# Couple Die Sailing To San Francisco



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

Recently, a couple of experienced sailors died during a short sail from Half Moon Bay, CA to San Francisco, on a Ranger 33. I'm guessing that they tried to cut the corner on the approach to the Golden Gate and got rolled by a wave. They apparently were not harnessed to the boat, and were both found on the beach. What really concerns me is the article covering the incident. 
Couple die in boating accident off S.F. - SFGate
First, the reporter implied the predicted conditions ("winds up to 25") actually manifested. In fact, the winds were 30-40 plus. When found beached, the boat was fully reefed.
Secondly, the Coast Guard spokesperson reported that the boat was beached in Marin County. In the article's picture, Marin County is the distant shore on the other side of the Golden Gate. Despite the fact that the media photographed the boat clearly beached in San Francisco County (the two shorelines are very different), they reported what the Coast Guard told them! 
Is anybody paying attention?! I hope if I call the Coast Guard and say I'm sinking off the SF coast, they aren't looking for me in Marin!
I emailed the reporter and asked him why he reported the predicted conditions instead of the actual conditions. He told he didn't have access to the meteorological archives (he works for the major SF newspaper!).


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

The marine forecast is not the same as what gets reported by the news. It's possible that he was reading the inland non-marine forecast or the forecast for SF Bay. I'm sure the USCG who was on scene knew where to look; they recovered one body at the scene and said that the second was lost while trying to recover him. I don't know if this was before or after the boat beached; but I think it was out near Mile Rock.

We crossed the South Bar at the end of a trip to HMB 2 years ago; and while the wind was relatively light for most of our trip (we motored from HMB up to Pt San Pedro), when we got close to SF Bar the wind really picked up and we ended up sailing through heavy swell (more like chop but 10-12 feet with caps); winds 15-20. We were on a deep reach so I was able to steer around most of the big waves; and far enough offshore that we definitely were not in the Ocean Beach surf. When we got up to the mouth of the Gate the wind suddenly shut off; and we had to motor-sail the rest of the way in. In consideration of this I'll say that it would be a horrible place to be if the offshore wind pipes up; and there may be a compression zone in the South Bar area when winds approach the coast.

When I was on my boat the weekend of the 25'th the wind was blowing from the North and it was strong wind. The slip I'm in is one of the most protected slips in my marina. When it's windy from the North-NW at my slip it's usually a sign of an offshore gale; or one that is moving inland. We ended up not going out on the bay because when I'm bow in it's a ***** to get out of the slip when the wind is from the stern; and I had other work to take care of so it was a better "work day". Normally in the summer the wind at my slip is from the South and the slip is upwind; and I park stern in during the winter months.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

*Just the facts!*



KeelHaulin said:


> The marine forecast is not the same as what gets reported by the news. It's possible that he was reading the inland non-marine forecast or the forecast for SF Bay. I'm sure the USCG who was on scene knew where to look; they recovered one body at the scene and said that the second was lost while trying to recover him. I don't know if this was before or after the boat beached; but I think it was out near Mile Rock.
> .


If you look at the article (link in OP), the reporter was accurately quoting the Marine forecast, and using it to imply it was just another Summer day on the Coast. As you have acknowledged, it wasn't. That fact is probably a major clue as to the cause of the accident. Aren't reporters supposed to deal in facts ("What, When, Where and Why)? The way he reported it, it appears that an experienced Skipper (he sailed the boat for over 20 years) and his wife fell out of a perfectly seaworthy boat under usual weather conditions ("Why"?). It simply didn't happen that way, and if the reporter was outside in the Bay Area that Sunday, he should have had a clue. Bridges issued high wind warnings, Great Highway was closed do to sand drifts, and at my marina, which is relatively sheltered, we had gusts to 40, etc. 
Then...the local TV station repeats what the Coast Guard told them ("Where"), despite the stations own helicopter video footage showing the Boat clearly on China Beach in SF, NOT Marin. 
Yes, the Coast Guard found the boat (still afloat) off Seal Rock when it was reported in distress by someone dining at the Cliff House. In fact, (as reported in the article) the CG "opted not to tow it due to rough conditions" (yet another clue that it wasn't a usual day!). But it still concerns me that a spokesperson for the CG could get a geographical fact wrong, and release it to the Media. 
I was able to read through the BS simply because I'm a sailor, and know the area. How often am I accepting incorrectly reported facts on something more important, on which I know less about, i.e., Finance or Foreign Affairs.
Simply another case of junk journalism and several people not paying attention to their jobs IMO. Don't mean to rant, but as this story unfolded, I kept thinking....Huh? If I did my job with the same attention to detail, buildings would be falling on people! 
Anyway, back on topic. In a small way, I think I felt a little defensive for the Skipper who can no longer speak for himself. I don't think the cause of the accident has been (or may ever be) determined. However, I certainly don't think he fell out of the boat under "usual" conditions! I guess the lesson I take away is that; if you go offshore, you should have jack lines and harness at the ready. Even for short distances, when "normal" conditions are predicted. Though I don't know it applies to this case, it's also a reminder not to hug the coast when approaching the Gate. I can see where it is very tempting when you've been Beating forever, and want to get home (you can see the GG Bridge peeking around the corner from where the boat was first spotted!). However, you can get in serious trouble in a hurry. "Stay outside young man", until you are in the channel (or you may not get old )!


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

Not once in my life have I read a completely accurate news account or story of an event about which I knew the facts. Not once.


----------



## johnnyandjebus (Sep 15, 2009)

knothead said:


> Not once in my life have I read a completely accurate news account or story of an event about which I knew the facts. Not once.


knothead

I tempted to use that above as my sig line, truer words have never been said.

John


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

It's such a senseless tragedy when harnesses & tethers might have prevented the loss of this couple as well as the 28 year old lawyer mentioned in the article. 

I just hope the Anti Zac/Abby/Jessica crowd doesn't propose banning 59 year olds from sailing in the ocean. I'm only a year away. Yikes!

Mike


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

*I Am Not A Crook!*



knothead said:


> Not once in my life have I read a completely accurate news account or story of an event about which I knew the facts. Not once.


Yeah....but to me "completely accurate" and missing the "Where" as well as the possible "Why," are two different things. It's as if the Watergate complex had actually been in Chicago, and the burglary had been executed by the Democrats to make "Tricky Dick" look bad. Yet, the Washington Post told us what they told us!:hothead 
OK...a little over the top; Off topic; Inappropriately brings politics into a sailing forum, etc., etc...but you get my drift, don't you?:laugher 
Note to younger Sailors: You had to be there. Thankfully for you, you weren't!


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

This has been written about extensively over at sailing anarchy. It'd be worth a look L124C:

Windy Conditions Claim Sailor - Sailing Anarchy Forums


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah that thread on SA pretty much sums it up. Remember; the waves on SF Bar are much bigger than what you would see on the open water surrounding; and they had swell+chop heights of 12 feet outside of the SF Bar. That could translate into 20' or bigger breakers on the South Bar.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

The wind archives had the following for 4pm on the 23'rd (unfortunately Sailnet won't allow me to make this image or any other an attachment):

SFBay Winds: 5/23/2010 16:00 PST

In my experience; the wind predictions on that page are on the conservative side; as they only have about 10 wind data collection sites from which to make the model. The wind predictions yesterday were for 10-15kts east of Angel Island up to San Pablo Bay; but the conditions on the bay were 20-25. It looks like amid an already rough and windy day there was a compression zone that formed off of ocean beach; which might have resulted in even more difficult conditions for the couple.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

*Wind graph for SF Beach on May 23*

Here is the graph from the wind sensor at Ft Funston for Sunday May 23 (the day of the accident). Blue line is average speed, red shows gusts, yellow arrow inicates wind direction. Funston is a beach about 3 miles South of where the boat was found, and about two miles from where the victims were found. They would have sailed past this beach. Apparently, they left Pillar Point around Noon, and the call to the CG regarding the boat in distress was made around 4PM. The Archive this came from has graphs of every day in May on the same page, and only one day in early May looks anything like this! Don't know if it will work, but here is a link.
https://www.iwindsurf.com/windandwh...ind+Archive&regionID=163&geographicalAreaID=0


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

*Sierra Point wind graph May 23*

Here is a graph from the Sierra Point sensor for the 23rd. It's in the channel of my marina. I can vouch for it, as I was there! I also reviewed the SF Buoy graph. The buoy is 12 miles off the beach where the victims were found. Interestingly, the wind was lightest offshore (average 25 with gusts to 35), stronger at Funston and strongest at Sierra Point, in the bay. Admittedly, it is one of the windiest places in the Bay Area. However, I assume the Northerly element of the wind that day had something to do with it. Anyway...May 23, 2010 was no "ordinary wind day", thats for sure!


----------



## Kiltmadoc (Nov 10, 2009)

We all should take away from this tragedy several "rules":
1. wear your safety gear! It's useless in the cabin if it's rough out
2. EVERYONE on board should know how to use the boat. No evidence to the contrary in any of the articles, but you never know if this was the "husband's" or "wife's" boat. I have sent my wife off for sailing lessons for exactly this reason.
3. Practice your emergency drills. A long time ago, my friend and I had some down-time while climbing Mt. Rainier so we decided to practice crevasse rescue. A ranger stopped by to see what we were doing and commented that he had never seen people do that before (not civilians anyway). This comment was rather sobering when you consider that this mountain that sees 50,000+ people per year!
4. And finally, from the Coast Guard: The United States Coast Guard promotes using life vests as a method of protection against hypothermia through the 50/50/50 rule: If someone is in 50 °F water for 50 minutes, he/she has a 50 percent better chance of survival if wearing a life jacket. Or to put it another way: you only have a 50% chance of survival in 50 degree water if you are splashing about for more than 50 minutes.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

Kiltmadoc said:


> We all should take away from this tragedy several "rules":
> 1. wear your safety gear! It's useless in the cabin if it's rough out
> 2. EVERYONE on board should know how to use the boat. No evidence to the contrary in any of the articles, but you never know if this was the "husband's" or "wife's" boat. I have sent my wife off for sailing lessons for exactly this reason.
> 3. Practice your emergency drills. A long time ago, my friend and I had some down-time while climbing Mt. Rainier so we decided to practice crevasse rescue. A ranger stopped by to see what we were doing and commented that he had never seen people do that before (not civilians anyway). This comment was rather sobering when you consider that this mountain that sees 50,000+ people per year!
> 4. And finally, from the Coast Guard: The United States Coast Guard promotes using life vests as a method of protection against hypothermia through the 50/50/50 rule: If someone is in 50 °F water for 50 minutes, he/she has a 50 percent better chance of survival if wearing a life jacket. Or to put it another way: you only have a 50% chance of survival in 50 degree water if you are splashing about for more than 50 minutes.


While all are good points, I don't know that they relate to this case, with the exception of not wearing harnesses ("equipment in the cabin"). He was wearing a PFD when found, and his wife was found near a PFD. Not clear if she had been wearing it and it came off in the surf, but I assume the float pattern of a PFD and a body would be very different (especially in high wind). If she wasn't wearing it, it's ironic it was found near her. In any case, sadly, the outcome was the same for both crew. I don't understand the link between Hypothermia and PFD's. I assume it's a "tongue in cheek" way of saying you can survive for 50 minutes in 50 degree water, unless you drown first? Don't know that the CG is known for their humor, but maybe they are trying a new angle!


----------



## Gene T (May 23, 2006)

The major rule to be learned here is DON'T CUT THE CORNER, anyone who reads Lat38 knows that someone dies there every couple of years. It doesn't mater what the weather is, it can look calm and a boat will get knocked down by a breaking wave that seems to come out of nowhere. The story is generally the same, someone leaves Half Moon Bay and heads for the gate, someone gets washed overboard, they die. Sometimes it is a heavy cruising boat. I believe it was a Tayana 37 several years ago. Crew was below, boat got knocked down, skipper was missing along with the wheel. You really need local knowledge here as the charts don't show how dangerous this area is.

Gene


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

Gene T said:


> The major rule to be learned here is DON'T CUT THE CORNER, Gene


Bingo! In fact, a boat got rolled at SF Beach a few years ago. The Skipper's son was supposedly harnessed on the bow, and to my knowledge, they never found him. "Harnessed to what?...I don't know. Everybody else survived. I've heard of people that harness to "life lines" which I think is a terrible Idea. Anyway...I digress! DON'T CUT THE CORNER!


----------



## Kiltmadoc (Nov 10, 2009)

L124C said:


> I don't understand the link between Hypothermia and PFD's. I assume it's a "tongue in cheek" way of saying you can survive for 50 minutes in 50 degree water, unless you drown first? Don't know that the CG is known for their humor, but maybe they are trying a new angle!


well, I added the last bit. The first bit from the USCG basically says that even a PFD can let you have a better than 50% chance of survival in those conditions, since the PFD keeps your head out of the water, thus slowing down the onset of hypothermia (unfortunately, for this couple, still not long enough).


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I think something that everyone fails to realize here is that if the conditions are bad it does not matter if you cut the corner or not. It's going to be bad going through the ship channel as well because breaking waves can carry across it and you might have to deal with tanker traffic also. While it is perceived to be safer it may not be.

Harnesses have failure limits; as do the fastenings that hold you to the deck. The helm of a Tayana 37 getting ripped off is a good example. There was an accident a few years back out of SF where a man lost his son as a rogue wave washed him and a friend over. He was able to find/recover his friend but not the son. I'm pretty sure his son had a PFD W/harness on; and the d-rings failed on the jacket because of the force of the wave.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

*Survey says.....It DOES MATTER!*



KeelHaulin said:


> I think something that everyone fails to realize here is that if the conditions are bad it does not matter if you cut the corner or not. It's going to be bad going through the ship channel as well because breaking waves can carry across it and you might have to deal with tanker traffic also. While it is perceived to be safer it may not be.


KeelHaulin: I think the consensus of this thread and almost everything I've read, suggests that IT DOES MATTER if you cut the corner during heavy weather. I don't know if you are playing devils advocate or what, but apparently, at one time, you agreed!

*Here is what you said earlier in this thread:*

"Yeah that thread on SA pretty much sums it up. Remember; the waves on SF Bar are much bigger than what you would see on the open water surrounding; and they had swell+chop heights of 12 feet outside of the SF Bar. That could translate into 20' or bigger breakers on the South Bar."

*Here are quotes from the SA thread you referred to, that sum up the consensus of the thread regarding the channel and South Bar:*

" I think I may have seen this boat yesterday afternoon off of Devils Slide/Pedro Pt. around 3 pm. At the time she was motorsailing under main only about a mile off. Seas were running at least 8, blowing in the low-mid 20's. They appeared to be making good progress, but their course was going to take them over the Southern Bar in pretty snotty conditions. R.I.P. "

"Generally those races have a channel marker you must round before hanging a left turn a big reason for that besides sailed distance is also the south bar factor. Like any race or time your out sailing you observe and make a call. Some boats are fast enough they take the risk and blast over the south side and are long gone. But when your coming back up hill going slow and its blowing hard and you can see breakers out there it is VERY wise to head out and hit the channel farther out."

"I always head out assuming I'll be following the shipping channel around the south bar and only cut the corner if things look benign. You'll know when you are out there. If it's questionable, err on the cautious side. Things sneak up on you in the shallow water over the bar. Helps if the tide is high while crossing."

"South bar - not to be messed with or short cut when its blowing and rough. Every few years we have an unlucky boat that gets its number called."

"Remember if you're out there coming North and looking to cut the corner, the backs of breakers can look pretty benign."

I think almost everybody (including you apparently) in both threads who addressed the issue indicated cutting the corner was risky. I didn't read one response that thought it "does not matter".

It's my understanding that a swell will generally break when it reaches water 2/3 it's height. So, a 15 foot swell may break in 10 feet of water (for example). (Edit: I should say that this is one factor. Wind, current and topography of the sea bed, being others). While the shipping channel would certainly not be guaranteed safe (nothing is in sailing or life, of course), I think its depth does give swells less of a chance to break. In addition, if you did get rolled or pooped in the channel, you have more time to recover than if you are closer shore and the surf zone. You also have less chance of loosing your rig on the bottom. If tankers scare you, I would stay away from the Gate. Of course, if you had to avoid a ship (very rare, in my experience), you could temporarily leave the channel to avoid a ship, and then return. I have windsurfed the Gate for years. While I certainly respect the ship traffic, I worry much more about the tides. 
So, from what I've seen, I think the consensus is that it's prudent to stay outside and come in the channel in most heavy weather. If your point is that sailing in heavy weather is dangerous, I agree.

Please know this is not a personal attack, but as the OP, and because the topic is a matter of life and death, I think it needs to be said. I don't know whats going on, you confuse me. I get the sense that you say things simply to be contrary or authoritative. In this case, I think that might be dangerous. I would also suggest that when you find yourself saying that "EVERYONE fails to realize", "think", etc.,....think twice about saying it. It's a gross generalization, never true (especially since you are citing yourself as the lone exception!) and most likely to offend.

Here is a picture of a wave breaking on the Potato Patch, just out side the channel. Funny..on a sailboard, this is what fun looks like. In a sailboat...it gives me chills!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Holy crap L - that's a nasty looking breaker. And those graphs really help illustrate how bad it was that day.

BTW - judging by the rig still being intact did they just go over in a knockdown (not a roll)?


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> BTW - judging by the rig still being intact did they just go over in a knockdown (not a roll)?


As far as I know any seagoing sailboat should be able to roll and keep it's rig if the sails are reefed (these were), and nothing (like the sea bottom!) gets in the way. Though I have read of knockdowns that were violent enough to easily though crew out of the cockpit. In fact, in the SA thread, someone claims they had the same model boat, and that it had a propensity to round up in big air, with enough force to do it!


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

You missed my point L124C. What I am trying to say is that on some days when the swell is big the ENTIRE BAR INCLUDING THE SHIP CHANNEL is dangerous. If you reduce this situation to "they should have gone through the ship channel" then everyone thinks that the ship channel is always safe. It is not always safe to cross in the channel; and it may not have been safe on the day the Ranger 33 tried to come in. The ship channel is only in the mid-40's in depth; and the Bar on the north side can result in breakers crossing the channel. I think GeorgeB also noted this on one of his posts earlier.

Do you realize that that photo you posted is not on the potato patch? It's actually east of the potato patch in the channel between Pt. Bonita and the shoal. There are breakers in that area all the time also when the swell is large so it's wise not to go up the Bonita Channel during the winter months or when swell is running either.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> As far as I know any seagoing sailboat should be able to roll and keep it's rig if the sails are reefed (these were), and nothing (like the sea bottom!) gets in the way. Though I have read of knockdowns that were violent enough to easily though crew out of the cockpit. In fact, in the SA thread, someone claims they had the same model boat, and that it had a propensity to round up in big air, with enough force to do it!


... but rigs (even on 'seagoing' boats) , reefed or not, CAN be lost in a rollover. I'd say the odds are about 50-50.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> ... but rigs (even on 'seagoing' boats) , reefed or not, CAN be lost in a rollover. I'd say the odds are about 50-50.


Based on what? Rigs "CAN be lost" while sailing. I would think the load on a rig going through the water (fully reefed or bare pole, of course) would be much less than one sailing with a full main and 100% jib in 25 Knots (for example). I imagine the load would be different (completely lateral), but still, much less. The biggest load, would be in my pants


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I think if that Ranger 33 had been rolled it would have lost it's mast. The bottom is relatively shallow on the South bar; 30-42 feet. In the trough of a wave you could be 20-30 feet off the bottom. The mast of a Ranger 33 is in the 40' range so it could easily hit bottom if the boat was rolled there.

I think they took a breaking wave on the beam and got washed out of the cockpit.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

I think Keelhaulin is right. I think one report said some of 
the "windows" were broken, likely caused by a big breaking
wave, not unusual for that area. Perhaps something similar to this:

Sailboat Capsizes under Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco surfers rescue, photos by sfsurvey.com wayne lambright

Many years ago I watched, from shore, a large two masted
sailboat with no sails up, get rolled in the surf, south of that area. 
When the boat came up both masts were gone.

Dabnis


----------



## Kiltmadoc (Nov 10, 2009)

dabnis said:


> Perhaps something similar to this:
> 
> Sailboat Capsizes under Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco surfers rescue, photos by sfsurvey.com wayne lambright
> 
> Dabnis


I have seen some of those shots before, I used to surf there when I was out of college. Great surf spot, but what the heck were the people on yachtsea thinking??! Hint to boaters: if you see surfers in the water, stay clear!


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't know; but it's possible that they were sailing close to Baker beach and along the shore and could not see the surf line until they were in it. I have trouble understanding why also; because you should be able to see white water from behind the breaking wave. Another possibility is that they were not watching the water; they were watching sail trim and did not notice the breaking surf until it was too late.

One thing I find funny is at the end of the series; the owner climbs back aboard (in yellow foulies) and his weight on the stern causes the boat to finish sinking! OOPS! The good thing about the Yachtsea accident is that nobody got seriously hurt.


----------



## Gene T (May 23, 2006)

dabnis said:


> Sailboat Capsizes under Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco surfers rescue, photos by sfsurvey.com wayne lambright
> 
> Dabnis


Another case where the boat went where they should not have gone, below the South tower. There are bad spots everywhere and one needs to know the waters they sail in, or if in doubt STAY IN THE CHANEL. The weather was fine this day it is just shallow South of the South tower of the GG Bridge.

Gene


----------



## bluwateronly (Jul 8, 2008)

I don't know why they deciced to cut it so close. I have been thru that area many times and I stay around 2-miles out and come in the shipping channel. I have gone it closer and found the seas what I call swishy, don't like so head to deeper water. When I am out the gate harness goes on, period. Been times on SF bay going down the shoot inbetween alcratez and mainland it gets fast and I mean fast. Be ready it hits really sudden. Almost lost a finger in that area, just quick enough


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> Based on what? Rigs "CAN be lost" while sailing. I would think the load on a rig going through the water (fully reefed or bare pole, of course) would be much less than one sailing with a full main and 100% jib in 25 Knots (for example). I imagine the load would be different (completely lateral), but still, much less. The biggest load, would be in my pants


Not really going to argue the point with you. It really has to do with historical incidents (not scientifically tabulated, no stats, etc...) of boat being rolled with sail greatly reduced/bare poled. Thinking the infamous '79 Fastnet, '98 Sydney Hobart, and others. Talk to your rigger and ask him/her what they think. What we would think and what might be the actual case aren't always the same. If you feel that it's easier on a rig to roll bared poled through 180+, well, that's ok with me. For myself, if we rolled through 360, I'm not expecting the rig to survive.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

dabnis said:


> I think Keelhaulin is right. I think one report said some of
> the "windows" were broken, likely caused by a big breaking
> wave, not unusual for that area. Perhaps something similar to this:
> Sailboat Capsizes under Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco surfers rescue, photos by sfsurvey.com wayne lambright
> ...


First, I obviously don't know if the Ranger got rolled, but I don't think the fact that her rig remained intact, is evidence that she didn't (which is what "SmackDaddy" asked). Yes, it's shallow, but there are ever shifting bars (which would make a big breaking wave)and troughs (which could allow the rig to roll). 
As I recall, the boat in the picture that got rolled South of the South Tower was a small Santana. Not exactly a "seagoing" boat IMO (Yeah, I know KeelHaulin..somebody probably circumnavigated the Cape in one!:laugher). More importantly, you will note that she was fully dressed (not reefed). In addition, the fact that 6' swells regularly break there, and rocks break the surface, indicates to me it's shallow (hence, not rig friendly). Note to Santana crew: When you see surfers off your bow...probably a good idea to head the other way! And when shes only got 3" of freeboard left, she probably doesn't need you back on her! What did they think they were going to do anyway...motor her in?


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> You missed my point L124C. What I am trying to say is that on some days when the swell is big the ENTIRE BAR INCLUDING THE SHIP CHANNEL is dangerous. If you reduce this situation to "they should have gone through the ship channel" then everyone thinks that the ship channel is always safe. It is not always safe to cross in the channel; and it may not have been safe on the day the Ranger 33 tried to come in. The ship channel is only in the mid-40's in depth; and the Bar on the north side can result in breakers crossing the channel. I think GeorgeB also noted this on one of his posts earlier..


There we go again with "everyone" and "always"! I don't think it is ever "always" safe to be outside the Gate (or in the Bay for that matter). However, if I find myself in the unfortunate situation of beating North and coming in the Gate in heavy weather, I think my chances are better in the channel than on the South Bar. My chances of survival would increase even more, had I stayed in Princeton, and never boarded a boat! It's a matter of calculated risk, and I calculate (as do most people I've discussed the issue with) that you should avoid heavy weather if possible. Failing that, you should stay off shore and enter the Gate via the channel. Can s*** still happen? Absolutely! 
Of course, running would have been another option. They would have had to get back into Princeton after a lot of gnarly sailing, which I'm guessing wouldn't have been a picnic either. However, thats another issue!


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> Do you realize that that photo you posted is not on the potato patch? It's actually east of the potato patch in the channel between Pt. Bonita and the shoal. There are breakers in that area all the time also when the swell is large so it's wise not to go up the Bonita Channel during the winter months or when swell is running either.


Does it really matter? Don't waves like that break on both sides of the channel (and across the channel according to you)? Anyway... here ya go buddy. Go argue with them!:laugher 
Surfline | Potato Patch


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> Not really going to argue the point with you. It really has to do with historical incidents (not scientifically tabulated, no stats, etc...) of boat being rolled with sail greatly reduced/bare poled. Thinking the infamous '79 Fastnet, '98 Sydney Hobart, and others. .


Yeah..they lost rigs alright...still attached to 80 foot boats!:laugher 
I'd say when the "perfect storm" hits, all bets are off (though 32 foot "Santori" kept her rig, and got to the beach all by herself, virtually unscathed)! I'm talking Lying a Hull in your average nasty storm, or getting rolled by the occasional sleeper wave.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

Whew...I'm tired. Feel like I've had my Keel Hauled. Think I'll give it a rest!


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> More importantly, you will note that she was fully dressed (not reefed). In addition, the fact that 6' swells regularly break there, and rocks break the surface, indicates to me it's shallow (hence, not rig friendly).


Go to the sailing anarchy thread that I linked awhile back. There's a much better picture of the boat. It is/was clearly reefed. Yes, the water there is shallow. We don't know if it had washboards in, etc... things that might allow the boat to partially fill up and remained pinned down, but it sounds like the couple was probably swept off the boat by a large breaking wave.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> Yeah..they lost rigs alright...still attached to 80 foot boats!:laugher
> I'd say when the "perfect storm" hits, all bets are off (though 32 foot "Santori" kept her rig, and got to the beach all by herself, virtually unscathed)! I'm talking Lying a Hull in your average nasty storm, or getting rolled by the occasional sleeper wave.


Well, considering that there weren't any 80 foot boats in the '79 Fastnet that lost their rigs that I can recall... Grimelkin was a different story. 30', rolled and pitch polled multiple times and finally lost her rig during one. There were others, but I'm not going into book boxes to find the exact stats and names. A friend rolled their Bristol channel cutter to 180. It's about as beefy a little boat and rig as there is. Didn't lose the rig, but the mast was severely bent, damaged, and unusable. Look, if you're certain it's not a big deal, then it's not... for you. For pretty much everyone I know that sails, getting rolled is far from an average experience regardless of the cause. Again, for myself, if I roll a keelboat, I'll feel pretty lucky if the rig comes up smelling like roses and ready to go. I'll leave the laughy emoticons to you.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

I wonder if they were rolled or knocked down?
Anyone have any thoughts?

Dabnis


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> Go to the sailing anarchy thread that I linked awhile back. There's a much better picture of the boat. It is/was clearly reefed. Yes, the water there is shallow. We don't know if it had washboards in, etc... things that might allow the boat to partially fill up and remained pinned down, but it sounds like the couple was probably swept off the boat by a large breaking wave.


Maybe I wasn't clear. In this quote, I was referring to the boat that got rolled at the South Tower (not the Ranger). It was used as an example of a boat getting dis-masted in a roll, and I was explaining why I thought it was a poor example. It WAS fully dressed and here is a link to prove it. Sailboat Capsizes under Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco surfers rescue, photos by sfsurvey.com wayne lambright


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> Look, if you're certain it's not a big deal, then it's not... for you. QUOTE]
> 
> For the recored, I NEVER said or implied that rolling a Keel boat is "not a big deal" (and I aspire to seldom be "certain" of anything). To the contrary, I made a rather crude reference stating it would be, shall we say "quite disturbing". We were discussing whether or not, a rig is likely to survive a roll (initially, because it was presented as evidence that the Ranger didn't roll). You apparently don't think it's likely, and I disagree. So far nobody has provided me with credible evidence to the contrary. I'm not here to prove I'm right! I'm here to learn from others, and provide others with any knowledge I have that they find helpful. The Bristol certainly is a stout boat, so let's apply my criteria. Was she reefed or bare pole? Is it possible that the rig hit an obstruction, namely the sea bed (maybe why she went 180, not 360)? If we don't know the answers, than it's hardly a relevant example. Oh, and thanks...I'll take your smiley emocations!


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

dabnis said:


> I wonder if they were rolled or knocked down?
> Anyone have any thoughts?
> Dabnis


Yes...plenty. Read the whole thread.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

L124C,

Sorry, it was my feeble attempt at a little humor. I wrote
the original post about 3 weeks ago:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/65018-sf-boating-deaths.html

My intent was to bring some attention to the risks of being in
that area when it is rough, hoping some with little or no
experience could learn from it. I have read all of both posts,
lots we don't know about what exactly happened. Whether they
were too far inside or in the channel and whether they were
rolled or knocked down, they are dead. Either they were in the
wrong place at the wrong time or just plain unlucky, we will never
know.

Dabnis


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> puddinlegs said:
> 
> 
> > Look, if you're certain it's not a big deal, then it's not... for you. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

dabnis said:


> L124C,
> 
> Sorry, it was my feeble attempt at a little humor. I wrote
> the original post about 3 weeks ago:
> ...


My original response was: "Are you serious? Read the thread!", but I decided to take the high road. Silly me, gotta stop doing that! Thanks for the link. The statement there that "they were taking the inside channel" might mislead the very novice you are trying to enlighten. There is no such channel. While we don't know what happened, I certainly think jack lines and harnesses would have improved their chances substantially. So, I can't simply right it off to bad luck.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> L124C said:
> 
> 
> > Middle of a passage. South Pacific. Thousands of feet beneath the keel. Not bare poled. Reefed if I recall, and a small headsail. They didn't go 360 because.. who knows? Wave pattern? I don't they could tell you why either. Losing a rig during a roll isn't a certainty, but neither is keeping one intact. IMHO and nothing more, I'd say it's a 50-50 proposition and leave it at that.
> ...


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> puddinlegs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you cited that statistic before. I think we have clearly established it is based on nothing. It's your opinion, and you can "leave it at that" if you want to.
> ...


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

*Go sailing? YOU go sailing!*



puddinlegs said:


> L124C said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to care way way too much about this. Ok bud. Last word's yours. You win. Now go sailing.
> ...


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

L,

"they were taking the inside channel might mislead the very novice you are trying to enlighten." You may have a point there. Many years ago the charts showed a "channel" with buoys about 1/4 mile or more
off the beach. Maybe I should have called it a "passage" or "route" or something else. To the best of my memory it was never dredged and was not deeper than the surrounding waters. We used to call it the "inside channel"
for lack of something better. From my house I used to see many boats
transit north and south over that "route", risky business in my opinion. I see
it is no longer shown on the chart, good thing. Yes, no doubt, lines and harnesses could have possibly kept them in the boat.

Dabnis


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> puddinlegs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I "care" about reporters who write articles with incorrect facts (the original thrust of this thread). On the other hand, I certainly DON'T care about "winning". It also concerns me when people cite facts and statistics with authority on the Internet, with absolutely nothing to back them up. I stated the weather was much worse than the reporter indicated and provided evidence (actual sensor charts) to prove it. What do I base my feeling regarding rigs surviving a roll on? Well, first, I am a experienced Carpenter. While not a Marine Rigger, I understand loads and rigging more than the average sailor having worked with cranes and heavy equipment for many years. Having said that, I don't know enough to put a number like 50/50 (which appears to give the opinion authority it doesn't have) on the rig survival, and stated my opinion as exactly that. In addition, I have read enough about circumnavigation in seaworthy boats (the Bristol being one of them) to know that being knocked down and/or rolled is not to be unexpected (note I didn't say "no big deal"). Loose your rig in the Southern Ocean and you are in trouble! In your replies you have misquoted me; taken things totally out of context (replied to my statement regarding sea state, by quibbling over boat size), and failed to provide one fact to substantiate your 50/50 statistic. Lastly, I sail plenty! You keep saying things like; "leave it at that" "last word". It's my thread. I'll post when and what I want. I'll "Sail" when I feel like it. Go post your unsubstantiated statistics somewhere else! Here is a "smiley emocation" for youuke See Ya!
> ...


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> L124C said:
> 
> 
> > My... now that's an adult response. No claims of authority on my part, just anecdotal thoughts and observations over many years sailing many boats over many miles. If you want me to do calcs of rig loading for you, I can, but only at the usual hourly rate... and yes, I work in a field that deals with this stuff all the time. But the bottom line is I don't really care. Iit's just not important to me to win an internet argument .
> ...


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

I am not an expert and I'm reading to learn, but just a thought on breaking waves and channels - I think there are two types of breaking waves to worry about. A breaking swell will break based on water depth, whereas a breaking sea can break without regard to water depth.

Huge seas break in the middle of the ocean, so you can't avoid that by sailing in a channel; but breaking swells should be avoidable by sailing in a deep enough channel.

Which you encounter depends in part on time of year... and of course wind and swell. Several years back the SF coast had 100' breaking waves during a huge Winter swell. A couple big wave surfers who were out on jetskis managed to get over them and survive.

Story: Shawn Alladio: K38 PWC Rescue Course and Surfing Event Safety

I think a danger when you're sailing is that the size may be deceptive - a choppy 10 foot sea may seem more troublesome than a relatively smooth 10 foot swell - but that swell has more energy and when it feels the bottom it can become absolutely huge.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Holy crap kulo! 100'?!?!?! I'd never heard that story before.

Thanks for the link dude.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

kulokoo said:


> I am not an expert and I'm reading to learn, but just a thought on breaking waves and channels - I think there are two types of breaking waves to worry about. A breaking swell will break based on water depth, whereas a breaking sea can break without regard to water depth.
> 
> Huge seas break in the middle of the ocean, so you can't avoid that by sailing in a channel; but breaking swells should be avoidable by sailing in a deep enough channel.
> 
> ...


I was aware of this event at Mavericks, but am confused by the article (which may tie it into the beginning of this thread). It states they were originally 3 miles out, came in and went back out to the break. The break at Mavericks is a quarter of a mile out, not 3 miles. It is created by a reef (hence, directly related to water depth). This is well documented in the DVD "Riding Giants" (not your average surf flick, and highly recommended if you haven't seen it!). Can you clarify that for me? Regarding the huge breaking seas in the middle of the ocean. What causes a huge swell to break if not depth. Wind? I have been in big seas in a sea kayak, and had big swells hiss in the wind and froth at the crest, making me think my number was up, but never break (thankfully!). So... what makes a huge swell topple over if not lack of depth?


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Depth is relative. A place like the Bass Straight, wind against current, and _relatively_ less depth. Same with the '79 Fastnet. Same with this year's Southern Straights Race. And then there's well documented weather in the Southern Ocean... Again, do read the book about the 1998 Sydney Hobart and Adlard Cole's Heavy Weather Sailing. These books will give factual accounts (but no overall boating industry wide statistics) as I tried to do with the example of my friends experience in their Bristol channel cutter. Here's my question, you've been in a kayak in larger seas. Have you been in a boat? Not being rhetorical here, just trying to understand your concern with rig durability, general level of sailing experience, etc... Here are links to the books/events mentioned. I think they'll help with understanding some of the forces and factors that you're interested in.

Amazon.com: Adlard Coles' Heavy Weather Sailing, Sixth Edition (9780071592901): Peter Bruce: Books

Amazon.com: The Proving Ground : The Inside Story of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Race (9780316499552): G. Bruce Knecht:&#8230;

Amazon.com: Fastnet, Force 10: The Deadliest Storm in the History&#8230;

(I have no connection with Amazon. The links are for convenience only)


----------



## MarioG (Sep 6, 2009)

To kinda get back to the beginning of the tread in March when the first mate and I was makeing are first cruise with our C-26 we got caught in a gale storm in waters we were told were always bad. We required the assistance of the Coast Gaurd after the sails shreaded and the OB engine was just useless.

yes we found our boat grounded 60+ yards off shore(were I think we were rescued) But the newspaper artical stated the winds were 25 knots and the waves were 2 to 3 feet. They also made the claim our boat drifted 20 miles after ( not possible) They never talked to us or the CG, Who told us 65 mph gust and 10'waves.

Being grounded up to a hundred or so yrds out (major shoul) completely in the dark and being tossed around from waves comming from 2 directions and 1 degree from hypothermeia and all the newspaper could say is 2 rescued due to engine failure.


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

*100 foot waves, etc*



L124C said:


> I was aware of this event at Mavericks, but am confused by the article (which may tie it into the beginning of this thread). It states they were originally 3 miles out, came in and went back out to the break. The break at Mavericks is a quarter of a mile out, not 3 miles. It is created by a reef (hence, directly related to water depth). This is well documented in the DVD "Riding Giants" (not your average surf flick, and highly recommended if you haven't seen it!). Can you clarify that for me? Regarding the huge breaking seas in the middle of the ocean. What causes a huge swell to break if not depth. Wind? I have been in big seas in a sea kayak, and had big swells hiss in the wind and froth at the crest, making me think my number was up, but never break (thankfully!). So... what makes a huge swell topple over if not lack of depth?


The reporting might leave something to be desired. Somewhere I read the story in Shawn's own words, and it was more amazing a story with the details, and easier to understand. If I can find that version I'll post a link. As for the 3 miles, it probably depends where they measure from, and maybe the reporter got confused?

OK, here is a fuller version of the story:DESPERATE RACE FOR SURVIVAL / RIDING FOR THEIR LIVES: Two water safety patrollers on Jet Skis at Maverick's reef turned around to see deadly 100-foot waves crashing toward them. They had just seconds to figure out how to stay alive.

Here's a graphic of what it might have been like from [clearing throat] deathwaves.com ... interesting site, that.










What makes seas break in deep water? I think seas are like giant whitecaps, chaotic and not well organized, and they crest over due to gravity and wind blowing the top over... eventually that energy organizes into a swell which would be just a long rolling hump in deep water, potentially smooth and no problem for sailing in deep water. Each swell wave is a giant circle extending underwater. I guess you can have in between and combination states, too. I'm not an oceanographer, and I have not crossed any oceans, this is just my understanding.

Speaking of deep ocean obstacles... how many places like Cortes Bank are there that an ocean sailor needs to be aware of? Since giant swells break there, not just seas, and likely no boat let alone rigging would survive getting caught by one of those. I guess potato patch outside SF is one?


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

kulokoo said:


> What makes seas break in deep water? I think seas are like giant whitecaps, chaotic and not well organized, and they crest over due to gravity and wind blowing the top over... eventually that energy organizes into a swell which would be just a long rolling hump in deep water, potentially smooth and no problem for sailing in deep water. Each swell wave is a giant circle extending underwater. I guess you can have in between and combination states, too. I'm not an oceanographer, and I have not crossed any oceans, this is just my understanding.
> 
> Speaking of deep ocean obstacles... how many places like Cortes Bank are there that an ocean sailor needs to be aware of? Since giant swells break there, not just seas, and likely no boat let alone rigging would survive getting caught by one of those. I guess potato patch outside SF is one?


First of all, nice graphic, thanks for that! While the waves those jet skis went over were huge, they were not breaking, or the skis never would have made it. Whitecaps, are very different from breaking waves. Rouge waves are created when a large wave is overtaken by a larger wave and they combine forces (the larger the wave, the faster it travels). The Potato patch is NOT deep, which is why it exists. I'm assuming the same is true for the "Cortes Bank", hence the name "Bank". If you're offshore, I think charts are in order!


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

MarioG said:


> To kinda get back to the beginning of the tread in March when the first mate and I was makeing are first cruise with our C-26 we got caught in a gale storm in waters we were told were always bad. We required the assistance of the Coast Gaurd after the sails shreaded and the OB engine was just useless.......
> 
> Being grounded up to a hundred or so yrds out (major shoal) completely in the dark and being tossed around from waves coming from 2 directions and 1 degree from hypothermia and all the newspaper could say is 2 rescued due to engine failure.


Oh Yeah...the beginning of the thread. I remember that now... We've kind of meandered far afield, though ironically, Mavericks was where the Ranger 33 started it's fateful voyage. In fact, a boat got rolled (we'll, I don't know that, the mast was still intact when they found the boat!) there last Winter as I recall and two people died as well. Note to Mariners: When exiting Princeton harbor heading North, don't hang a right directly after leaving the harbor! Mavericks isn't known as a World class, big wave surfing site for nothing! Anyway...I'm glad you made it and are here to tell the real story. The Skipper of the Ranger and his wife are not, which is why I especially resented the reporter's laziness! Does the "First Mate" still sail after all that? Were you able to salvage the boat?


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

L124C said:


> If you're offshore, I think charts are in order!


Not much to think about. Charts are a given.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

L & all,

In the beginning of this post there was some speculation as to
whether they took the "inside" route or were coming down the ship
channel. A witness said:

"My girlfriend and I were the unfortunate witnesses to the early stages of this tragedy. We saw Barcarolle from the Devils Slide/Pedro Pt. area of Pacifica at 1440 hrs on Sunday. At the time, they were between .5-1 nm offshore&#8230;IOW they were setting themselves up for an inside approach to the gate. It was blowing pretty decently, 15-17, gusting to the low 20's and the seas looked to be around 8′, with breaking crests (whitecaps). When we saw them, Barcarolle was motor sailing under a full main and furled jib."

It appears that they took the inside route as described here:

From: The Alleged South Channel

Dabnis


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

I was looking at the book on the disastrous 1979 Fastnet race. It describes how a boat which appears to have been about 35 feet was surviving the storm; "At least 6 times between 3 and 5 AM, "Grimalkin" spun broadside to the faces of the waves, and was caught under the curl until her mast hit the water. Each time, all 6 men were thrown (over the lifelines) out of the cockpit into the water, and were left dangling by their safety harness tethers. A 150 pound man generates a force of more than 3000 pounds when he is thrown 12 feet. The harnesses and jack lines withstood those loads, but the men themselves took a fearful beating." 
I had been thinking that for *both* crew of the Ranger 33 to have been thrown completely out of the cockpit, she must have rolled. Appears not to be the case! Seems like a good idea to bring harnesses even for short offshore trips.


----------



## MarioG (Sep 6, 2009)

Thanks L124C I to am glad to be able to e here to tell the real story, being new to coastal sailing and never being in that kind of storm on the water there were times out there during the 4 or more hour ride that I was thinking to my self that people die in these situations while telling the 1st mate the whole time we were fine. 
In the lobby of the hotel we stayed after being reliesed from the hospital was a guy that was telling us he heard that a sailboat had sank uke 
Because I was tring to keep corse the whole time by compass, when the storm was over by the following afternoon I knew just about where to find our boat and got a call from the CG that confermed it. .

As I said the genoa was shreaded and nine of the sliders on the main had snaped letting it go. Don't know about a boat sinking but a tractor-trailor was over turned ..so much for 20mph or so winds the paper reported.

and sorry not to respond sooner but the 1st mate are out sailing the coast this weeked, she was back on the boat cleaning things up as soon as we found it. 
I had to wade out 60 or so yards to get to it and then get our little infatable to get her out to it. we have sailed every other weekend since.
other then replacing sails, I had to drop the mast toreplace the bolt that holds the spreaders.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

L124C said:


> I had been thinking that for *both* crew of the Ranger 33 to have been thrown completely out of the cockpit, she must have rolled. Appears not to be the case! Seems like a good idea to bring harnesses even for short offshore trips.


Yes; it does not take a roll to get thrown or washed overboard. A boat can go way past 90 deg in a knockdown/wave combination so you would need something to hold you to the boat in the event of a knockdown or breaking wave.

Unfortunately; it appears that the owners of Barcarolle were not experienced in offshore sailing. The article posted earlier said that they had never sailed outside of SF Gate and this was their first trip down the coast as their first trial run before going on the Baja Ha-Ha in the fall.

I hope this thread serves as a reminder to everyone who goes coastal sailing outside of SF that the ENTIRE BAR AREA is treacherous if there is swell running; and more so if there is a strong Ebb current. Even on flat days there can be "sneaker" waves; and it's a good idea to watch closely the swell patterns before crossing the Bar. If you see the swell start stacking up or have periods of large swell; don't cross it.

We have bagged our day outside the Gate on many occasions because I considered it too rough to safely cross SF Bar while double-handing. We canceled a trip to Half Moon Bay in April because the weather and the swell was going to be rough going out with deteriorating weather predictions for the return trip. Plan ahead; and play it safe.

Barcarolle was from my marina; parked a couple of rows down from us. While I don't remember the boat specifically; I do recall a Ranger 33 sail hoisted now and then. The marina has over 800 slips on 4 separate docks; but I'm pretty sure they were berthed near my boat on D-dock.

On the issue of breaking waves inside of Bonita Channel; I don't know specifically if the picture L124C posted was east of the Red/Green entrance buoy; but there are reports of huge breakers in there when there is swell.

Here's a good picture:









And another...










Note how flat the water looks in the foreground on both photos; and the breaker is to the EAST of the channel marker buoy.

Here are the articles that these pictures were referenced in:

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

I would not go anywhere near SF Bar (including the ship channel) with 16-18' swell predictions/observations. In the second article the guy reporting going out single-handed in those conditions seems a little (OK more than a little) nuts to me.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

I've been up to my waist in water hanging on a winch handle or lifelines in a broach (masthead nearly horizontal to the water) both inside and outside the gate. Agreed KeelHaulin, you don't need to roll to 'exit' the boat. A simple round up is all it takes in the right condition. 
_(Then there's the whole South Tower demon to look out for. It's pretty much a given that if you sail long enough in SF, you'll meet it at least once.)_


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> Yes; it does not take a roll to get thrown or washed overboard. A boat can go way past 90 deg in a knockdown/wave combination so you would need something to hold you to the boat in the event of a knockdown or breaking wave.
> 
> Unfortunately; it appears that the owners of Barcarolle were not experienced in offshore sailing. The article posted earlier said that they had never sailed outside of SF Gate and this was their first trip down the coast as their first trial run before going on the Baja Ha-Ha in the fall.
> 
> ...


Keelhaulin,

Excellent write up!!! Perhaps if the Barcarolle's owners had a chance
to read all of this before their trip they might still be here? Hopefully,
those with little or no experience or knowledge can benefit from
this and other related threads.

Dabnis


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Dab, there's no shortage of information about sailing in the SF Bay Area and the immediate coastal surroundings. Applying it to a bad day can be challenging. Reading about is one thing, dealing with it in real time is quite another.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> Dab, there's no shortage of information about sailing in the SF Bay Area and the immediate coastal surroundings. Applying it to a bad day can be challenging. Reading about is one thing, dealing with it in real time is quite another.


Pudding,

I totally agree, hopefully if someone has a chance to read about it first
they won't have to deal with it in "real time" later? Wish full thinking, I suppose?

Dabnis


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

You can lead a horse to water....


----------

