recipe for success that worked.

If you need more, the list continues with such notable as Einstein etc.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Some more initial "failures" who turned out OK:

1 Winston Churchill: This Nobel Prize-winning, twice-elected Prime Minster of the United Kingdom wasn't always as well regarded as he is today. Churchill struggled in school and failed the sixth grade. After school he faced many years of political failures, as he was defeated in every election for public office until he finally became the Prime Minister at the ripe old age of 62.

2 Abraham Lincoln: While today he is remembered as one of the greatest leaders of our nation, Lincoln's life wasn't so easy. In his youth he went to war a captain and returned a private (if you're not familiar with military ranks, just know that private is as low as it goes.) Lincoln didn't stop failing there, however. He started numerous failed business and was defeated in numerous runs he made for public office.

3 Oprah Winfrey: Most people know Oprah as one of the most iconic faces on TV as well as one of the richest and most successful women in the world. Oprah faced a hard road to get to that position, however, enduring a rough and often abusive childhood as well as numerous career setbacks including being fired from her job as a television reporter because she was "unfit for tv."

4 Harry S. Truman: This WWI vet, Senator, Vice President and eventual President eventually found success in his life, but not without a few missteps along the way. Truman started a store that sold silk shirts and other clothing–seemingly a success at first–only go bankrupt a few years later.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

So, just because I made a few errors, does not mean you can't tow a boat.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> So, just because I made a few errors, does not mean you can't tow a boat.


Good point Doug. But it also does not mean you can in the context of this discussion. None of those people were there nor were any of them commanding the Kim Jacobs.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> Good point Doug. But it also does not mean you can in the context of this discussion. None of those people were there nor were any of them commanding the Kim Jacobs.


 I just used those people to illustrate that one "mistake" does not make everything else wrong too.

I was there, and the Captain of the Kim Jacob was too. 
And he said he just hadn't thought of towing their boat.

But NONE of the people on SN were there, even though they seem determined to act as though they were.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> I just used those people to illustrate that one "mistake" does not make everything else wrong too.
> 
> I was there, and the Captain of the Kim Jacob was too.
> And he said he just hadn't thought of towing their boat.
> ...


I agree with you that one mistake does not make everything else a mistake. That mistake really stands on it's own. It also does not make everything else right.

I also agree that only you and the KJ's captain was there. But, just because he didn't think of towing the lifeboat doesn't mean that he also didn't think about the risks involved. Look Doug, I'm not saying that on that particular day your idea would not have worked. But there is also no way of knowing that it would and now we have the perspectives of other big ship captains experienced with this sort of thing that have had the benefit of time to consider a number of issues that must be considered before implementing that idea.

I really wish that you would realize that we are trying to discuss your idea, not destroy it just because it was Doug Sabbag who came up with it.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I am never prepared to abandon my boat. I will work and fight, until I have to step UP, into whatever I am going to get into, before I will abandon my boat. Saving your boat should be your priority, IMO. Everything you need to survive, even after a dismasting, is there.
It hasn't been necessary so far, with uncounted miles under numerous keels, but I have, of course, given it some consideration. I believe that if leaving one's boat for either another vessel or a helo, by far the safest course of action would be to use an inflatable dink for the transfer. I have made several vessel to vessel transfers in this way, deep sea, and it has always gone flawlessly, but that was in tradewind conditions, not catastrophic conditions.
But if one is to abandon their vessel, without the hope of immediate rescue, then everything changes. What are you going to need in your "lifeboat"? Water; as much as you can get, in the time you have! Food; again, as much as you can get into your lifeboat, in as much time as you have, and a can opener! Canned food; you don't have the water for dehydrated foods. For shelter, catching water and directional mobility; throw a bagged sail in the water, tied to your life boat. Rods, sticks, oars, poles, ANYTHING to make a mast and use part of the sail to move. A med kit, a knife in a sheath, fishing gear, sewing kit, passports and money are also way up on the list, but if time is critical, then choices must be made. Money (a credit card?) is important if you arrive in a foreign country with little or nothing, don't laugh.
OK, we all have life rafts aboard, but they are stationary platforms from which one is rescued IF a mayday has been sent and heard (or a functioning EPIRB). But if there is any possibility that your mayday has NOT been heard, then life rafts are at best, a shelter; they are not conveyances. In that situation, you need to get your dink in the water and later, rig it to move, towing the liferaft behind as sleeping quarters, storage and shelter.
Survival at sea in a catastrophic situation is not something which one can adequately prepare for. But how you react and how well you keep your cool can be the difference between life and death.
Three books which I would highly recommend are;
"Once is Enough", by Miles Smeeton; How to save your boat, (it saved ours and our lives when we were capsized three times on a gaffer built in 1909, in a hurricane (cyclone) in the SoPac).
"117 Days Adrift" by Maurice Bailey; how to sink your boat in the shipping lanes, but get blown into unsailed waters and spend 117 days probably wishing you weren't there right then. 
"Survive the Savage Sea" by Dougal Robertson, Attacked by orcas; unlikely, but a great survival tale, none the less.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Dean101 said:


> Thanks for sharing this! I did 10 years as a rescue swimmer/crew chief in H-3's and later the H-60's so all our personnel transfers were by hoist, not boat. Your story reinforces the points I was trying to make about plans rarely going as discussed and what can happen when you put more untrained people in an already dangerous situation. I'm fairly sure that all hands aboard commercial ships are trained in loading, launching, and surviving in a lifeboat but that is a bit different from launching, recovering a survivor, securing the lifeboat, and recovering personnel and said lifeboat to the ship. I still maintain that there is too much risk involved in placing untrained people into an environment from which you are already trying to recover others.


Heh-heh. I knew you knew more than you were letting on!


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I knew you knew more than you were letting on!


Shhhh.....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Some more initial "failures" who turned out OK:
> 
> 1 Winston Churchill: This Nobel Prize-winning, twice-elected Prime Minster of the United Kingdom wasn't always as well regarded as he is today. Churchill struggled in school and failed the sixth grade. After school he faced many years of political failures, as he was defeated in every election for public office until he finally became the Prime Minister at the ripe old age of 62.
> 
> ...


Doug - I don't think you're a failure. Not by a longshot. I admire what you've done.

You got caught. It can happen to anyone. I will NEVER harsh you for that.

The problem as I see it is that you have tunnel vision on this subject. Just widen your view a bit. That's all.

And more importantly - be grateful. Nothing else. Just grateful.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> But NONE of the people on SN were there, even though they seem determined to act as though they were.


In the same vein, none of the people in that incident used a lifeboat successfully to perform the rescue. Kind of the point. You cannot state with any authority it would have worked _because it wasn't attempted_.

No-one is arguing that you were there and can speak to what *didn't* work. We know you were there and can speak to what actually happened*. It's when you flip out because people disagree with you about what _might_ work _instead_ that folks understandably get annoyed.

No-one here is criticising you for what occurred, Doug. There is some understandably raised eyebrows on the issue of gratitude & appreciation**. There is also some differing opinion about what would work instead of what was tried. If that is going to upset you, no-one's forcing you to read the thread and/or comment on it. When this place gets too stressful - I take a break. If the fact people are going to disagree with you is damaging you calm, avoid the forums for a while. It works and you did mention that you were going to do it anyway _*shrug*_

--
* Which makes your slamming of smackdaddy for presenting the conditions as *you described them* pretty low.
** That's going to happen when you attribute your survival to God & your will to live, rather than the captain & crew of the KJ.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Some more initial "failures" who turned out OK:


I apologize for calling you a failure. Your ordeal remains horrific and I'm glad you and your wife survived.

I'm also thoroughly impressed with everything the KJ did to see that happened, despite those efforts that didn't work well. If one walks into a burning building to rescue me, I'm not going to criticize them for getting burned. I consider the KJ to be heros. They could have simply delivered their cargo, like they were actually trained to do, and skipped the call. Based on your own account of the situation, I do not believe you would have made it. Your decision making was compromised. Your crew was compromised.

My analogy was an emotional reaction to your continuing insistence that you are right about something you've never done (ie lifeboat transfer and towing it back). That was in part why the original rescue didn't work as well as it should have. You assumed how things would go. None of the failures you posted above indicate how those individuals were convinced, in hindsight, of what they should have done to avoid them.

The lesson from your tragedy is that there are untrained mariners who will risk their lives to rescue us, but you can't count on it going well.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Regarding towing the lifeboat, watch the following video at about 40 seconds. I don't know if the lifeboat would act similarly, but I'd hate to be the one in the lifeboat finding out.






Also, Doug, you keep saying the KJ captain said after the ordeal that he didn't think of towing the lifeboat. Of course no one was there but you, but maybe he was just humoring you with a response that could end the conversation, instead of getting into the details of why it was a bad idea. Maybe he didn't think he owed you any explanations.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Doug - I don't think you're a failure. Not by a longshot. I admire what you've done.
> 
> You got caught. It can happen to anyone. I will NEVER harsh you for that.
> 
> ...


To be blindly grateful to be alive will not add a single line to this thread of how to be better "prepared" should you be abandoning ship.

All I was saying was to be more proactive in devising a transfer plan with your rescuer.

Obviously you folks don't like the idea of using a lifeboat to pluck someone out of the 5' waves on a sunny day.

So, what would YOU suggest if you were in the water looking up at 24 men on the deck of a 900 foot tanker? Please tell us.

Would you suggest throwing a buoy *into the wind *on the slim chance that one might get to you?

Because the whole idea of this thread is to inspire you to think about what you would suggest / ask to be done to accomplish your rescue. Not just to shoot holes in someone else's idea....


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> Regarding towing the lifeboat, watch the following video at about 40 seconds. I don't know if the lifeboat would act similarly, but I'd hate to be the one in the lifeboat finding out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for this video. I watched it, and the 10' Ribby made it just fine. Granted it was violently tugged around initially, when it was tethered too close to the ship. Apparently they deployed a longer rode eventually. Good idea.

But, the entire reason for suggesting towing the lifeboat was to resolve what to do with it after having transferred the people from the lifeboat to the ship. As opposed to just losing it / abandoning it. Which would still have been better than abandoning a person in the ocean, if you ask me.....

Again I ask, what would YOU suggest that your rescuer do to pluck you out of the ocean? And that is the purpose of this thread. Think about what to do, and then discuss it with your rescuer.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Thanks for this video. I watched it, and the 10' Ribby made it just fine. Granted it was violently tugged around initially, when it was tethered too close to the ship. Apparently they deployed a longer rode eventually. Good idea.
> 
> But, the entire reason for suggesting towing the lifeboat was to resolve what to do with it after having transferred the people from the lifeboat to the ship. As opposed to just losing it / abandoning it. Which would still have been better than abandoning a person in the ocean, if you ask me.....
> 
> Again I ask, what would YOU suggest that your rescuer do to pluck you out of the ocean? And that is the purpose of this thread. Think about what to do, and then discuss it with your rescuer.


A suggestion off the top of my head....

You both remain aboard the Triumph. The KJ rigs a lifting bridle and secures it to an inflatable liferaft. They deploy the raft and tow it behind the ship with floating poly line and do a slow 90 degree turn about Triumph, bringing the line against your stern and stop. You recover the line and raft, board it, and tether yourselves in. The KJ then pulls the raft to its lee side and drops you a hook to attach to the lifting bridle. You are then hoisted up to the deck, recovering both you and the raft. You then shake their hands and thank them profusely.

Pro's;

1. Eliminates the need for pinpoint maneuvers by the tanker.
2. Eliminates the risk of snagging your sea anchor rode or running you over if you were in the water. 
3. Eliminates the risks involved with having the Triumph and KJ in close proximity.
4. Liferaft keeps you out of the water, reducing hypothermia.
5. Liferaft is easier to spot if for any reason the KJ must temporarily abort the pick up.
6. Liferaft provides a safer platform for transfer since it cant crush you when bouncing against the ship or in case the raft cant be lifted and you must use another boarding method.
7. Liferaft provides protection from the hull while you are being hoisted. 
8. Liferaft is always tied to the ship, eliminating the chance you drift away and extending the duration of the recovery.
9. No requirement to place anyone else in danger.

Con's;

1. The KJ must stop short enough so as not to drag the raft out of reach. Not sure how difficult that could be for them.
2. Chance of the towline fouling on Triumph.
3. It's likely you will have a limited time to board the raft due to the vessels drifting apart.
4. You may have trouble catching a hook to attach to the bridle.

So there is an idea for you Doug. I look forward to discussing it as a viable alternative to launching a lifeboat. There are pro's and con's to any method of recovery and I think it only fair to discuss them rationally. I'm sure that other perspectives can add to the list of pro's and con's I mentioned.

So, ready the torpedoes and fire away!


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> A suggestion off the top of my head....
> 
> You both remain aboard the Triumph. The KJ rigs a lifting bridle and secures it to an inflatable liferaft. They deploy the raft and tow it behind the ship with floating poly line and do a slow 90 degree turn about Triumph, bringing the line against your stern and stop. You recover the line and raft, board it, and tether yourselves in. The KJ then pulls the raft to its lee side and drops you a hook to attach to the lifting bridle. You are then hoisted up to the deck, recovering both you and the raft. You then shake their hands and thank them profusely.
> 
> ...


No torpedoes... in fact bravo for thinking of something to discuss with your rescuer!

However, in our case, it is invalid to say: stay in the Triumph, since I was already in the water. Nice idea, but too late. If you start down that path, we quickly arrive at: do not call for assistance.

So, you're floating in the water...... what would you advise now?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

As soon as one calls for a rescue, a Type 1 Offshore PFD should be worn at all times. I can't imagine why one wouldn't. That alone would have reduced the crisis by 90%.

Extra credit for attaching a waterproof vhf radio to it.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> No torpedoes... in fact bravo for thinking of something to discuss with your rescuer!
> 
> However, in our case, it is invalid to say: stay in the Triumph, since I was already in the water. Nice idea, but too late. If you start down that path, we quickly arrive at: do not call for assistance.
> 
> So, you're floating in the water...... what would you advise now?


Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you said it took 20 minutes for them to go around for another pass at you. If you want to start the scenario from that point, 1 man in the water with inadequate flotation, close enough to tempt the throwing of buoys but too far downwind for them to reach you, and the Triumph not an issue at that point....

How about....

The KJ deploys the liferaft as above, without the lifting bridle but deploying the rafts sea anchor on a short rode. The crew lash's PFD's to the line periodically and pays out the towline as the KJ make tight turn to windward, making a similar turn around you. The sea anchor on the raft "anchors" it in place to reduce its drift and resist drag as the towline is payed out. Once the ship has you in the bight of the towline, it comes to a stop while the crew tightens the line to draw it to you. The PFD's increase the lines visibility and buoyancy. You grab the line, pull yourself along the line to a PFD, or preferably, to the liferaft, and tie tourself to the line or raft. The ship then recovers the towline as before, bringing you with it. You are pulled aboard with the raft hanging vertically. You then proceed to shake hands and thank them profusely.

(I eliminated rigging a lifting bridle because in this instance time is of the essence. It does not preclude you from still being hoisted aboard.)

Pro's;

1. The liferaft and additional PFD's provide you with a "chain" of buoyant objects to prevent you from sinking repeatedly.
2. If the ship must abort the pickup for any reason, the line can be released, leaving you with numerous PFD's for flotation, a raft to keep you out of the water, and a line with which to reach the raft.
3. If you fail to reach the line or it is pulled out of reach, the ship is already in movement to come around again, only this time approaching to keep you downwind and reducing the time required to make the next pass.
4. No other individuals are placed in harms way.

Con's;

1. I'm not sure how quickly or tightly the tanker could execute that tight of a turn. I'm assuming you were nearer the aft quarter of the ship so deployment should be from the stern to distance the raft and aid in establishing the "rescue bight" (my term).
2. Depending on the ships ability to turn tightly, quite a bit of line may need to be payed out before the bight is established and it can be snubbed without dragging the raft out of reach.
3. This method relies heavily on your ability to grip the towline and secure yourself to it. You may have been too exhausted to do this. This is somewhat offset by pro #3.

So what do you think Doug? You know better than anyone if you would have been physically able to take advantage of this idea, hence con #3.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

So, we finally have someone who sees the value and logic in deploying something to get the person in the water. Wonderful.

As far as the continuation of the "should haves", i.e., Type 1 PFD, VHF on the person, etc., absolutely. And there were lists of those on the original S/V Triumph Lost in the Atlantic.

Happy Valentines Weekend.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> To be blindly grateful to be alive will not add a single line to this thread of how to be better "prepared" should you be abandoning ship.


No-one has mentioned being blindly grateful but yourself. No-one is saying _"Shut up and be appreciative"_, but there is nothing wrong in them saying _"Be appreciative"_. Leaving the captain of the KJ out of the reasons you're alive* &/or making comments that suggest a lack of concern on their part** will do that to people that think they had a less than negligible part in saving you.



DougSabbag said:


> All I was saying was to be more proactive in devising a transfer plan with your rescuer.


And I repeat, it's not all you were saying. You wigged out on me because I disagreed with your suggestion to _offer the crew large sums of money_. That's not just _"devising a transfer plan with your rescuer"_. I agree 100% with the latter and strongly disagree with the former.

Perhaps it is down to a difference in understanding, but if you continue to believe/claim that people are disagreeing with you for/on what you claim they are - there isn't going to be a meaningful discussion.

For example, you state _"Obviously you folks don't like the idea of using a lifeboat to pluck someone out of the 5' waves on a sunny day"_. Until very recently, *you* were describing the waves as 10-15'. You cannot lambast people for disagreeing with a given plan if the conditions you're basing it's success on are far better than you're describing it to them as.

The worst thing is, I don't know what the best practical method is for retrieving someone in circumstances like this (and/or worse), but your posts attacking those that disagree with you are chasing away people I respect that have input to offer. 

--
* _"... I am here *only* by the Grace of God and the will to live."_
** _Which would still have been better than *abandoning a person in the ocean*, if you ask me....._


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Bentsailor.... OK, assuming everyone is properly grateful and appreciative of the rescuer, and after all those rationalizations and explanations for not coming up with any valid ideas of how to get the sailor out of the water - but not supporting using a LIFEBOAT, what IS your idea to address that issue?

Its a sunny day, you have 5' + foot waves, 20 + knot winds, the sailor is in the water, and if you get too close to him you will run him over. Sure, he shouldn't be there, and God knows nobody else would be, but now that he is, what do you suggest?

I think this is going in a socially friendly way.... I am not being negative or jumpy.... so please don't erroneously think I am being ugly. I'm just sitting here talking to you, over a beer, or a Jack Daniels.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

Hey Doug, how about some feedback. If the KJ could have gotten that line within your reach, do you feel you would have been physically capable of making use of it at that point? Any problems you could foresee?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> Hey Doug, how about some feedback. If the KJ could have gotten that line within your reach, do you feel you would have been physically capable of making use of it at that point? Any problems you could foresee?


ABSOLUTELY! That would have been fantastic.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. The conditions of each rescue will be different. Each captain will have his own ideas as to how to accomplish the task. Each ship will be unique in its handling capabilities and equipment. How it will be done will also depend on what the ship has on board to work with. They may not have a inflatable with line long enough to keep it tied to the ship as they try to circle the boat or man in the water. If they do, then the captain might chose to use it somehow.

2. While it is good if the operation can be coordinated between those to be rescued and the rescuers, those being rescued, in my opinion, gave up any right to specify how it will be done once they put out the rescue call. The planes in the air, the helicopters, and rescuing vessels will and should execute the rescue as they see fit. Those being rescued should be extremely thankful that there are people who are in a position to attempt the rescue at some considerable expense, inconvenience, and risk to those who are to do the rescue.

3. Maybe some of those who have served as masters of large vessels can chime in, but as I recall, with some limited experience in rescue drills on a Navy frigate (540 ft. long, twin screw), maneuvering alongside and stopping at the man or boat in the water is not that easy and will not be quick. As I recall, we had to maintain 5 knots or greater to maintain steerage way, and stopping distance at such a speed, for our relatively maneuverable ship was on the order of 1/4 mile, and turning radius was about twice that, but you also have to be far enough away from the person or boat in the water so that you can adjust your approach for wind/current (where you want it relative to your ship and the man in the water) and so you can make a straight enough approach to put the ship in close position on the desired side to the man or boat in the water. Things happen on a delayed basis, not instantaneous. It involves a lot of experience and judgment to get it right the first time. Misjudge and you have to go around and try again. The KJ was much larger than our ship and not nearly as maneuverable as our ship, so the distances and time required for the maneuver will be much greater and the skill needed is higher. As to that line being drug through water at 5 or more knots (less once the ship is in process of stopping), what is the chance that you can hang on if you grab it? Relatively to the distances involved, it is not likely that the ship will have a line long enough to sweep around the boat or man in the water. And now trying to accuragely place the inflatable at the man while towing it in addition to maneuvering the ship adds a whole new level of complexity. (The approach is something for sailboats when rescuing a man in the water, but we are more maneuverable and distances are much smaller.)

4. It seems unreasonable to me for we sailors, who chose to put ourselves in danger with long at sea passages (done really just because it's something we want to do, not because we have to do it), to expect shipping companies to expend significant amounts of money for specialized gear and training necessary to pick up sailboat crews. There are many ships in service and most will never encounter such a rescue need. Maybe a fair way to do it, would be to require permits for sailboats making bluewater passages which would include fees to raise funds to pay for the specialized rescue equipment and training on all merchant vessels that are at sea so the costs are paid by those who are likely to benefit from them. Of course, I don't expect many to agree with this and the cost would be extremely high. But how is it our right to expect the ships to spend money for our benefit just in case that we or one of our fellow sailors might need it some day?


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Bentsailor.... OK, assuming everyone is properly grateful and appreciative of the rescuer, and after all those rationalizations and explanations for not coming up with any valid ideas of how to get the sailor out of the water - but not supporting using a LIFEBOAT, what IS your idea to address that issue?


I don't have a good one. I already stated explicitly _"I don't know what the best practical method is for retrieving someone in circumstances like this"_.

I do like Dean's suggestions and I'm willing to hear from others too, including the merchant captains smackdaddy reached out to. I'm also willing to chime in when I see a problem, which I have done. Part of working out a best plan of attack is to note the flaws in proposed plans and I've _only_ done that when I've felt _very_ strongly the flaw should be mentioned (i.e. cash offers).



DougSabbag said:


> I think this is going in a socially friendly way.... I am not being negative or jumpy.... so please don't erroneously think I am being ugly. I'm just sitting here talking to you, over a beer, or a Jack Daniels.


I'm not trying to be ugly here either (though the mirror might argue with my level of success ).

I initially entered the discussion to try an alleviate what _appeared_ to be simply a miscommunication between yourself and others. I realise now that was not the case* and only got narky after being attacked for things I didn't say. I'm sorry for said narkiness - strawmen are a pet peeve of mine and I overreact to attacks (flaws I'm sure EVERYONE who knows me will attest to  ).

-- 
* i.e. your choice of words regarding gratitude/appreciation were deliberately chosen to reflect what you feel.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

NCC320 said:


> Just a couple of thoughts:
> 4. It seems unreasonable to me for we sailors, who chose to put ourselves in danger with long at sea passages (done really just because it's something we want to do, not because we have to do it), to expect shipping companies to expend significant amounts of money for specialized gear and training necessary to pick up sailboat crews. There are many ships in service and most will never encounter such a rescue need. Maybe a fair way to do it, would be to require permits for sailboats making bluewater passages which would include fees to raise funds to pay for the specialized rescue equipment and training on all merchant vessels that are at sea so the costs are paid by those who are likely to benefit from them. Of course, I don't expect many to agree with this and the cost would be extremely high. But how is it our right to expect the ships to spend money for our benefit just in case that we or one of our fellow sailors might need it some day?


In fact the shipping companies have a legal right and precedent to charge their expenses to the rescued. I know of one case where a supertanker diverted from her course and stood by a disabled small freighter until the tug arrived. Their costs were in the millions and the rescued ship (and cargo) were barely 700k. Needless to say the small ship owner had not the money to pay, not even by selling the ship and cargo, to come close. The ship became the property of the supertanker company and was rusting at anchor, unwanted, last I saw it.
"Maybe a fair way to do it, would be to require permits for sailboats making bluewater passages".
OK, then, let's just end the cruising industry in one fell swoop and return to the days of only rich yacht owners.
The only FAIR way to deal with this situation, is to charge those rescued, for the time and expenses of the rescue. I've never requested rescue in uncounted sea miles and well over 50 years, and I certainly am not going to pay for a permit to go offshore.
As I told the guy at Bermuda Radio upon entering St. Georges, when he berated me for not having the safety equipment aboard he thought I should have, so that they could know my last known position, if I went missing; "Thanks anyway, but if I decide to go to sea for pleasure, then I'll never ask another person to risk their life to save mine."


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

capta said:


> In fact the shipping companies have a legal right and precedent to charge their expenses to the rescued. I know of one case where a supertanker diverted from her course and stood by a disabled small freighter until the tug arrived. Their costs were in the millions and the rescued ship (and cargo) were barely 700k. Needless to say the small ship owner had not the money to pay, not even by selling the ship and cargo, to come close. The ship became the property of the supertanker company and was rusting at anchor, unwanted, last I saw it.
> "Maybe a fair way to do it, would be to require permits for sailboats making bluewater passages".
> OK, then, let's just end the cruising industry in one fell swoop and return to the days of only rich yacht owners.
> The only FAIR way to deal with this situation, is to charge those rescued, for the time and expenses of the rescue. I've never requested rescue in uncounted sea miles and well over 50 years, and I certainly am not going to pay for a permit to go offshore.
> As I told the guy at Bermuda Radio upon entering St. Georges, when he berated me for not having the safety equipment aboard he thought I should have, so that they could know my last known position, if I went missing; "Thanks anyway, but if I decide to go to sea for pleasure, then I'll never ask another person to risk their life to save mine."


The suggestion of fees and permits were made to point out that the costs should be carried by the people who benefit from the actions. If we want to require the shipping companies to spend money just in case for our benefit, we should be prepared to pay for it. And as you say, such fees would kill cruising industry. So maybe the best way is for us to just be thankful that there are ships out there that can and will come to our aid. Let them (the rescuers) do it as they see best with what they have. And don't require or expect the ships to spend money on our behalf just in case. I doubt that the owner of the sailboat in the case under discussion had the money to pay the costs and delays involved in his rescue, and in his case, his boat was left adrift, as a hazard to navigation, and likely not recovered, so it could not be part of a settlement.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

NCC320 said:


> Just a couple of thoughts:
> 
> 1. The conditions of each rescue will be different. Each captain will have his own ideas as to how to accomplish the task. Each ship will be unique in its handling capabilities and equipment. How it will be done will also depend on what the ship has on board to work with. They may not have a inflatable with line long enough to keep it tied to the ship as they try to circle the boat or man in the water. If they do, then the captain might chose to use it somehow.
> 
> ...


I totally agree NCC. Even professional rescuers wont/cant determine the best methods and techniques to be used until they evaluate the situation. I was simply rising to Doug's challenge to offer alternatives. Judging from your experience with larger ships, it sounds like maneuverability limitations alone would make my suggestions unusable for most, if not all large ships. It's entirely possible that they are not really viable at all. A ship capable of maneuvering tightly enough to employ them would have been able to easily maneuver closer to Doug and get a line to him. Of course, the first suggestion of boarding a liferaft from the sailboat might still be viable in certain situations when bringing the two vessels close together would be much more dangerous. But then, that's why the Coast Guard have all kinds of tricks up their sleeves.

It would be interesting to get the thoughts of some big ship captains on this subject. Get an idea of their general capabilities and limitations, that sort of thing. What could we, as recreational boaters, do to make that type of situation easier to deal with from their perspective?

I really don't think it would be feasible to train and equip every commercial vessel in search and rescue. I could see a manual of general methods tailored for untrained merchant captains. A book of general ideas that could be easily modified to fit the situation depending on conditions and ship capabilities. I think anything more than that would be cost prohibitive and could possibly detour companies from voluntary programs like AMVERS. Training means time/money which leads to refresher training and more time/money. And that's not counting the investment in equipment which must then be maintained/inspected/replaced. I can't see a commercial venture wanting to commit to that kind of investment.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

NCC320 said:


> ........ such fees would kill cruising industry..........


Cross oceanic cruisers should have zero expectation that anyone will come to their rescue. If it cost money to get someone to come, that's a bonus.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

One of the objectives of AMVER is save money.

If everyone who was aware of a Mayday had to divert (that is the law) , it would be very expensive.

AMVER determines who is in the best position and sends them, freeing up the others to continue their voyage.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Cross oceanic cruisers should have zero expectation that anyone will come to their rescue. If it cost money to get someone to come, that's a bonus.


Maritime law requires "rendering assistance"


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

jackdale said:


> One of the objectives of AMVER is save money.
> 
> If everyone who was aware of a Mayday had to divert (that is the law) , it would be very expensive.
> 
> AMVER determines who is in the best position and sends them, freeing up the others to continue their voyage.


Excellent point.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Dean101 said:


> I really don't think it would be feasible to train and equip every commercial vessel in search and rescue. I could see a manual of general methods tailored for untrained merchant captains. A book of general ideas that could be easily modified to fit the situation depending on conditions and ship capabilities. I think anything more than that would be cost prohibitive and could possibly detour companies from voluntary programs like AMVERS. Training means time/money which leads to refresher training and more time/money. And that's not counting the investment in equipment which must then be maintained/inspected/replaced. I can't see a commercial venture wanting to commit to that kind of investment.


The onus really needs to first be on us sailors to learn about and prepare for the current standard means of transfer (e.g. - cargo net up the side or hoisted, jacob's ladder up the side, line hoist with harness, etc.). How many here have actually climbed a jacob's ladder for 10' - much less for 30'-50'?

Trying to standardize the entire maritime industry in SAR techniques and equipment with ships from every country, etc. is just not possible. And it's putting all the effort in the wrong place. _We_ need to do better.

The bottom line is - stay on your boat and out of the water. And know how these standard techniques work and be ready for them.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

capta said:


> In fact the shipping companies have a legal right and precedent to charge their expenses to the rescued. I know of one case where a supertanker diverted from her course and stood by a disabled small freighter until the tug arrived. Their costs were in the millions and the rescued ship (and cargo) were barely 700k. Needless to say the small ship owner had not the money to pay, not even by selling the ship and cargo, to come close. The ship became the property of the supertanker company and was rusting at anchor, unwanted, last I saw it.
> "Maybe a fair way to do it, would be to require permits for sailboats making bluewater passages".
> OK, then, let's just end the cruising industry in one fell swoop and return to the days of only rich yacht owners.
> The only FAIR way to deal with this situation, is to charge those rescued, for the time and expenses of the rescue. I've never requested rescue in uncounted sea miles and well over 50 years, and I certainly am not going to pay for a permit to go offshore.
> As I told the guy at Bermuda Radio upon entering St. Georges, when he berated me for not having the safety equipment aboard he thought I should have, so that they could know my last known position, if I went missing; "Thanks anyway, but if I decide to go to sea for pleasure, then *I'll never ask another person to risk their life to save mine*."


Well, if you do put out a Mayday, (God forbid), and I happen to hear it, you can bet your bottom dollar I would respond. So, don't hesitate to put that call out if need be. That is how this thing called humanity works. People help people.
Sail on.
Doug


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

NCC320 said:


> The suggestion of fees and permits were made to point out that the costs should be carried by the people who benefit from the actions. If we want to require the shipping companies to spend money just in case for our benefit, we should be prepared to pay for it. And as you say, such fees would kill cruising industry. So maybe the best way is for us to just be thankful that there are ships out there that can and will come to our aid. Let them (the rescuers) do it as they see best with what they have. And don't require or expect the ships to spend money on our behalf just in case. I doubt that the owner of the sailboat in the case under discussion had the money to pay the costs and delays involved in his rescue, and in his case, his boat was left adrift, as a hazard to navigation, and likely not recovered, so it could not be part of a settlement.


Humanity is based on people helping people. If that disappears, more than just the cruising industry will be negatively impacted. When / if we ask for the AX card before we will throw a line to someone, everyone has lost a lot.

What goes around, comes around.


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

smackdaddy said:


> The onus really needs to first be on us sailors to learn about and prepare for the current standard means of transfer (e.g. - cargo net up the side or hoisted, jacob's ladder up the side, line hoist with harness, etc.). How many here have actually climbed a jacob's ladder for 10' - much less for 30'-50'?
> 
> Trying to standardize the entire maritime industry in SAR techniques and equipment with ships from every country, etc. is just not possible. And it's putting all the effort in the wrong place. _We_ need to do better.
> 
> The bottom line is - stay on your boat and out of the water. And know how these standard techniques work and be ready for them.


that is so true!
i cannot agree more with what you said right there...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> The onus really needs to first be on us sailors to learn about and prepare for the current standard means of transfer (e.g. - cargo net up the side or hoisted, jacob's ladder up the side, line hoist with harness, etc.). How many here have actually climbed a jacob's ladder for 10' - much less for 30'-50'?
> 
> Trying to standardize the entire maritime industry in SAR techniques and equipment with ships from every country, etc. is just not possible. And it's putting all the effort in the wrong place. *We need to do better.*
> 
> The bottom line is - stay on your boat and out of the water. And know how these standard techniques work and be ready for them.


Absolutely...

And I would suggest that would begin with "putting our efforts" in not having to call for assistance, or be abandoning our boats offshore to begin with 

This is certainly a discussion worth having, of course. But to me it is reminiscent of the endless discussions of MOB recovery procedures, debating the efficacy of trailing a tag line and the ability to pull yourself back aboard while being dragged a 5 knots, the hope that Raymarine will develop a truly submersible autopilot/engine control remote that would enable a MOB to bring the boat back to him, and so on...

It's just _SO_ much simper to _not fall off the damn boat_ to begin with... 

If there is one undercurrent I see running through those comments in your thread over on gCaptain, it's that some of these professionals don't have a very high regard for the abilities of some of us who choose to go to sea _for pleasure_...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

jackdale said:


> Maritime law requires "rendering assistance"


That is true, but aren't there limits? The Captain is under no obligation to get in the water to try to retrieve you, nor go to any length to search for you, if you go overboard or the crew becomes separated.

While I think most mariners would go to extraordinary lengths to help another, there is a point where one could legally say they've done all they can and move on.

For that matter, isn't participation in AMVER itself voluntary? It seems I have heard stories of vessels "claiming" not to have heard the mayday.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Humanity is based on people helping people. If that disappears, more than just the cruising industry will be negatively impacted. When / if we ask for the AX card before we will throw a line to someone, everyone has lost a lot.
> 
> What goes around, comes around.


Doug,

No one has suggested that we should not help people who are in trouble, especially, if it's truly something that's not their fault. But there is today, not just in boating, but across the spectrum, just because it is a good objective, or the "right thing to do", an expectation by many of us that vast amounts of other people's money and time should be spent to protect or save us from our own negligence and disregard for our safety, or to advance some noble cause. When the ships divert to rescue, it's their AX card that is being used to get you out of trouble. So who really benefits, you, the rescued, or the rescuer? And if you benefit, shouldn't you have to pay the bill? Regardless of whose it is, someone's AX card is going to be used.

Just curious, did you have to pay anything for your rescue?

And after being rescued, we complain that if the rescuers had done it differently, my boat could have been saved. After getting ourselves into a situation where someone else has to save our necks, we are bold enough to tell them how to do it, or even worse to expect that they should use their AX card for preemptive preparation, just in case some pleasure boat sailor somewhere gets himself into trouble.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> That is true, but aren't there limits? The Captain is under no obligation to get in the water to try to retrieve you, nor go to any length to search for you, if you go overboard or the crew becomes separated.
> 
> While I think most mariners would go to extraordinary lengths to help another, there is a point where one could legally say they've done all they can and move on.
> 
> For that matter, isn't participation in AMVER itself voluntary? It seems I have heard stories of vessels "claiming" not to have heard the mayday.


Thew laws governing a ship in the high seas are the laws set by the flag state of that ship. 
Most if not all follow the SOLAS regulation and the Colregs.

AMVER is a system for reporting ship positions in case assistance i needed in an area. It's a hosted by USCG.

Voluntary depends.. Norwegian registered ships have been required by Norwegian law to participate in AMVER since 1976.

Ships ignoring maydays or other distress signals have always been a problem.
Making a detour to assist and pick up survivors have never been good business for shipowners.

The worst examples of ignoring people in danger at sea has been times where people run from war or persecution.

After the end of the Vietnam War a lot of Vietnamese tried to flee the country in small boats.

Norwegian ship picked up more than their share of these refugees, and rescue crews often heard that several ships had passed without helping before they got rescued.

The problem with picking up people from the water is that the have to be fed and taken to shore somewhere where they are allowed entry.

In the case of the Vietnamese refugees between 1975 and 1991 the Norwegian government guaranteed for the refugees and even compensated the shipowners economically...

The last incident I remember where a Norwegian ship got trouble for rescuing people in danger was the Tampa affair in 2001 MV Tampa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Canadian Criminal Code



> "Every qualified person who is the master of a vessel in any waters, on receiving a signal from any source that a person, a vessel or an aircraft is in distress, shall proceed with all speed to render assistance and shall, if possible, inform the persons in distress or the sender of the signal.
> 
> "The master of a vessel in Canadian waters and every qualified person who is the master of a vessel in any waters shall render assistance to every person who is found at sea and in danger of being lost."


The fine is $1,000,000

A good explanation:
The Obligation to Render Assistance at Sea


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Smack: Once you posted this event happening in 10' - 15' seas, that colored many of their responses, as in:
> 
> Feeding that site false information, and holding back other information can only receive inaccurate / invalid responses.
> 
> In the data processing world we call that: Garbage in, Garbage out.





DougSabbag said:


> So, considering the inaccurate representation of the environment, then colored by personal pre-judgments, and even augmented by such inflammatory terms as FORCEFULLY REQUESTING, I really can't accept the responses you received on that site as being valid.
> 
> Garbage in, garbage out.


There was absolutely nothing false in what I presented there. If there _is_ garbage, that garbage came from you, not me. The wave height exaggeration is an example of that - and your problem with the "errantly jumped" is another (which also came from you):



> That is not a new idea. It was addressed, wherein I mentioned how I erroneously / prematurely entered the water, not once, but twice, if you include the second time I left the Triumph because I believed the crew of the Kim Jacob was telling me to let go and swim for the life bouy.


I'm posting your above accusation again, because it's important. Every one of those responses from those captains is _*perfectly accurate and valid*_. It's just not what you want to hear.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

I think defining humanity in regards to this thread as people helping people is a fair statement and I believe that the vast majority of mariners are more than willing to do that. I also felt the undertones from some of the responses in the gCaptain thread, but I can understand them on certain level. I don't think commercial mariners mind rendering assistance so much as the reasons we are asking them to render assistance. I'm with Smack on the idea that recreational boaters need to take more responsibility, but not only regarding rescue methods but also with the responsibility of ensuring we are not thoughtlessly creating a need for these rescues in the first place. 

It's good to start a voyage knowing that should the worst happen and you find yourself in a life or death situation, people are willing and even obligated to come to your aid. I think the problem lies in the fact that those big ship captains have heard of or responded to calls wherein the caller's life nor the integrity of the boat were actually in danger of loss. They were simply not prepared to deal with emergencies and wanted out. These captains probably think recreational boaters are careless in that regard and don't appreciate having to be the target of pressure from above as well as the pressures of crew and ship safety while trying to assist in what he may perceive as an unnecessary abandonment. Of course, that's just my personal opinion, and probably not worded very well besides.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that if these shipping companies may one day push for more oversight on offshore recreational boating if they feel it would save some significant money by reducing the number of calls for help. I think the idea of "stepping up into a liferaft" and keeping that mentality is an important part of keeping the bureaucracy out of where you are allowed to sail.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

NCC320,

Such statements as: "if it's truly something that's not their fault" are most unhealthy lines of reasoning to travel.

I am confident you think your line of reasoning is just fine, and for that we can only look at your life and experiences for the true answer.

But, regardless of _who's fault _it might be attributed to, if a call goes out, I will answer if I am within earshot. And thankfully, most other human beings will too.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> There was absolutely nothing false in what I presented there. If there _is_ garbage, that garbage came from you, not me. The wave height exaggeration is an example of that - and your problem with the "errantly jumped" is another (which also came from you):
> 
> I'm posting your above accusation again, because it's important. Every one of those responses from those captains is _*perfectly accurate and valid*_. It's just not what you want to hear.


Smack, as far as the wave height issue, it was being discussed as a good question when you posted that on the other site. Then, only a few minutes after you posted it, I stated more accurately what the height most likely was.

You could have modified your already slanted post, (note the other points I raised on your posting), however, obviously you chose to leave it as it was, and then blame me.

*You posted numerous leading / accusatory / inflammatory and also false (wave height) statements on that post, and now want to blame what you posted on me.* It is quite telling that you feel you have to blame what you wrote to me.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Absolutely...
> 
> And I would suggest that would begin with "putting our efforts" in not having to call for assistance, or be abandoning our boats offshore to begin with
> 
> ...


Jon, I am not arguing with you, however OF COURSE it would be so much simpler if nobody ended up in the water. Believe me, anyone who ends up there wishes they hadn't.

Walk carefully as you hold yourself to such high standards - you're sounding like one of those sailors who says they have never run aground....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Smack, as far as the wave height issue, it was being discussed as a good question when you posted that on the other site. Then, only a few minutes after you posted it, I stated more accurately what the height most likely was.
> 
> You could have modified your already slanted post, (note the other points I raised on your posting), however, obviously you chose to leave it as it was, and then blame me.
> 
> *You posted numerous leading / accusatory / inflammatory and also false (wave height) statements on that post, and now want to blame what you posted on me.* It is quite telling that you feel you have to blame what you wrote to me.


All I can say is that what I wrote there was _exactly_ what I read from your telling. If others tell me that it was an unfair/false portrayal, I'll accept that. If it's only you who has a problem with my wording because it doesn't cast you in a favorable light - I'm not concerned.

I won't change the wave height claim because I don't know what's true and what's not. Those waves have been 10'-15' for a couple of years now. Then, when the discussion turned to the impossibility of towing a lifeboat in those seas a couple of days ago, they suddenly became 5'. I'm sticking with your original story...not your new one. If you want to massage those points over there - go ahead do it.

As I've told you many times, and have demonstrated in the previous thread and this one, I support you in general, Doug. However, as I've made very clear, I don't agree with your elevated view of yourself in this rescue (at the expense of the KJ Captain/Crew) - which colors what you advocate for others in that same situation, and I don't agree with your insistence that the lifeboat technique (as you portray it) is advisable as a transfer option. Both of these are critical factors in an AMVER rescue.

A lot of what you say is right on the mark. And I've said so. But there are these specific points that I think need vetting from those experts in the know. Until you've actually done what you are advocating, you are not one of those.

So, my only aim here is providing readers context - from the experts - and to assure those readers that the opinions and advice of these captains is *absolutely accurate and valid*. I have no desire to tear you down, Doug. But I also have no desire to be diplomatic just for the sake of making things sound better. People can make up their own minds on whether I'm being fair or not.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Smack, this is how you represented me and this issue on that other site:

"On one of the sailing forums, we've been discussing the case of a man who was rescued in 2011 by a large tanker in 10'-15' seas. During the alongside hoist attempt he errantly jumped from his boat into the water (not tied in) and was quickly separated. It took the tanker over 3 hours to finally get back to him and pull him out."

Gee Smack, I thought I went to great lengths to more accurately estimate the waves at around 5'!? You could have corrected that.
Then you seem to be painting me "...he errantly jumped from his boat.." in a fairly negative light, which is leading the respondents to likewise react. Thanks.

You went on:

"He is convinced that one of the ship's lifeboats could have been launched to pluck him from the water, then towed for the couple of days to port afterward - since it was too rough to re-cable the lifeboat and bring it back up. *More concerning to me, he is actively promoting this as a technique distressed sailors should "forcefully request" in an AMVER rescue*."

Again, Smack, painting me in a adversarial posture: "He is convinced.... more concerning ..... he is actively promoting ..... FORCEFULLY REQUEST... ???? WTF?

Some more of your post:

"Can you guys give me some feedback on this technique? I'm very skeptical that it's a sound technique, but I certainly don't have the experience to know for sure one way or the other. I knew this was the place to get real answers."

My goal with the article and with my continued interest in AMVER rescue is that we sailors take far more responsibility for understanding how you guys do things so that we are better partners in the rescue. AMVER participants definitely go way above and beyond. And we sailors should be willing to do whatever we can to make your job of rescue easier and safer."

*Then, Smack you really lead them to your attitude as in this paragraph, above.
Wow, great impartial representation to their site. Thank you.*

NO YOU DID NOT WRITE EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE - NOT AT ALL. I specifically said CAUTIOUSLY / DELICATELY DISCUSS WITH THEM NOT FORCEFULLY REQUEST... AND I CORRECTED THE WAVE HEIGHT TO 5' AND posted wave / wind charts, and pictures. FO NOT ATTRIBUTE YOUR SLANTED POST AS MY WORDS, SIR.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

SMACK:

I NEVER SAID: "During the alongside hoist attempt he errantly jumped from his boat into the water..."

Smack you know damn well, we were dragged to their starboard side and further dragged into their bow anchor housing!

There wasn't any "alongside hoist attempt" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You painted your post on that site in your OWN slanted words. GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Smack, this is how you represented me and this issue on that other site:
> 
> "On one of the sailing forums, we've been discussing the case of a man who was rescued in 2011 by a large tanker in 10'-15' seas. During the alongside hoist attempt he errantly jumped from his boat into the water (not tied in) and was quickly separated. It took the tanker over 3 hours to finally get back to him and pull him out."
> 
> ...


I didn't say I wrote "exactly what you wrote". I said I wrote exactly what I read from your telling. And presented it as I saw it. But if you want to get into semantics, I'll go one more round with you:

My exact words:


> rescued...by...a large tanker in 10'-15' seas


Your exact words (among many, many other references to the sea state):


> *You do not bring a 50 foot sailboat alongside a 900 foot oil tanker in 10 to 15 foot seas, unless you do not care about what will happen.*


My exact words:


> he errantly jumped from his boat into the water (not tied in) and was quickly separated


Your exact words:


> *I wrapped a line from the tanker around my wife and pushed her overboard. They pulled her up to their deck in fairly short order.
> 
> But, when I (erroneously) went over board with one of the lines in my hands, it ended up requiring over 3 hours for me to get on deck.*


My exact words:


> He is convinced that one of the ship's lifeboats could have been launched to pluck him from the water, then towed for the couple of days to port afterward - since it was too rough to re-cable the lifeboat and bring it back up.


Are you now trying to tell me this thing you've been arguing for for several years now is not something you're convinced of? Is that the problem here?

My words:


> FORCEFULLY REQUEST


This is certainly how I read what you advocated in the following post (I'll bold the words you are not focusing on to show you what I mean):


DougSabbag said:


> *The Amver participants have their own best interests at the top of their decision path.* They do not want to place themselves into harms way, no matter how much you might need them to do so.
> 
> *It is very nice of them to render whatever assistance which they will, but, they are not trained to do so, and won't necessarily have a very good plan of how to transfer you and your passengers to their vessel.*
> 
> ...


Again, others can tell us if they see this as "forcefully requesting" or not. I certainly do.



DougSabbag said:


> I NEVER SAID: "During the alongside hoist attempt he errantly jumped from his boat into the water..."
> 
> Smack you know damn well, we were dragged to their starboard side and further dragged into their bow anchor housing!
> 
> There wasn't any "alongside hoist attempt" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your exact words:


> *I wrapped a line from the tanker around my wife and pushed her overboard. They pulled her up to their deck in fairly short order.
> 
> But, when I (erroneously) went over board with one of the lines in my hands, it ended up requiring over 3 hours for me to get on deck.*


Where exactly are you seeing the big disconnect here?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

SMACK,

You have been reading the many postings of this event, as they have evolved. 

For you to pick and choose the ones you choose to represent this to the other site, in the way you wanted to represent this is CLEARLY a less than HONEST EFFORT.

I have from the beginning written how the KJ intersected a sea anchor rode, which pulled us into their anchor housing. I NEVER INDICATED THIS WAS A CASE OF AN ALONGSIDE HOIST.

Even as you were posting the wave height of 10 - 15', I was posting here that it appears they were actually around 5'. Yet you left your post as it was. Again, your motives and slant were more important to you to leave as you intended.

To indicate that I would FORCEFULLY DEMAND how to rescue us is in COMPLETE AND TOTAL CONFLICT with the words I used: "CAUTIOUS / DELICATE DISCUSSIONS".

I NEVER said forcefully demand, and NEVER WOULD. But, YOU DID.

Your whole attempt sounds like a lawyer trying to build a case rather than an HONEST OBSERVER sharing a story.

And you KNOW IT.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

jackdale said:


> Canadian Criminal Code
> 
> The fine is $1,000,000
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link, interesting read.

You will find similar legislation in other countries law's also.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> SMACK,
> 
> You have been reading the many postings of this event, as they have evolved.
> 
> ...


Okay - well I think you've presented your side. Now people can judge for themselves.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Ah Doug, ever the victim. First of poor rescue techniques by Kim Jacob's captain and crew, now Smackdaddy is twisting your words.

The recent change in wave height from 10-15' to now only 5' (when the latter suits some point you are now trying to make) is sorta telling, in my view. That's one big discrepancy to just now realize years later.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The story changed to accommodate the insistence that they could tow their lifeboat. That's my read.

Having boarded many skiffs and dive boats, which were designed to be boarded from the water, I think the idea of a non-maneuverable liferaft with one hatch and no boarding apparatus, is a silly idea to boot. Especially bobbing around in 10 to 15 foot seas. 5 ft seas as well.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> The story changed to accommodate the insistence that they could tow their lifeboat. That's my read.
> 
> Having boarded many skiffs and dive boats, which were designed to be boarded from the water, I think the idea of a non-maneuverable liferaft with one hatch and no boarding apparatus, is a silly idea to boot. Especially bobbing around in 10 to 15 foot seas. 5 ft seas as well.


Well, you COULD look at the pictures, or you can just wallow in denial.

Or, you could use a wind / wave chart as I also published. But, no, it is much better to deny the truth, and base all on that.

Enjoy!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

No body is trying to take a position on what the conditions were or weren't. Only that you didn't change your story until it was convenient to contradict professionals that said you couldn't tow a lifeboat 10 to 15 ft seas.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, you COULD look at the pictures, or you can just wallow in denial.


Actually, this has already been covered. We cannot look at those pictures because we cannot see your SailNet gallery.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

I hadn't thought about the wave height as all that important until recently.

THEN I LOOKED AT THE PICTURES AND SHARED THAT WITH YOU. Now people do not want to look and determine their own wave height estimates... or use the wave / wind chart!

I have no idea why my album, which IS set for 'public' isn't working for you.

Send me your email DougSabbag @ AOL and I will reply with a bunch of pictures.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

How do we get a moderator / SN person to HELP on ALBUMS?

I reported THIS post, and asked for SN help....


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> The story changed to accommodate the insistence that they could tow their lifeboat. That's my read.
> 
> Having boarded many skiffs and dive boats, which were designed to be boarded from the water, I think the idea of a non-maneuverable liferaft with one hatch and no boarding apparatus, is a silly idea to boot. Especially bobbing around in 10 to 15 foot seas. 5 ft seas as well.


The KJ lifeboats have a 32 person capacity, and diesel engines. I am sure they have full maneuverability too.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

DougSabbag said:


> I hadn't thought about the wave height as all that important until recently.


How is wave height _not_ important when talking about an ocean rescue? It's often _the_ critical detail to any ocean rescue. I have a hard time believing that you never really considered it before given that you were _in_ the ocean for 3 (or 4?) hours.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> ......Now people do not want to look and determine their own wave height estimates... or use the wave / wind chart!......


Nobody gives a toot to see or determine for ourselves how high they were. The issue is that you, who bobbed around in them for three hours, told us they were 10-15ft. Now you are trying to prove you were right the second time?



DougSabbag said:


> The KJ lifeboats have a 32 person capacity, and diesel engines. I am sure they have full maneuverability too.


Of course, you are sure. Although, we've had professional mariners say otherwise. Who are we to believe.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Nobody gives a toot to see or determine for ourselves how high they were. The issue is that you, who bobbed around in them for three hours, told us they were 10-15ft. Now you are trying to prove you were right the second time?
> 
> Of course, you are sure. Although, we've had professional mariners say otherwise. Who are we to believe.


OK, so you don't believe the pictures - you won't send me your email address so I can send them to you - and you think that my wife and I are making up the FACTS that their LIFEBOATS have diesel engines and 32 person capacities!?

Seriously?

So.... based upon YOUR imagination and, or, YOUR 'analysis' you have created new facts from which you will come to YOUR conclusion.

This is very frustrating dude. Sort of like talking to religious fanatics who only believe what they want to.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here is what I think is a very good summation from the experts:

Lifeboat As Rescue Platform? - Page 5


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

caberg said:


> Ah Doug, ever the victim. First of poor rescue techniques by Kim Jacob's captain and crew, now Smackdaddy is twisting your words.
> 
> The recent change in wave height from 10-15' to now only 5' (when the latter suits some point you are now trying to make) is sorta telling, in my view. That's one big discrepancy to just now realize years later.


But, YOU saw and can still see my words. I said to CAUTIOUSLY / DELICATELY discuss rescue plans with your rescuer.

After I reviewed the PICTURES - which I will gladly email to you - AND reviewed wind / wave charts - which I have posted, or you can find for yourselves, it became apparent that the waves were a lot closer to 5' not 10 - 15'.

Which also goes with the Captain of the KJ saying that he just hadn't thought of towing their lifeboat.

But, you won't look at the pictures, won't look at MY WORDS, won't check a wind / wave chart and therefore won't open your mind(s) to the TRUTH.

WTF?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

DRFerron says HE CAN SEE ALL THE PICTURES IN MY ALBUM PERFECTLY. He used both CHROME & FIREFOX.

So, the "problem" is YOURS.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> OK, so you don't believe the pictures - you won't send me your email address so I can send them to you


Actually, we haven't seen the pictures and (frankly) folks tend not to send their private contact details to someone that flips out on them in a public forum. I won't and I can't imagine anyone with half an ounce of common sense would either.



DougSabbag said:


> ...and you think that my wife and I are making up the FACTS that their LIFEBOATS have diesel engines and 32 person capacities!?


Again, you are making things up to argue about and it is getting tiresome. He never said or implied you were lying about the presence or physical attributes of the lifeboats. He said that professional mariners have commented on their ability to maneuvre. Your surety (based on what exactly?) vs their experience. I too tend to side with professionals - it's a pretty safe bet they know more than the amateurs.



DougSabbag said:


> So.... based upon YOUR imagination and, or, YOUR 'analysis' you have created new facts from which you will come to YOUR conclusion.
> 
> This is very frustrating dude. Sort of like talking to religious fanatics who only believe what they want to.


Well, *someone* in this thread is starting to come across that way and hindering the rest of us from having a discussion that doesn't involve imagined slights, changing stories, rejecting the opinion of experienced professionals, and flat out aggression whenever questioned. Sounds very much like the actions of a religious fanatic... 

Are you _trying_ to have the thread closed, Doug?


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> DRFerron says HE CAN SEE ALL THE PICTURES IN MY ALBUM PERFECTLY. He used both CHROME & FIREFOX.
> 
> So, the "problem" is YOURS.


Ah, no. DRFerron is a moderator with extended privileges on HER account. I can back up the fact that your gallery link is inaccessible to us. I can even provide screenshots if you like. The problem is with SailNet.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Here is what I think is a very good summation from the experts:
> 
> Lifeboat As Rescue Platform? - Page 5


This is what that link leads to:

"No one is saying that they can't be used/useful in rough seas. These are a few of the points that I have seen brought up.

1. The lifeboat is primarily there for the benefit of the crew. If you send it overboard, you deprive those men of it's future use since getting it back aboard in weather would be very risky. The KJ had TWO of those, PLUS a whole bunch of LIFEPODS. And, by TOWING IT, they could have it back onboard in a FEW HOURS, i.e., as soon as they reached Canadian waters.

2. The question here has been specifically whether towing it would work. There are multiple reasons why this was said to be a bad idea including having crew off the boat to man it, They would only be "manning it" while fishing me out of the water. Then they would tow it. rough weather would make for an unpleasant trip, time needed to safely tow it would be costly to a commercial vessel etc... They could tow this boat while still proceeding at the 8 knots which they normally proceed at.

3. The fact that something is risky in rough weather.. ie smaller life boat.. doesn't mean it doesn't have value as a safety device. As someone mentioned.. you stay with the biggest boat.. until that becomes unsafe.. then you hop in your dinghy.. then floatation device..etc.. The crew might not be as safe in that lifeboat in rough seas.. but if their vessel is sunk.. well it's better than nothing.
My wife and I left the Triumph during and after it being SQUISHED. We sure would rather have remained onboard.

The commercial vessel's primary purpose is not to run around and rescue people.. their lifeboat is set up to rescue their own crew.. not launch and recover/tow. The guy who thinks that it would be just as easy as anything to pull him along like an innertube is off base. No, just use it to pick the person in the WATER UP, then get EVERYONE back up to the DECK.He isn't thinking of anyone's benefit but his own. He is ignoring the fact that for the lifeboat to be deployed like that.. many other people are at risk. The bottom line is that they saved him.. he should not only be thankful.. but seriously.. stop thinking up "new and innovative" rescue techniques when his only experience is being someone who had to be rescued..

Again, just be thankful and shut up. Right.... that sure does help FUTURE people in this situation..... NOT.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> OK, so you don't believe the pictures


Are you feeling stable, Doug? You seem to be out of touch with the discussion. It doesn't matter how high they were. I will believe whatever you say they were.

The problem is you changed your story, only when it suited your towing argument. If you can't tow in 10-15 seas, but you can in 5ft, then I will simply say that the KJ could rightfully have been concerned about building seas on the way to port.

You can argue over your pictures all you like, but they aren't relevant. You changed your story.



> you think that my wife and I are making up the FACTS that their LIFEBOATS have diesel engines and 32 person capacities!?


Holy crap. No, I said professionals say they are not maneuverable.



> So.... based upon YOUR imagination and, or, YOUR 'analysis' you have created new facts from which you will come to YOUR conclusion.


Spin it your way, I have no idea where you're coming from anymore. Let's just let it go. I hope you never find yourself in this situation again. In fact, on the gCaptain site, some of the pros have read your posts on this forum and are taking note of your boat name, hoping to avoid you down the road. Says something........ Let it go.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> Ah, no. DRFerron is a moderator with extended privileges on HER account. I can back up the fact that your gallery link is inaccessible to us. I can even provide screenshots if you like. The problem is with SailNet.


OK, well, I contacted SN, and have REPEATEDLY offered to EMAIL these pictures to ANYONE who sends me their email address.

My email address is DougSabbag @ AOL COM

What is stopping you? Can't handle the TRUTH?


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> OK, well, I contacted SN, and have REPEATEDLY offered to EMAIL these pictures to ANYONE who sends me their email address.


That doesn't mean the problem isn't with SailNet. Not to mention I've provided you with an alternative that I know works (TinyPic remember?)



DougSabbag said:


> What is stopping you? Can't handle the TRUTH?


Quite honestly - your over the top aggression and instability whenever your assertions are questioned stops me from providing you with my email address. I don't give out my contact details to someone who flips out because I disagree with them.

You have ways of posting your pictures for everyone to see. It's not on me to provide alternate means for you to insult me.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Are you feeling stable, Doug? You seem to be out of touch with the discussion. It doesn't matter how high they were. I will believe whatever you say they were.
> 
> The problem is you changed your story, Sorry, I had not put any effort into estimating the wave height. So, now I am forever stuck with the emotionally exaggerated height? Seriously dude?only when it suited your towing argument. If you can't tow in 10-15 seas, but you can in 5ft, then I will simply say that the KJ could rightfully have been concerned about building seas on the way to port. No, this brings us back to the KJ CAPTAINS' statement that he just had NOT THOUGHT OF TOWING IT.
> 
> ...


"let it go".... ? Seriously? This thread, is for YOUR BENEFIT, not mine, DUDE.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Personally, I'm just happy to see that someone else uses the word "dude" with as much vigor as I.

(PS - Doug, dude, http://photobucket.com/)


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Personally, I'm just happy to see that someone else uses the word "dude" with as much vigor as I.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Dude? You're lost in the sauce, I'm guessing?

All you do is argue with people over whether they should take your advice, agree with all of it and learn from your experience. Frankly, there is little many of us have learned, as you seemed less prepared than most for your passage. It's not a revelation that an open water commercial rescue is dangerous, but it was to you. It's not a revelation that one should have the proper pfd donned and I've been loath to ask you whether the water logged cash you secured was weighing you down. It's not a revelation that things will go from bad to worse, if you "erroneously" fall off your boat and maybe remaining tethered is a good idea. Certainly you learned from your ordeal. Now take a deep breath and stop preaching. You haven't converted anyone. Good night........ dude.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> OK, I used Tinypic. Thank you.
> 
> So now, what are your estimates of the wave height gentlemen?


DougSabbag V1.0 said they were 10'-15'. What does DougSabbag V2.0 think?

BTW - I think tinypic needs to revisit their brand name.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

I trust everyone can SEE THOSE PICTURES NOW???

Nice sunny day - waves roughly 5' - 6' would you say? Use the freeboard of the Triumph, i.e., about 4 feet to figure it out - DUDES.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Dude? You're lost in the sauce, I'm guessing?
> 
> All you do is argue with people over whether they should take your advice, agree with all of it and learn from your experience. Frankly, there is little many of us have learned, as you seemed less prepared than most for your passage. It's not a revelation that an open water commercial rescue is dangerous, but it was to you. It's not a revelation that one should have the proper pfd donned and I've been loath to ask you whether the water logged cash you secured was weighing you down. It's not a revelation that things will go from bad to worse, if you "erroneously" fall off your boat and maybe remaining tethered is a good idea. Certainly you learned from your ordeal. Now take a deep breath and stop preaching. You haven't converted anyone. Good night........ dude.


Sure genius, it sure could have been a better day than it turned out to be.
But, as it happened, things went badly for us.

THEN, there I was - in the ocean. Now what do you do?

Throw buoys INTO THE WIND????? Really?

FYI, if you can remember, I WAS TETHERED to the Triumph, by MISTAKE! Which almost killed me as it pulled me under, backwards, and dragged me deeper and deeper. I managed to turn around UNDER THE WATER, to hand over hand it back to the surface, and back to the Triumph - what was left of it.

You are stuck in DENIAL MODE. You can never learn anything from that, even when someone is trying to show you how it CAN GO WRONG, and then what you COULD DO, BETTER than what I just barely managed to live through.

Great, learn nothing from all of this - DUDE.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> DougSabbag V1.0 said they were 10'-15'. What does DougSabbag V2.0 think?
> 
> BTW - I think tinypic needs to revisit their brand name.


SMACK, LOOK AT THE PICTURES. WHAT SIZE WAVES WOULD YOU SAY THEY WERE???????????

This can be Smackdaddy v1.0


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> I trust we look properly grateful to you folks??


To paraphrase ye olde smackdaddy - Doug v1.0 seems "happy" enough in those photos. Not sure about the level of _gratitude_ being expressed then or with Doug v2.0 _now_...

After all, you have dodged every opportunity in this thread to explicitly say you are grateful to them _now_ for _having saved your life_. I had left it alone after it became obvious you were dancing around an explicit statement to the contrary but, hey, if you want to raise it as an issue again - I'm happy to revisit it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Learned more about DougSabbag than I have about what to do in this rescue situation. We all have.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

BentSailor said:


> To paraphrase ye olde smackdaddy - Doug v1.0 seems "happy" enough in those photos. Not sure about the level of _gratitude_ being expressed then or with Doug v2.0 _now_...
> 
> After all, you have dodged every opportunity in this thread to explicitly say you are grateful to them _now_ for _having saved your life_. I had left it alone after it became obvious you were dancing around an explicit statement to the contrary but, hey, if you want to raise it as an issue again - I'm happy to revisit it.


Well, first of all I HAVE STATED THAT NUMEROUS TIMES. But, as with so much, you pick and choose what to "remember".

Second, I AM VERY GRATEFUL.

Third, as I have also stated, THINGS CAN BE LEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE.

And finally, as with the WAVE HEIGHT, a picture tells a thousand words.

LOOK AT THEM DUDE.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Learned more about DougSabbag than I have about what to do in this rescue situation. We all have.


I trust you have at least learned that I am as determined and stubborn as you are to HELP YOU as you are to DENY THAT YOU CAN LEARN ANYTHING.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

* look at the pictures. What size waves would you say they were??????????? *


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, first of all I HAVE STATED THAT NUMEROUS TIMES. But, as with so much, you pick and choose what to "remember".


Feel free to quote the *explicit* statements about your current gratitude to the KJ & crew for saving your life that I may have missed in this thread. Happy to apologise if my recollection is shown faulty.



DougSabbag said:


> Second, I AM VERY GRATEFUL.


For what? To the captain & crew of the KJ for saving your life or for being alive? We've already done this dance before and you dodged being explicit back then too. I can point out where you did so and how you answered if you like.



DougSabbag said:


> Third, as I have also stated, THINGS CAN BE LEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE.


No-one has argued that. They debate whether the things to be learnt are only what you say they are.

For example, I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that one can use your incident can be used to support the lesson one should offer cash incentives to the crew for following your plan. Period.



DougSabbag said:


> And finally, as with the WAVE HEIGHT, a picture tells a thousand words.
> 
> LOOK AT THEM DUDE.


Arguing with the wrong person, mate. I simply pointed out you slammed someone for repeating *your* description of the wave height to others. My point was the unfairness of changing your story (after years) and expecting others to _retroactively_ change how they describe it to others.

I have not argued about the wave heights, only about how you reacted to someone sharing with others the heights *you* gave for them.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> * look at the pictures. What size waves would you say they were??????????? *


Gee, you all seem to be incapable of estimating wave heights from nice BIG PICTURES?!

What happened to all of the deeply experienced sailors? Can't figure it out, or don't want to admit it??????


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

If anyone really thinks I am going to go through all of these pages to find the NUMEROUS other places I have posted my gratitude - in this thread, and in the others - at this point you are just playing with me.

Having fun yet? Look for yourself. Those statements ARE THERE, NUMEROUS TIMES.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Which plan would YOU suggest to get this person who is downing? Throw buoys into the wind to this VERY TIRED HYPOTHERMICALLY CHALLENGED HUMAN BEING, or deploy a lifeboat?
Then tow it until you can raise it to your deck. By the way, it is a SUNNY DAY - and the waves are not all that bad.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

DougSabbag said:


> If anyone really thinks I am going to go through all of these pages to find the NUMEROUS other places I have posted my gratitude - in this thread, and in the others - at this point you are just playing with me.


Or you could simply say that _"I am currently grateful to the captain & crew of the KJ for having saved my life"_. I've presented that option several times and it stops the argument dead once done.

The fact that you keep dancing around that is telling. _*shrug*_



DougSabbag said:


> Having fun yet? Look for yourself. Those statements ARE THERE, NUMEROUS TIMES.


I have and I note several instances of you saying you are grateful _"to be alive"_, a few instances of just _"being grateful"_, and several omissions of the captain & crew amongst the reasons you are alive today.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

That is ME - floating to the right of that buoy, which like all the others, couldn't be thrown to me because it was thrown INTO THE WIND. And, they were still moving along, so I only had a very short amount of time to swim to it, if I had the strength to do so.... which even though my life depended on it, I did NOT HAVE.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

I am currently grateful to the captain & crew of the KJ for having saved my life.

As stated NUMEROUS TIMES PREVIOUSLY.

Douglas W. Sabbag


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Any more pictures you guys need to see to answer the question?


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

I think this thread has certainly highlighted a need for a better understanding of what to expect in an Amver rescue. Getting the perspectives of the big boys has been great! I just hope that all the hostility on display here doesn't get this thread shut down by the mods.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

This is the boat now named the TRIUMPH, about 2 weeks after we bought her:


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Eat your hearts out.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

No 'hostility' here.... just happiness even in the face of denial, and closed minds.

Our lives have only improved, on so many levels. 

In 1.3 years (May 2015) the S/V Triumph will be in Europe, and so will we. That is determination.
I'll post pictures from the MED.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Still waiting for your wave height estimates........ ?? How is that going?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> I think this thread has certainly highlighted a need for a better understanding of what to expect in an Amver rescue. Getting the perspectives of the big boys has been great! I just hope that all the hostility on display here doesn't get this thread shut down by the mods.


Hey Dean - old buddy, what wave height would you say those pictures displayed?


----------



## Tugs (Feb 18, 2014)

DougSabbag said:


> Gee, you all seem to be incapable of estimating wave heights from nice BIG PICTURES?!
> 
> What happened to all of the deeply experienced sailors? Can't figure it out, or don't want to admit it??????


Well let's see, I have almost 20 years of Sea Going Experience and from those pictures the seas look a little bigger than 5 foot.

If any of you really want to see what it is like to launch a Lifeboat try to find a Lifeboatman's course and take it. Trying to launch a lifeboat to do an At Sea Rescue would not be safe. Yes some or most Lifeboats do have an engine but they DO NOT maneuver very well. They will also roll all over in any kind of sea state.

To the OP, I hope that you can find peace and just be thankful to be alive.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

On page 5 of the gCaptain thread, they were discussing tying off a sea painter to the disabled boat and using it to draw the vessel in to the ships side and position it near the boarding area. Then they mentioned altering the ships course at that point to provide a virtual parking lot in the ships lee. It seems to me that that technique would allow the ship to approach the vessel from any heading and take it on either side of the ship since it is the final maneuver of turning the ship that provides the lee. 

I wonder if that is a go-to method in these recoveries? 

Tug, if your still watching the thread, would you or any others be willing to chime in here?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Man, ocean racing is a lot more fun than you guys. In racing, I’d get into the cockpit before my watch and the active helmsman would tell me the wave pattern, when the big, surfing sets are expected, and when it will be “flat”. I’d get to watch the pattern myself a bit before grabbing on the helm. But here, from a single split second in time, you guys want me tell you exactly what the sea state exactly is.

The problem with high angle photos is you don’t get a sense of the pattern and the perspective in the foreground is all wrong. My guess is: The primary wave set runs diagonally from the lower left to the upper right ("strike" line along the crests). The wind waves are blowing almost straight down from top to bottom. There is a secondary wave that looks like it is from a leftover sea but the picture does not adequately capture the pattern. I figure that the top of the dinghy is 6-8’ off the water. Freeboard is hard to use as a measurement as the boat may be wallowing in the swell. So if I draw in the primary wave crests and a perpendicular “dip” line, I peg the trough the dismasted boat is in to be more than six-eight feet. The tough behind the wave the boat is climbing would easily be double that. Two measurements is a pretty small sample size when a wave pattern can cycle 2 – 3 times an hour. Again, really hard to determine from the single photograph provided.

So, the captain job is determined by height on that ship? I always wonder what Andre-the-Giant’s kid did for a living. Why wouldn’t the crew throw the ring to windward? If they threw it to leeward, you would have to swim around the tanker to get to it.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Hey Dean - old buddy, what wave height would you say those pictures displayed?


In my opinion the wave height at this point is irrelevant to me. I'm hoping the thread will move past your world and look at the broader picture. If you really want lessons to be learned then stop arguing with everybody and allow the discussion to evolve as it will. It's really tiring to beat a dead horse.



Tugs said:


> Well let's see, I have almost 20 years of Sea Going Experience and from those pictures the seas look a little bigger than 5 foot.
> 
> If any of you really want to see what it is like to launch a Lifeboat try to find a Lifeboatman's course and take it. Trying to launch a lifeboat to do an At Sea Rescue would not be safe. Yes some or most Lifeboats do have an engine but they DO NOT maneuver very well. They will also roll all over in any kind of sea state.
> 
> To the OP, I hope that you can find peace and just be thankful to be alive.


Tug, welcome to the forum and thanks for chiming in! I was typing while you were posting. I'm hoping you can stick around and contribute from a commercial ships perspective.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Well, the KJ decided to approach the Triumph's sea anchor rode, and attempt to acquire it with a grapple hook. As you can see in this picture, that was quite a challenge.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

Now that puts things into perspective. If the captain put that ship within 100 yards of me without running me down, I would be impressed!


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Here is another one of the sailor swimming around.... at this point I was 100% sure it was just a matter of time until I didn't come back up.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Dean101 said:


> Now that puts things into perspective. If the captain put that ship within 100 yards of me without running me down, I would be impressed!


Well, he didn't. You saw the picture of what resulted, right?


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> Well, he didn't. You saw the picture of what resulted, right?


Yes Doug, I saw your pictures. Who cares what the boat looked like? You were abandoning it. Are you really concerned about how much damage she was showing? I'm more curious as to the diameter of your sea anchor and your rode. Your picture only shows me how tiny your boot appeared to the captain and how difficult it must have been to estimate exactly where your sea anchor was. All things considered, I think he done a hell of a job.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

DougSabbag said:


> I trust we look properly grateful to you folks??


I'll tell you one thing you can take all the way to the bank. Had I packed $50,000 dollars off my boat, I wouldn't care if they left it a sinking pile of scrap, At the very least I would have fed every one of them the biggest steak dinner they could eat when we got to Canada!

Edit: Faster, sorry for the oversize pics. Was trying to highlight the captain and crew of the KJ.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

A buddy sent me a transcript for "The Quarterdeck Podcast" featuring a truly great guy - Benjamin Strong, Director of Maritime Relations for AMVER (the big guy). The information Ben gave me during my interview with him was critical to the CW article. He obviously knows his stuff.

In the transcript, he discusses the _Triumph_ rescue. And he gives the following windspeed and sea state:



> ...the weather conditions with winds at 30 knots and seas were between eight and twelve feet.


I'll go with Ben's description.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Folks, apologies for the slight loss of continuity, but I've deleted a number of the giant picture posts, and resized a couple of the more relevant pics to my own PB account.

FYI, Doug claims to have left the building...

Tugs, thanks for dropping in!


----------



## Tugs (Feb 18, 2014)

Faster said:


> Folks, apologies for the slight loss of continuity, but I've deleted a number of the giant picture posts, and resized a couple of the more relevant pics to my own PB account.
> 
> FYI, Doug claims to have left the building...
> 
> Tugs, thanks for dropping in!


Thanks for the welcome. I did not come here to cause anyone any grief, I just hope that I can add some real life experience from my 30+ years at sea.


----------



## mike21070 (Aug 21, 2012)

I am not proud to admit this, but....I have read every single post from the original one Smack posted about the loss of the S/V Triumph, and now have read every single post from this thread.

It's like a car wreck....I can't stop looking! Please help me stop this rubbernecking!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Heh-heh. My condolences dude.

So what is your take on things in general?


----------



## mike21070 (Aug 21, 2012)

Smack,

First of all, curses to you for even posting the damn thing...DUDE!

Everyone can agree that Doug and his wife went through a horrific ordeal. Then, he had the stones (as you said) to come on here and talk about it. It was obvious he wanted to talk about it...probably helped him deal with it and I think he truly wanted to talk about the lessons learned so others wouldn't make the same mistakes. Then it seemed to quickly turn south through the goating of only a few. But...I think those few really pushed him so far that he felt that just about everyone else who had a legitimate question/concern was attacking him. While there were good questions and answers, a lot of it was buried in the rest of the garbage. I really wished he had just walked away when it was getting bad...he didn't need to continue to defend/prove himself. 

I think it was copacabana who posted the top 5 takeaways from his experience somewhere in this thread. That could have been the end, but it continues...

I see that Doug may have left for a while; as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing for him----and I mean that in the best possible way. Why continue to fight? It was so tiring to read (but I did!) so I can't imagine writing and reliving it again and again. 

Here's to Doug and the missus and the new S/V Triumph. Fair winds...

Can I continue my life now?

Mike


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Heh-heh. I don't know. Can you?

I agree with your summary BTW.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Faster said:


> FYI, Doug claims to have left the building...


Well - though I obviously disagreed with Doug and harped pretty hard on his details - I wish him and his wife nothing but the best. I look forward to hearing about their upcoming jump to Europe. They definitely have a nice boat.

Fair winds Doug. Be safe.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Well - though I obviously disagreed with Doug and harped pretty hard on his details - I wish him and his wife nothing but the best. I look forward to hearing about their upcoming jump to Europe. They definitely have a nice boat.
> 
> Fair winds Doug. Be safe.


Thank you Smack. But, in the interests of avoiding future _frustrations_, I hope you have learned _just a little bit_, that when asking a group for a consensus, (as in the other / gCaptain site), that it is important toward receiving unbiased opinions *which could be accepted as viable*, that you do not "lead the witness" and, or, provide questionable data for review.

Also, playing the group / gang dynamic, as in deferring to the group instead of accepting the individual responsibility to answer a question, might be something else to avoid escaping to.

But, over all, I want you to know you are always welcome aboard the S/V Triumph.

BTW, just on a personal 'taste' level, I really wish you would change your profile picture. Cute at first blush, but after a while it loses it's luster.
I sure would rather see the real you, and, or your boat.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Thank you Smack. But, in the interests of avoiding future _frustrations_, I hope you have learned _just a little bit_, that when asking a group for a consensus, (as in the other / gCaptain site), that it is important toward receiving unbiased opinions *which could be accepted as viable*, that you do not "lead the witness" and, or, provide questionable data for review.
> 
> Also, playing the group / gang dynamic, as in deferring to the group instead of accepting the individual responsibility to answer a question, might be something else to avoid escaping to.
> 
> ...


Okay. We'll agree to disagree.

As for the avatar - no freakin' way I'm changing it.


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

DougSabbag said:


> ... I sure would rather see the real you, and, or your boat.


I am not so long a member on this forum, but i have seen numerous images and videos of him, his kids and his boat...
He is a cuddly, heavy set teddybear with his brains in the right place... and i like his profile image... 
Sorry smack - if you disagree with my perception of yourself, let me know and i delete it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

capt vimes said:


> I am not so long a member on this forum, but i have seen numerous images and videos of him, his kids and his boat...
> He is a cuddly, heavy set teddybear with his brains in the right place... and i like his profile image...
> Sorry smack - if you disagree with my perception of yourself, let me know and i delete it.


Heh-heh. You nailed it. Cuddly, "heavy set", 6' teddy bear - with a 33" waist.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

The article is online now:

How To Get Rescued at Sea | Cruising World

Enjoy.

Can I start referring to myself as "Captain Smack - Published Author and SAR Expert" now?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Nice, Smack.. well done.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Nice article Steve. The most important point you made was to the sailor / Captain, to think about what the challenges will be to get onto their deck so that you can focus on doing it through communications and an agreed upon plan of action.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> Nice article Steve. The most important point you made was to the sailor / Captain, to think about what the challenges will be to get onto their deck so that you can focus on doing it through communications and an agreed upon plan of action.


Thank you Doug. I really appreciate that coming from you.

I hope that some of this stuff makes it into the Safety At Sea curricula. I'll continue to push from my end. It is definitely knowledge that is needed. And there seems to be a good deal of interest from both the sailing and merchant marine communities. It's a valuable conversation.

Thanks for coming on here and providing the inspiration to do the research!


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> Can I start referring to myself as "Captain Smack - Published Author and SAR Expert" now?


Not till you have tried them all out in real life during rough seas.

I put the topic into the "things I've read about and hope to never have to try" knowledge.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Smack. I'm just going to call you Pulitzer from now on. Nicely done.

I must be due to renew my Safety at Sea cert in the near future and Ron Trossbach has always been a presenter in Newport. Keep us informed of progress in including this in the curriculum and, if I need to do so this summer, I would be happy to talk to him.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Smack. I'm just going to call you Pulitzer from now on. Nicely done.
> 
> I must be due to renew my Safety at Sea cert in the near future and Ron Trossbach has always been a presenter in Newport. Keep us informed of progress in including this in the curriculum and, if I need to do so this summer, I would be happy to talk to him.


It's a deal. I spoke with Ron for the article and with Sheila McCurdy as well - but it's been about year, so I'll touch base with them again soon since the article is now out.

Any influence we can bring to bear as sailors would help.

Let me know when you're going to do your cert - I may join you.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> It's a deal. I spoke with Ron for the article and with Sheila McCurdy as well - but it's been about year, so I'll touch base with them again soon since the article is now out.
> 
> Any influence we can bring to bear as sailors would help.
> 
> Let me know when you're going to do your cert - I may join you.


Yup, I think I gave you Ron's name when you mentioned the research here.

It would be sweet to take the course with you. I will let you know.


----------



## Dean101 (Apr 26, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> The article is online now:
> 
> How To Get Rescued at Sea | Cruising World
> 
> ...


Excellent article Smack! And much appreciated!


----------



## mike21070 (Aug 21, 2012)

Congrats on the article....and you can keep Captain Smack because I'm Captain Daddy...at least to my kids!

Well Done...

Mike


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

Very good article. Thanks for putting in the effort on behalf of all of us.


----------



## joyinPNW (Jan 7, 2013)

I attended the Safety at Sea Seminar held on Bainbridge Island this weekend and I just thought I'd share that the Cruising World magazine containing Steve's article was handed out at the seminar. No discussion about the article in the seminar, but fun to see it there.

Great class and well worth the $$ and time spent!


----------

