# HMS Bounty in trouble...



## jimjazzdad

The HMS Bounty is a tall ship that was built in Nova Scotia in 1961 for the MGM movie "Mutiny on the Bounty", starring Marlon Brando...she appears to be in trouble from Hurricane Sandy.

From ABC News:
2:55 AM EDT: Coast Guard spokesman David Weydert tells ABC News, "The Coast Guard received notification that the sailing vessel HMS Bounty was in distress. We responded by sending out a C-130 aircraft and we're currently monitoring the situation."

And the ships website confirms she is in harms way:
TallShipBounty.org

I sure hope this story has a happy ending.


----------



## wingNwing

Looking bad - they've decided to abandon ship. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/10/29/ns-hms-bounty-hurricane-sandy.html


----------



## SawWhet

Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue.


----------



## wingNwing

They were on passage from Canada to Florida, and they had left Canada before Sandy was even a tic on NHC's radar. They detoured WELL east of the storm track, not right off Hatteras as the article makes it appear ... but this is a BIG storm.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Crew is all safe and rescued. I feel that the skipper erred, and the ship will be lost.


----------



## jimjazzdad

SawWhet said:


> Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue.


 Many larger vessels (including navy ships, cruise ships) put to sea for hurricanes since they are more likely to be damaged or sunk in harbour. I suspect the HMS Bounty was somewhere in the projected landfall area of Sandy and was trying to get south to safer water...damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Latest from CBC says the crew has taken to the liferafts and USCG choppers are on the way. I sure hope they make it out OK.


----------



## wingNwing

UPDATE: Coast Guard responds to vessel in distress 160 miles from hurricane's center

160 miles from the center! This is one big badass storm!

They really weren't being that crazy and conditions where they are aren't so horrible. Understand that they lost a generator last night, so they couldn't pump what water they were taking on.


----------



## PCP

SawWhet said:


> Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue.


I agree with that.

*"She said her husband, Captain Robin Walbridge, was trying to get around Hurricane Sandy en route to Florida.

"He was just trying to avoid it, skirt it. Skirt through it, skirt around it," McCann said Monday."*

Hurricane Sandy forces HMS Bounty evacuation - Nova Scotia - CBC News

Another one that was hoping weather stayed exactly has was forecast by the weather service without giving it a proper and big security margin.

regards

Paulo


----------



## jimjazzdad

Hopefully they will all be rescued soon. Fortunately they are within helicopter range. Gotta admire those CG crews. No one is really "safe" until all are ashore, all accounted for. Waiting to hear that good news...


----------



## jimjazzdad

From CBC News:
As of 8:20 a.m. AT, a U.S. Coast Guard Jayhawk helicopter had begun hoisting the crew members from the life-rafts.

Campbell said officials were still trying to determine exactly how many crew members were on board. The Coast Guard was originally told 17 people were on the Bounty but only 16 heat signatures were detected.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Man, this sucks... Hope all are accounted for!


----------



## smurphny

It doesn't seem like 18' seas should have been too much for a boat of that size. Sounds like she opened up some seams and pumps couldn't keep up with it. Will be interesting to hear what actually happened. There may be no fault other than inadequate pump capability or lack of bottom maintenance. Glad they're OK.


----------



## wingNwing

They had just come from weeks of maintenance in Canada. So boat should have been in good shape??? I'm also reading that they lost propulsion?


----------



## smurphny

There's got to be a lot of lineal feet of seams on a boat like that. Once they start working and opening up, the bilge can fill up pretty quickly. I remember well how seemingly tight seams can open up in a pounding. Wonder if there were any manual pumps such as on the old square riggers? Of course the old ships had a lot more hands to man those pumps for hours on end. It really is a shame to lose one of these tall ships like this. They are magnificent.


----------



## wingNwing

Oops, correction, they had already left Canada, they were in New London, CT a few days ago. That totally made sense, then, given Sandy's predicted impacts in NY and New England, that they'd be safer at sea than in port. They ssailed out due east to get well clear of the storm before continuing south. The Navy sent all their vessels out from Norfolk in advance of the storm for the same reason - sometimes you're safer away from the dock!


----------



## PCP

wingNwing said:


> ... That totally made sense, then, given Sandy's predicted impacts in NY and New England, *that they'd be safer at sea than in port. * They ssailed out due east to get well clear of the storm before continuing south. The Navy sent all their vessels out from Norfolk in advance of the storm for the same reason - sometimes you're safer away from the dock!


That can make sense on a ship that can stand storm conditions with ease. I don't think that will applies to an old remake of an historic boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jimjazzdad

"HMS Bounty now sunk according to US coast guard. 5 crew hoisted from life rafts so far. Lifts continue. #cbcns
by PhonseJessome via twitter on October-29-12 at 9:13:41 AM


----------



## wingNwing

Good Morning America just interviewed someone from Coast Guard, who said 10 feet of water on deck when they abandoned and ship is now sunk. They rescued 14 and 2 or 3 unaccounted for.

Ugh. Sux.


----------



## ShoalFinder

You make the best decisions you can at the time and, sometimes, it just doesn't work out no matter what you do.

In '95 my ship (US Navy) was coming back from the Med. There was a big hurricane just leaving the African coast headed west, so we stayed in the Azores for a few days waiting for the storm to commit to a track so we'd know what to do. It appeared to be turning north early, so we proceeded west on our way toward Halifax to go around it. Lo and behold, storm #2 appears and takes a much more westerly track, then turns north toward the eastern seaboard. Great... back to the Azores for two more days.

Finally, because we are due home after 6 months at sea, we set out on a very odd southerly track to give ourselves lots of sea room to run. Hurray for us, storm #3 appears.

Sometimes, you just do what you have to do. We point for the weakest of the storms and hoped for the best. That storm becomes Hurricane Gordon and it's moving faster than we can run around it. We put on turns and buckled up. Talk about a ride, it was one of those storms where if you aren't on watch you are in your rack hanging on tight. If you are on watch, you lock down on a handhold and enjoy the ride. We were putting the front gun under water and alternately feeling the screws run free when the stern was lifted out of the water. This went on for a few days. 

On that ship, an Aegis Cruiser, you can see down the main passageway for several hundred feet. What's freaky is looking down the passageway and watching the watertight door hatchways misalign in opposite directions, back and forth, as the ship is twisted and untwisted, then twisted the other way. 

Now, imagine a bunch of calked wooden seams going through that. The poor souls on the Bounty replica were probably crapping square-edged bricks. Unlike Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, the guys on the Bounty replica are just working a job. They aren't indentured servants and they aren't fighting men freely willing to die for their shipmates as a matter of course. If it was me on the Bounty replica? "Man the lifeboats, mateys- we've done what we could within reason. This tub's going down and it's insured. **** happens. That's what insurance is for.

The point of my long, rambling post is this: The captain the Bounty replica made the decisions he made based on the information he had. Sometimes events conspire against our best laid plans and protocols. You do what you can, which is what he and the crew did. But at the end of the day, the old tub is a replica and a prop. It is a physical asset that is insured and nothing more. If your office building caught fire, would you be the daring guy on the hose trying desperately to save the desks and file cabinets when the roof collapses? Of course you wouldn't. Don't romanticize the Bounty replica because it's a pretty wooden boat. For anyone to die trying to ride out a storm would be the greatest act of moronic stupidity.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Just saw the recent posts. God Bless those who are missing. Let's hope they are together in a lifeboat just waiting to be picked up.


----------



## SecondWindNC

Wow, what a shame. Hope they are able to recover everyone. The most recent story I can find says two may be unaccounted for.

HMS Bounty Sinks Off NC Coast, 14 People Rescued, Two Possibly Missing


----------



## ShoalFinder

The story I just read was very confusing. In one line of the story it said that that the manifest listed 16 crew and that's what the Coast Guard has picked up, then right after that it said two could be missing.

Let's hope this is just a case of a confused reporter re-reporting second hand information. God I pray nobody was lost in this.


----------



## Vasco

Here she is in better times, last May in St. Augustine.


----------



## jimjazzdad

Not good news from CBC:
"Two crew members of a Nova Scotia-built replica vessel are missing after abandoning ship off the coast of North Carolina in high seas brought on by Hurricane Sandy.

Officials with the U.S. Coast Guard told CBC News the 16-member crew of HMS Bounty decided to abandon ship after getting caught in 5.5-metre seas off Cape Hatteras on Monday.

All the crew members made it onto two life-rafts but only 14 people were hoisted onto helicopters, said U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Brendan Selerno. He said officials have not yet had the chance to debrief the 14 survivors to find out what happened to the two other crew members.

Selerno said the two missing crew members are believed to be in survival suits. He said the air search is being plotted based on wind direction and speed, and will be expanded.

HMS Bounty sank several hours after the evacuation.

The Coast Guard was originally told 17 people were on the Bounty but only 16 heat signatures were detected. They now say 16 people were on board."


----------



## svHyLyte

wingNwing said:


> They were on passage from Canada to Florida, and they had left Canada before Sandy was even a tic on NHC's radar. They detoured WELL east of the storm track, not right off Hatteras as the article makes it appear ... but this is a BIG storm.


Ah... Well... Actually not. They abandoned ship 90 miles southeast of Hatteras. The NDBC in the vicinity (34.561 N 72.631 W) was reporting 30.5' waves and NNE winds gusting at 64 knots.

We spent some time aboard that ship awhile back and it was a disaster. Planks and frames were rotted, seams were weeping, the timbers around all of the windows in the stern castle were rotted enough that I could push a knife-blade in to the hilt, etc. When I commented on this to the kid that was the watch captain he acknowledge all of the problems but said they didn't have the money to make all of the repairs needed and so focused on the engine, generator and pumps and "..never sail in a following sea".

My daughter wanted to spend a season sailing/studying aboard but we prohibited it. (Instead she and 9 other kids spent the season sailing a 52' Beneteau from St. Martin to Trini with two teacher/instructors).

Jeeze I hope they find all of the kids. Some are missing as I write.

The following was taken during our visit aboard:


----------



## KIVALO

You pushed a knife blade, to the hilt, into the wood on the HMS Bounty?



svHyLyte said:


> Ah... Well... Actually not. They abandoned ship 90 miles southeast of Hatteras. The NDBC in the vicinity (34.561 N 72.631 W) was reporting 30.5' waves and NNE winds gusting at 64 knots.
> 
> We spent some time aboard that ship awhile back and it was a disaster. Planks and frames were rotted, seams were weeping, *the timbers around all of the windows in the stern castle were rotted enough that I could push a knife-blade in to the hilt*, etc. When I commented on this to the kid that was the watch captain he acknowledge all of the problems but said they didn't have the money to make all of the repairs needed and so focused on the engine, generator and pumps and "..never sail in a following sea".
> 
> My daughter wanted to spend a season sailing/studying aboard but we prohibited it. (Instead she and 9 other kids spent the season sailing a 52' Beneteau from St. Martin to Trini with two teacher/instructors).
> 
> Jeeze I hope they find all of the kids. Some are missing as I write.
> 
> The following was taken during our visit aboard:


----------



## svHyLyte

KIVALO said:


> You pushed a knife blade, to the hilt, into the wood on the HMS Bounty?


Yes. We were in the stern castle and the windows were open. The sill plate was exposed and severely deteriorated. I carry a swiss army knife and was able to push the larger blade all the way onto the timber with almost no effort. (My wife got all bent out of shape about my doing that.)

FWIW...


----------



## billyruffn

smurphny said:


> It doesn't seem like 18' seas should have been too much for a boat of that size. Sounds like she opened up some seams and pumps couldn't keep up with it.


There's a big difference between 18 ft seas with a 15 second period and the 18 ft. seas you may find on the eastern side of the Gulf Stream (which is where they seem to be) with gale / trop storm force winds out of the north. An 18 foot wave with a really steep face (which is what happens when you have strong winds against a big current) can be a killer even in a boat this size -- first one stops forward progress, second one pushes the bow off the wind, third one and those following break over the ship. Not good.

Re. seams opening and pumps not being able to keep up....that's a reasonalbe guess. Big waves pushing an older wooden boat around will probably put some nasty forces on the hull / rig.

As for being in the wrong place at the wrong time....if he left Canada before the storm developed, the skipper would have faced some difficult choices. Remember that when the storm was over Jamacia half or more of the models forecast it to go NE into the Atlantic. It was only as the storm moved north that they shifted the track to the west and eventually decided it would take the left turn. If you're south of the Gulf Stream on the longitude of, say, Cape Cod, and facing a tropical storm moving north over the Bahamas, where 1/2 of the models say it's going east and half west, what do you do? Not an easy decision, eh?


----------



## billyruffn

wingNwing said:


> Oops, correction, they had already left Canada, they were in New London, CT a few days ago. That totally made sense, then, given Sandy's predicted impacts in NY and New England, that they'd be safer at sea than in port. They ssailed out due east to get well clear of the storm before continuing south. The Navy sent all their vessels out from Norfolk in advance of the storm for the same reason - sometimes you're safer away from the dock!


....in New London as recently as last Thursday.

see The Day - USS Mississippi on the Bounty | News from southeastern Connecticut

I think I'd have looked for a good anchorage in the upper reaches of Narragansett Bay....and put trust in the ground tackle. Going to sea in a naval ship, cruise ship, or merchant ship to avoid a storm is one thing, heading offshore in an old wooden boat (with rot problems as reported above) is something different.

Looks like he was trying to get by Hatteras reaching away from the storm center -- which is what you should do -- when he ran out of time and sea room. The Gulf Stream can as much of a threat in a storm as the shore line is.

Sad story.


----------



## turban10

How sad for those two missing. I hope they are found. I can't imagine bobing up and down in such seas wondering if you are going to be rescued.

Replica or not, the HMS Bounty was a amazing looking ship. It is a real shame to lose something so beautiful.


----------



## svHyLyte

svHyLyte said:


> ...
> 
> We spent some time aboard that ship awhile back and it was a disaster. Planks and frames were rotted, seams were weeping, the timbers around all of the windows in the stern castle were rotted enough that I could push a knife-blade in to the hilt, etc. When I commented on this to the kid that was the watch captain he acknowledge all of the problems but said they didn't have the money to make all of the repairs needed and so focused on the engine, generator and pumps and "..never sail in a following sea".


Subsequent to posting the foregoing, I learned from another subscriber that the ship had undergone a major re-fit following our visit and that many of the problems we observed were supposedly corrected. Evidently, however, it wasn't enough. Let us hope the two missing kids are found...


----------



## jimjazzdad

The two missing crew have been identified; one of them is the skipper. From CBC News:
"Three crew members were washed overboard as they tried to get to two covered life-rafts, said the U.S. Coast Guard. Only one of the three members made it to the life-raft and was among the 14 people hoisted onto helicopters.

Coast Guard officials said the two missing crew members - a man and a woman - are believed to be in cold water survival suits and life-jackets. He said the air search is being plotted based on wind direction and speed, and will be expanded.

Claudia McCann, whose husband Robin Walbridge is the captain of the Bounty, told CBC News her husband is one of the two missing crew members. CBC News has learned the other missing crew member is Claudene Christian.

HMS Bounty sank several hours after the evacuation."

2 missing as Hurricane Sandy sinks HMS Bounty - Nova Scotia - CBC News

Slim chances unfortunately...hope for a miracle.


----------



## PCP

Lets hope for that miracle.

Meanwhile did you guys know that we own the fact that boat has been arround since the late 60's to Marlon Brando?

*Though the ship was scheduled to be burned at the end of the film, Marlon Brando threatened to walk off the set, so MGM kept this vessel in service.*

HMS Bounty, Replica


----------



## SAILLOREN

Very sad how powerful the sea can be. Remember the Fantome?


----------



## Minnewaska

I just saw the track of the Bounty on SailWx. It doesn't look like it made much of an effort to get East of the storm. It sailed nearly due south from Long Island before turning West. Something very odd here.


----------



## ShoalFinder

I wonder if that was a conscious decision by the captain. The most dangerous stuff is on the east side of the eye. Granted, there's no great place to be in a hurricane and the left side of the eye isn't a whole lot better until a good chunk of the storm is over land. 

Perhaps they thought the storm track would carry farther East than it actually did and he was trying to keep options open for making port by staying West of the storm. It might have been too late once the captain realized the storm had turned West, at which point he simply couldn't point East due to headwinds.

Just my .02 Hate to second guess the man who does this for a living and has the lives of others in his charge.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Thinking about it, had the captain run East to dodge the hurricane he would have had fewer options all the way around. If the storm had hooked north then east, he'd have had to run to the Azores for a safe harbor. I don't know how fast the Bounty could go, but if the captain thought that was the best option let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he thought of it and then chose not to for good reason.

Going South to the west of the storm gives him the option of ports, but in his case the storm caught him with nothing but NC shoals on the lee. Can't turn north due to the northerly headwind. Can't turn east because storm intensity increases in that direction. Nowhere to go at that point because the storm is sitting where he needs to go for deep water. He has to go South and ride the northerly wind looking for a place to hide or wait for the storm to pass. 

Sounds like the captain did what he could and the vessel just couldn't get him there.


----------



## JulieMor

Since we can't interview the captain, maybe ever, we only have speculation. But one thing has been nagging me: The decision to head out to sea to save the boat (if that was the reason to leave port) meant someone considered the boat more valuable than human life. I can understand military vessels, which are constantly being maintained and have a well-trained, professional crew aboard. History shows the odds are substantially in their favor. But anything else, I just don't get.

Again and again we see people making decisions that put the lives of others in danger. There was another option, stay in port and hope for the best. No loss of human life, guaranteed. Now two are probably gone.


----------



## wingNwing

ShoalFinder said:


> Just my .02 Hate to second guess the man who does this for a living and has the lives of others in his charge.


Shoalfinder, a note of appreciation for your respectful attitude. We can analyze the event dispassionatelyand try to learn; that seems appropriate. Some seem intent on placing "blame" - appreciate that you are not one of them. We spent 3 days on the ship volunteering with them for their education mission when they were in Annapolis, and met many of the crew and the skipper. He's one of the two missing.


----------



## PCP

wingNwing said:


> ... We can analyze the event dispassionatelyand try to learn; that seems appropriate. Some seem intent on placing "blame" - appreciate that you are not one of them. ...


I don't know if the Captain is to blame or if he had pressure to sail away but that boat is a replica of a XVIII century boat that obviously is not as seaworthy as a modern boat. It also demands an high skilled big and specialized crew to be sailed. It was pointed out here that the boat was old (1961) and even if it was maintained its condition left to be desired (for lack of funding).

It is obviously a ship to be sailed in fair weather. Taking the boat out, or not looking for shelter, with stormy conditions seems to me a questionable decision even if the idea was to dodge the worst part of it. That boat should not be there.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ShoalFinder

wingNwing said:


> Shoalfinder, a note of appreciation for your respectful attitude. We can analyze the event dispassionately and try to learn; that seems appropriate. Some seem intent on placing "blame" - appreciate that you are not one of them. We spent 3 days on the ship volunteering with them for their education mission when they were in Annapolis, and met many of the crew and the skipper. He's one of the two missing.


I did read where the skipper is one of two missing. While tragic, I can't help but believe that were it anyone else missing the skipper could not live with himself. I know I couldn't and I believe mose of us feel similarly. Perhaps this indicates he was the last off the ship after making sure all souls had made it onto the lifeboats. Costa Concordia, take note...

As to the timing to take the ship out, my understaning is they were heading back here to St. Pete trying to make a November 9 deadline. For a ship of this speed, I have to believe they set sail long before anyone knew what track the storm was going to take. Working ships are on schedules, and while you make every effort to be safe you can't sit idle just because there is a storm in the Atlantic. The reality is that there was no reason to take this storm very seriously until it had gotten past Cuba. Then it merged with another storm, and by time all this had happened the Bounty was already put to sea.

There are endless opinions that will be shared, but there is only one captain and we have to believe he made all the best decisions he could until he ran out of options.


----------



## smurphny

If this ship was in a state of ill repair, it was he captain's responsibility to refuse to risk the lives of others in such a vessel...period. Hope the next pilot that flies the 737 you're aboard refuses to fly it if he knows something is unsafe. If this thing was a rot-bucket, bringing trusting kids aboard was unconscionable.


----------



## ShoalFinder

That's a very good point. If the crew were indeed kids then there's really no possible way to defend going to sea. From the reports I've read, it has not been mentioned that the crew were kids. I have read that this ship is often used for that, but my understanding is that this ship was just pulled from drydock for repairs. I was under the impression that a professional crew was bringing her to St. Pete


If this were professional crew, they could have refused to sail unless they were in agreement they had a sound plan. Professional crew aren't conscripts.

If these were kids, then I have to wonder why the parents allowed them to go. That's a very different scenario.


----------



## NCC320

A couple of other things to consider.

This boat was built as a movie prop. It is likely that the investors didn't build the boat to the same standards as a real sea-going ship...the original, even though is was built in another day, was likely more seaworthy. It was built in 1962 of wood, which also means that if it didn't get regular, expensive, and intensive upkeep, it was likely not all that seaworthy at this time vs. when it was newer.

If this boat was in CT/NY on Thursday, the storm was already on it's way. Given the storm size, which has been highly advertised, there was no way that the boat wasn't going to experience storm conditions, and possible hurricane conditions.

The boat had a lot of freeboard, and it is possible that while they may have intended to stay offshore of Cape Hatteras, the winds of the approaching hurricane would have been from east initially and they may have been gradually loosing ground from intended track due to excessive leeway, especially if engines weren't sufficiently powerful.

When you are in bad storms, because of way the waves and wind are attacking the vessel, it is often that you have to pick a course and speed other than intended to try to minimize the boat and crew from the pounding of the storm. Such change from intended course would be all the more important once the boat began to give evidence of taking on water.

90 miles off Cape Hatteras isn't that far off shore. Cape Hatteras isn't known as the Graveyard of the Atlantic for nothing.


----------



## Minnewaska

ShoalFinder said:


> ...For a ship of this speed, I have to believe they set sail long before anyone knew what track the storm was going to take.....


I think this is exactly the rub. If I'm not mistaken, they left CT last Thursday? It was absolutely clear that this storm was coming up to the Northeast by then. If anything, it was less clear exactly where along the coast it would land, making the decision to head out even more dangerous, as one wouldn't really know where to go to avoid it.


----------



## PCP

*Speaking to BBC Radio 4's PM programme, Lt Kevin Sullivan, command centre chief for the North Carolina coastguard, said the crew were able to keep the ship afloat for most of the night before deciding to abandon ship in the early hours of the morning.

"Our understanding is that as [the crew] were preparing to get into the life rafts the boat suddenly capsized on them," he said. "They had to swim clear of the boat and try to get in the life rafts from there."

He said it appeared two crew members had not made it into the life rafts. The 14 who did were later picked up by coastguard helicopters and suffered only minor injures.*

Here you can see a movie:

BBC News - HMS Bounty abandoned amid Hurricane Sandy

Apparently it is not the first time that they take the ship to really bad weather. This was taken in 2010:


----------



## JulieMor

I saw a Coast Guard rescue video that was said to be one of those rescued. The person in the basket was wearing a survival suit. Reports are the two missing were also wearing survival suits. 

Is it normal for a vessel to carry survival suits for all the crew? I don't know that was the case but, three for three?

Hats off to the pararescuers. Seeing the survivor hoisted up in the basket with the pararescuer still in the water, then seeing him disappear in the waves... I hope the people they rescued appreciate them risking their lives to save them.


----------



## LinekinBayCD

According to the workboat.com website the boat was just relaunched at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard 10/18/12 (posted 10/22/12) after some routine maintenance. There is a video of the launch and some video of the Bounty at sea in some heavy weather. Seems like they got pretty far south quick. They have been talking about Sandy for quite awhile. Something does not make sense.

HMS Bounty launched at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard - WorkBoat.com


----------



## Minnewaska

LinekinBayCD said:


> ...... Seems like they got pretty far south quick.


With two 375hp diesel engines, I suspect she could move right along. Albeit, not as fast as a storm.


----------



## LinekinBayCD

Would not be surprised if "get to itis" did not play a part in the decision making.


----------



## smurphny

ShoalFinder said:


> That's a very good point. If the crew were indeed kids then there's really no possible way to defend going to sea. From the reports I've read, it has not been mentioned that the crew were kids. I have read that this ship is often used for that, but my understanding is that this ship was just pulled from drydock for repairs. I was under the impression that a professional crew was bringing her to St. Pete
> 
> If this were professional crew, they could have refused to sail unless they were in agreement they had a sound plan. Professional crew aren't conscripts.
> 
> If these were kids, then I have to wonder why the parents allowed them to go. That's a very different scenario.


Thought I read either in news blurbs or in this thread that some students were aboard. I certainly HOPE there were none.


----------



## Barquito

> According to the workboat.com website the boat was just relaunched at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard 10/22/12 after some routine maintenance. There is a video of the launch and some *video of the Bounty at sea in some heavy weather*. Seems like they got pretty far south quick. They have been talking about Sandy for quite awhile. Something does not make sense.
> 
> HMS Bounty launched at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard - WorkBoat.com


Looks like in the video from an earlier sail they were heeling over to 45 degrees or so. Do these ships rely on form stability more than a keeled sailboat? Just wondering if they would have been getting worried with heeling over that much.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> That boat should not be there.


Yup, it's as simple as that...



> *Picton Castle captain questions Bounty being at sea during storm*
> 
> October 29, 2012 - 11:08am
> 
> BRIDGEWATER - The captain of the Picton Castle says he cannot understand why The Bounty was at sea when a massive hurricane was forecast to hit.
> 
> Indeed, Dan Moreland postponed leaving Lunenburg more than a week ago precisely because of Hurricane Sandy.
> 
> "It was an easy decision to make. It's black and white, there are no nuances with this. It's a huge system and that made the decision very simple," he said.
> 
> Moreland said he has known Robin Walbridge , the long-time captain of The Bounty, for years and he is an experienced seaman.
> 
> But Moreland said he was shocked Walbridge decided to sail given the forecast.
> 
> "Yes, I have to say yes, I can't say anything else. When I first heard The Bounty was out there I thought, 'You've got to be kidding,' " Moreland said.
> 
> He said there was very good information on the storm well in advance.
> 
> "I don't understand this one at all," Moreland said. "This is a huge system, there is no way of avoiding this, there's no dodging and weaving around it."
> 
> He said he is sorry two crew members are missing.
> 
> Moreland understands the agony of losing a crew member. Laura Gainey, a deckhand aboard Picton Castle, was swept overboard during rough seas in December 2006 and her body was never recovered.
> 
> In Feburary 2010, the Lunenburg-based Concordia sank in a storm off the coast of Brazil. All 64 students and staff were rescued after spending 40 hours in life rafts.
> 
> Moreland said The Bounty's crew will be facing horrendous conditions in life rafts right now, and that rescuing them by air is a "very desperate measure," something he described as "a last possible option."
> 
> At this time, 14 people were being airlifted from the scene and he said conditions would be rough. "They'll be whopped around and feeling every wave."
> 
> Moreland expects The Bounty's sinking to rightly come under intense scrutiny.
> 
> "When you lose a ship there are some pretty obvious questions out of this. It's pretty horrible and the big question is, the decision to go."
> 
> Picton Castle captain questions Bounty being at sea during storm | The Chronicle Herald


----------



## JulieMor

Barquito said:


> Looks like in the video from an earlier sail they were heeling over to 45 degrees or so.


That gave me a knot in the pit of my stomach. At one point it looked like they buried the rail, not an easy thing to do with that freeboard.


----------



## PCP

Barquito said:


> Looks like in the video from an earlier sail they were heeling over to 45 degrees or so. Do these ships rely on form stability more than a keeled sailboat? Just wondering if they would have been getting worried with heeling over that much.


I have read that the plans of the original boat were used to make the replica. If it is the case sailing this boat has little in common with sailing a modern big yacht, especially in bad weather: it is more dangerous,very tricky and demands masters of a lost art. As modern boats are not sailed the same way, and I mean in bad weather, sailing experience can be of little help if it is not experience to sail these kind of boats.

Regarding your question, this boat, contrary to a modern big yacht, will not right itself up from a knock down. I don't now what is the AVS (the point of no return) but I suspect it should be between 65 and 70º.

This means that the usual normal tactic on a yacht to carry storm sails to have the boat controlled and "tied" to a side is a tricky one on these boats: On a modern yacht, a violent gust will just heel the boat violently and then the boat will return to its feet. Not on one of those. That means in this case a non return capsize and a lost boat.

This means a completely different approach: while on a modern sailboat the wind on its sails will prevent it to roll, on an old tall ships roll is its worst enemy because they can carry little sail in bad weather (or no sail at all) and they can get in synchronicity with the waves, increasing that roll till be over the AVS point.

On these boats it is essential to have the boat steady and prevent rolling to the point were a stiff boat can be dangerous (it will roll more). Old salts on these boats were known to hoist weight to the masts to reduce roll. That evidently cause another problem because diminishes the AVS and the non return point.

Tricky, has I have said and a very specialized kind of sailing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

The original square-riggers were either workboats like whalers or men-o-war. They were loaded to the gills with ballast. They had extra chain, rope, cannon, powder, shot, sails, huge supplies of water, food, and supplies, all stuffed as low as possible and balanced carefully to trim the ship so it would sail well. They had to carry supplies for every contingency since they were likely to be out for many months at a time. Unloaded, they are pretty obviously top-heavy. A couple of 2000# diesels is some weight but nothing compared to a fully loaded, fully manned 17th century square-rigger. These boats also made tons of leeway. Going up on a lee shore was a common occurrence. With no keel to speak of, captains had to give land masses much more room than boats of today. This boat may not have had much control over how far they were from shore.


----------



## jimjazzdad

Coast Guard just announced that they have recovered another survivor from the HMS Bounty. No details on the condition or identity of the survivor yet. Keep praying for the second part of the miracle!


----------



## scottbr

1 recovered 1 still missing.... Claudene was the one quoted by her mother in the early report from CBC that she had phoned home "just in case something happened"

PORTSMOUTH, Va. - The Coast Guard recovered the body of a woman and continues to search for a man missing in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 90 miles southeast of Hatteras, N.C., Monday.

Recovered was:

•Claudene Christian, 42
Missing is:

•Robin Walbridge, 63
A crew aboard an MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter from Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City, N.C., located Christian who was unresponsive, hoisted her into the helicopter and took her to Albemarle Hospital in Elizabeth City.

UPDATE: Coast Guard rescues 14, recovers 1, continues search for 1 from HMS Bounty


----------



## jimjazzdad

Oh, so sad. RIP Claudine. Condolences to her family and friends...


----------



## jimjazzdad

I just read a very sweet article about Claudene Christian, the deceased crew member from the Bounty. It turns out she was the great great great great great granddaughter of Fletcher Christian, the mate of the original Bounty...
Bounty victim was mutineer
How eerie is that?


----------



## SailorMikeS

Very sad. Talked to a couple of the crew at Annapolis City Dock when Bounty was here this past summer.

Mike


----------



## jimjazzdad

This gets weirder and weirder. The link I posted to the story about Claudene Christian being a direct descendant of the mate of the original Bounty is no longer working. Instead, the Halifax Chronicle Herald reports:
UPDATED 9:09 p.m.

"Bounty crew member Claudene Christian is in critical condition in an Elizabeth City, N.C., hospital after being found by the U.S. Coast Guard on Monday evening.

An earlier report said Christian, 42, had died.

"She was unresponsive when we located her," coast guard Petty Officer 1st Class Brandon Hill said in an interview around 7:15 p.m. Atlantic time.

Hill said he did not have details as to whether Christian was wearing a survival suit or a life-jacket, adding it was too soon to know all the details.

A helicopter crew searching the waters located Christian, but were still scouring the seas for Robin Walbridge, the captain of the HMS Bounty, which sank earlier Monday." 

This must be awful for her family...reported dead then not. I know we are all praying for her recovery...


----------



## MedSailor

jimjazzdad said:


> "HMS Bounty now sunk according to US coast guard. 5 crew hoisted from life rafts so far. Lifts continue. #cbcns
> by PhonseJessome via twitter on October-29-12 at 9:13:41 AM


Oh man this is awful! Where is the "I don't like" button when you need it.

As a recovering wooden boat owner this story gives me chills. I've been in a storm and cracked a garboard and started taking on water before. Almost lost the boat. I've also had my boat in a recently refitted condition and seen the bilge pumps working overtime just because the planks were "working". I'm going to go and kiss my overly thick fiberglass hull next time I'm aboard.

Thoughts and prayers go out to those who are lost and missing.

MedSailor


----------



## SloopJonB

wingNwing said:


> The Navy sent all their vessels out from Norfolk in advance of the storm for the same reason - sometimes you're safer away from the dock!


In a square rigger? I don't think so. The Bounty wasn't exactly a guided missile cruiser, it was a 50 year old movie prop.


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, it's as simple as that...


Man, when the captain of the Picton Castle criticizes your seamanship, that's GOTTA hurt.


----------



## mdbee

Update, she didn't make it.

Bounty crew member dies, hospital official confirms | The Chronicle Herald



jimjazzdad said:


> This gets weirder and weirder. The link I posted to the story about Claudene Christian being a direct descendant of the mate of the original Bounty is no longer working. Instead, the Halifax Chronicle Herald reports:
> UPDATED 9:09 p.m.
> 
> "Bounty crew member Claudene Christian is in critical condition in an Elizabeth City, N.C., hospital after being found by the U.S. Coast Guard on Monday evening.
> 
> An earlier report said Christian, 42, had died.
> 
> "She was unresponsive when we located her," coast guard Petty Officer 1st Class Brandon Hill said in an interview around 7:15 p.m. Atlantic time.
> 
> Hill said he did not have details as to whether Christian was wearing a survival suit or a life-jacket, adding it was too soon to know all the details.
> 
> A helicopter crew searching the waters located Christian, but were still scouring the seas for Robin Walbridge, the captain of the HMS Bounty, which sank earlier Monday."
> 
> This must be awful for her family...reported dead then not. I know we are all praying for her recovery...


----------



## LoboPops

The last I had seen earlier was that Ms. Christian had been found in a survival suit but was unresponsive... I took that to mean to wait and there would be further information since that water is going to be cold and sometimes surprising recoveries occur. I'm praying for the best.


----------



## MedSailor

LoboPops said:


> The last I had seen earlier was that Ms. Christian had been found in a survival suit but was unresponsive... I took that to mean to wait and there would be further information since that water is going to be cold and sometimes surprising recoveries occur. I'm praying for the best.


Yes, there is a saying in Emergency Medicine, "Nobody is dead until they are WARM and dead." It's likely they resuscitated her and managed to get her heart working for a while before resuscitation efforts were terminated.

I mention this because one of us might be at the scene of a cold water drowning where help is not immediately available (ie on our boats). If the drowned person is found, continue trying to get definitive help (get them to a hospital) and if the actually are pulse-less, keep them as cold as possible. People have been resuscitated hours after drowning in cold water.

Another update: There were no children aboard. From the Chronicle link above:
_Simonin said the crew members are from all over the U.S. and range in age from 20 to 64. They are trained, experienced and paid sailors, she said. Most of the crew members were in Nova Scotia when the ship visited during this summer's tall ships festival, she added._

MedSailor


----------



## HighFly_27

I just read on AOL, that the CPT Robin Wallbridge is missing, one dead (42 YO, C. Christian), appears that everyone else has been saved. 

I read that they lost their diesels and taking on water. I understand, when they lost the diesels they were doomed. 

I ask this and very green to sailing.... would it have been better to put into port when the force of the hurricane was known ? I'm guessing that his crew was not that experienced from a guess standpoint. If that was the case, (fair/ poor crew exp.) I would have been very concerned... with (continued) sailing into very bad weather. I did read ..that a boat can have a better chance at sea then at port to survive a bad storm. I did not get that point at all; wondered if this is (better chance to survive storm) is referenced to large ships like the H.M.S Bounty and the like ? ! ?

I'm Not 2nd guessing anyone, just asking a question to gain useful information (green sailor) for my use in the future.


----------



## saltfree

HighFly_27 said:


> I just read on AOL, that the CPT Robin Wallbridge is missing, one dead (42 YO, C. Christian), appears that everyone else has been saved.
> 
> I read that they lost their diesels and taking on water. I understand, when they lost the diesels they were doomed.
> 
> I ask this and very green to sailing.... would it have been better to put into port when the force of the hurricane was known ? ...
> 
> I'm Not 2nd guessing anyone, just asking a question to gain useful information (green sailor) for my use in the future.


Go back to page 1 of this thread and read along. Most of your questions have already been questioned...


----------



## Minnewaska

Very sad. From the read of the Capt's last email in the post #66 news link, he was attempting to squeeze between the storm and land and make a run for it. That synches with the boat's track. He was not trying to get East of the storm and I've seen an article that fully understood the conditions of the impending hurricane on the day it departed CT.

It will be a learning experience to understand why they made such a decision. Was their schedule demanding? Were they building complacency from past heavy weather? And what caused the boat to take on water. Was it battered by heavy seas or did old faulty timber just fail? We may never know. With at least one fatality, the legal exposure to the organization and it's officers may be severe and keep details off the radar.

My deepest sympathy to the families of the lost crew.


----------



## LoboPops

Where she went down, she will have lots of company. I can't think of too many captains that would be complacent about sailing off the North Carolina Banks! They have a well-earned reputation (especially for that type of ship.)


----------



## PCP

Some more information about stability on tall ship safety that show how crazy were those heeling degrees on this movie:






In fact I was right in assuming 60º has a desperate angle, in fact it is even less for most tall ships (between 50 and 60º) and that corresponds to the downloading angle, that in modern sailing boats is normally near or over AVS (non return point). On this big animals water starts to enter the ship much sooner compromising stability.

There were made some serious studies about tall ships stability and the conclusions were that the heeling sailing safe heel angle is as little as 24º of heel and over 30º is really dangerous and can lead quickly to a downloading condition.



















As I have said before the knowledge to sail one of these ships is a very particular one and a sailor used to modern boats, even a professional one will not understand the risks and procedures to take on bad weather with one of these boats.

Yes , they can take bad weather and the conditions that were described that lead to the sinking of the Bounty does not seem that severe (there was cases of tall ships surviving 75k winds) but that implies a very sound boat with a professional knowledgeable crew adapting proper very limited storm strategies.

It is worth to point out that most of those tall ships are steel boats made and designed in the last years of the XIX century, first years of the XX century and are not boats designed according with XVIII centuries designs.

To aggravate the situation it seems that on this boat only the Captain had knowledge of this type of boat. The crew was paid but almost all recruited t recently on Nova Scotia and I doubt they were specialized sailors.

So guys, take care in what tall ship you put your kids sailing: Bigger on this case does not mean necessarily safer.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## peterconway

As a volunteer crew member on different boats, I make it a point to learn on each trip. My last trip in September was aboard s/v Windward. It's captain made the decision to turn around, and find a safe place to anchor. Though the boat could have weathered the storm, we found shelter. What a great lesson learned.


----------



## smurphny

Nice post Paulo. Once the bilge is full of sloshing water, moving the center of effort around uncontrollably, these hulls must become terribly unstable and go over rapidly with little warning.

http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/chi-pod-pix/


----------



## ShoalFinder

A good read for anyone who has not yet, "Voyage of the Destroyer" by Joshua Slocum. 
The story gives very real insight into what it takes to keep a ship afloat that does not want to be.


----------



## TSteele65

Regardless of the condition of the boat, it's suitability for the conditions, etc., the initial decision to put to sea on Thursday, when the track, breadth and strength of the storm was well known, was the biggest mistake. 

Putting to sea during a hurricane is sometimes yadda yadda yadda, but saving the boat doesn't appear to have been the motivating factor in this case.


----------



## smurphny

So why in the world would they have set out to sea in the face of a hurricane, something none of us with any common sense would even consider? Maybe a false sense of invincibility, coerced to keep a schedule, incompetence, a plan to collect insurance gone awfully awry? What a sad, sad, needless, and tragic story.


----------



## casey1999

Looks like the mast broke off about 1/2 way up. What would have caused that? Seems the ship had more problems than just taking on water.


----------



## sailingmum

Busting myth of when to step into liferaft. Worthwhile read. Fromgcaptain
Hurricane Survival - No Place for Absolutes | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## Minnewaska

Have there been any interviews of the crew yet?


----------



## SloopJonB

casey1999 said:


> Looks like the mast broke off about 1/2 way up. What would have caused that?


Hurricanes do that sort of thing - always have.


----------



## casey1999

SloopJonB said:


> Hurricanes do that sort of thing - always have.


Yea but during the rescue and before the wind reports were not of huricane strength or anywhere near to it. So must not have been the cane that broke em.

"Officials with the U.S. Coast Guard said the winds in the area are sustained in the 75 km/h range."

That is 47 mph, well below cane strength and a bare pole mast should not break.


----------



## SloopJonB

sailingmum said:


> Busting myth of when to step into liferaft. Worthwhile read. Fromgcaptain
> Hurricane Survival - No Place for Absolutes | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


I think he is taking the old advice too literally - I think it has always simply meant "don't leave a boat that isn't actually sinking". This was observed more than once in the Fastnet disaster where abandoned boats were found floating days later. A liferaft is a last resort, not an "option" so to speak. Many people have died merely trying to transfer to a liferaft.

Obviously if a CG chopper is overhead and swimmers like the quoted one are in the water, you get off as they instruct, floating or sinking.

Only a fool would act contrary to their instructions - they know a hell of lot more about critical situations than any (or at least most) of us.


----------



## casey1999

SloopJonB said:


> I think he is taking the old advice too literally - I think it has always simply meant "don't leave a boat that isn't actually sinking". This was observed more than once in the Fastnet disaster where abandoned boats were found floating days later. A liferaft is a last resort, not an "option" so to speak. Many people have died merely trying to transfer to a liferaft.
> 
> Obviously if a CG chopper is overhead and swimmers like the quoted one are in the water, you get off as they instruct, floating or sinking.
> 
> Only a fool would act contrary to their instructions - they know a hell of lot more about critical situations than any (or at least most) of us.


I think he is saying sometimes the boat is stronger than the crew and you should get off. Just because a boat is found floating does not mean the crew could have survived on the boat. A bad knock down could kill you and the boat would be fine.


----------



## smurphny

I wonder if it sank or is floating half submerged and will go up on a beach somewhere. The pictures look like it's floating on its side.


----------



## Barquito

> A bad knock down could kill you and the boat would be fine.


I think you would be more likely to get pots and pans on your head in a knock down, but would be more likely to die in a liferaft (in big breaking seas). Unless something really heavy gets loose in the cabin, I would imagine you would make it.


----------



## LauderBoy

Getting off isn't always a safe and easy option. There's been plenty of rescues that've ended up nearly killing the people being rescued. I can think of 2 in the recent year. S/V Triumph were the captain nearly drowned and the Liahona which got crushed by the bulb of the container ship as it came along side them.

The example given in the article of Marine Flower II is a pretty poor counter example too. Why on Earth would someone sail a 64ft ketch if they were going to possibly end up single handling it?


----------



## casey1999

Barquito said:


> I think you would be more likely to get pots and pans on your head in a knock down, but would be more likely to die in a liferaft (in big breaking seas). Unless something really heavy gets loose in the cabin, I would imagine you would make it.


Just getting thrown from one side of the boat to the other in a knock down could kill you, wearing a motorcycle helment during storm conditions might help.


----------



## casey1999

LauderBoy said:


> The example given in the article of Marine Flower II is a pretty poor counter example too. Why on Earth would someone sail a 64ft ketch if they were going to possibly end up single handling it?


I don't think the owner ever planned to single hand it. Here is the rescue vid if you have never seen it. Pretty amazing all were safe including the baby:
marine flower 2 rescue video - Bing Videos

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...4A4&first=0&qpvt=marine+flower+2+rescue+video


----------



## LauderBoy

casey1999 said:


> I don't think the owner ever planned to single hand it.


Eh, we're thread drifting but sometimes a wife isn't crew, she's a passenger. Depends on your wife(or husband if you're a female sailor). And your 13 year old daughter better be Laura Dekker if you really expect her to crew.

I can totally understand why people ditch floating boats though. I wouldn't want to experience this in storm conditions:


----------



## casey1999

LauderBoy said:


> Eh, we're thread drifting but sometimes a wife isn't crew, she's a passenger. Depends on your wife(or husband if you're a female sailor). And your 13 year old daughter better be Laura Dekker if you really expect her to crew.
> 
> I can totally understand why people ditch floating boats though. I wouldn't want to experience this in storm conditions:


There are many many similar size yachts and even larger yachts circumnavigating the world at any one time with only a family aboard.

I once sailed with a man whom owned an 85 foot yacht and had sailed the world for 20 years with his wife and 3 kids whom were between 2 and 10 years old when his journey started. I was aboard during one storm in the Tasman ses where we had sustained winds of over 80 knots for two days and seas of over 60 feet. The family was fine and would have been fine without me or the other crew aboard. After talking to this person 20 years after this storm, I asked what was the worst storm you had been in- he said it was that one. Most people sail years and never have winds more than sustained 40 knots.

For the most part, cruising sailing is pretty easy, and a 13 year old should have no problem handling all the task involved if properly instructed.


----------



## miatapaul

I can say I am truly saddened by this. I was on the boat a year or two ago, and thought the crew was great. They were friendly and after talking to one of them for a while the let me go into the "non public" areas. It was interesting and I did not see any rotted wood, but they said it had just had a major refit and I would not know what to look for if it was neatly painted over as I have never owned a wood boat. The crew while a bit odd and "hippie-sh" bit were a hoot to spend a few hours with. I have followed the boat on Facebook since.

I am confident the captain did what he thought was best for the crew and boat at the time. It is unfortunate it did not turn out better.


----------



## smurphny

casey1999 said:


> Just getting thrown from one side of the boat to the other in a knock down could kill you, wearing a motorcycle helment during storm conditions might help.


Yes, it may seem ridiculous to some to wear a helmet on a sailboat but IMO it is a very good idea. Getting clocked by the boom, a flailing shackle, getting thrown off your feet and flung across the cabin--all these can be deadly. I keep my kayak helmet on board and use it when it's rough. If it doesn't look yachtie enough....oh well Ho Hum.


----------



## casey1999

smurphny said:


> Yes, it may seem ridiculous to some to wear a helmet on a sailboat but IMO it is a very good idea. Getting clocked by the boom, a flailing shackle, getting thrown off your feet and flung across the cabin--all these can be deadly. I keep my kayak helmet on board and use it when it's rough. If it doesn't look yachtie enough....oh well Ho Hum.


Agree, very good idea. I don't care what the heck I look like when sailing. A climbing helment might work too.


----------



## smurphny

Even a bike helmet would work although the brim might get in the way. I like the kayak helmet because it also has a nose clip attached so if the boat capsizes I won't get water up my nose:laugher


----------



## saltfree

Though I can't imagine how there could possibly have been a good reason for the Bounty to have left port in the first place, one of the main points of that Rescue Swimmer's article seems to have been missed here:

Wait until the facts come out before deciding who made which wrong decision and why. You weren't there.


----------



## sailingmum

It's important to wait and hear the report. We do know a few facts - the departure date and place & the weather report. I was anchored in a hurricane whole just ouside ELizabeth City when I heard the coast guard pan pan at 2am, asking ships to keep a lookout for HMS Bounty, and last location was 90 miles SE of Hatteras. I remember thinking - There are no ships THERE. I then went online to see if I could discover where they left from - I found their schedule. Assuming they kept it, they left from New London and next schedule was Fla for beginning of November showcase. 
I know that if I had been crew, I would have jumped ship before it left port. In a lifetime of sailing, I have only had to do this once. If they wanted to go out to sea and ride out the storm, I still wouldn't have left. 
One of the most destructive things is a schedule. One fact we were given was the Captain was skirting the storm and his destination was Florida. Schedules damage and kill. A schedule is never worth it.


----------



## Barquito

Still a bit of thread drift: I agree wearing a helmet would be a good idea in an ultimate storm. And yes, a knockdown can kill you dead (I understand Wingnuts skipper and crew were probably knocked out in their capsize in the Chi/Mac race). However, if I had a short tether to a jackline in the cockpit, or was riding it out in the cabin, I'm not sure I would want to try to climb into a liferaft from a functioning boat. Keep in mind, I have absolutely no experience in anything like these conditions, so I reserve the right to change my mind completely if I find myself in such conditions.


----------



## zeehag

ok...bounty sailed. bounty sank. bounty isnt coming back from the dead. ever. 
she was not inside hurrycame sandy, but NEXT to it . and between hurrycame and frontal system coming from west to east-- weird but i can see the tactic--wouldnt sail it,, but i can see it----
RIP BOUNTY AND CAPT ROBIN AND CLAUDENE. 
may others learn from the problems encountered on the fatal trip.

bounty website and bounty fb pages offered much info. 

more people should have read those pages.


----------



## skygazer

> BRIDGEWATER - The captain of the Picton Castle says he cannot understand why The Bounty was at sea when a massive hurricane was forecast to hit..... .....He said there was very good information on the storm well in advance.





SloopJonB said:


> Man, when the captain of the Picton Castle criticizes your seamanship, that's GOTTA hurt.


I still don't feel that I know what information the captain of Bounty had on hand. While many of you live in the city and have a constant flow of information, I rely on a tiny battery operated weather radio when away from home.

The captain of the Picton Castle was in Canada (Nova Scotia). I don't know how it works, but I assume in Canada they rely on the Canadian model for their weather information, just as our services rely on our model. The Canadian model was the first model out there to have what became Sandy coming up to the mid-Atlantic US coast. By 10/21/12 the Canadian model already had two runs showing the storm just off our coast. The ECMWF picked up on it next. So it may have been old news in Nova Scotia, but the GFS only began to pick up on it Wed in the ensembles, some of which still had the out to sea track.

I checked back and found that the first *warning* issued by the NHC for the CONUS was Thursday morning at 11 AM, when they issued a tropical storm warning for SE Florida. On Wed. they had issued a tropical storm watch for the same area.

I won't hold my breath waiting for crew interviews. Lawyers generally advise not to make statements to anyone, it could muddy the waters later if it comes to legal proceedings.


----------



## zeehag

i would think ships radios and other commercial equipment they had worked fine. info is on bounty website and fb pages. 

is available for all to read.
more folks should have read these pages.


----------



## PCP

zeehag said:


> i would think ships radios and other commercial equipment they had worked fine. info is on bounty website and fb pages.
> 
> is available for all to read.
> more folks should have read these pages.


Hi Zeehag

You mean this:

UPDATED NEWS!!!!!!!! We received a distress call for Bounty at 1830 Sunday evening October 28th *that the Ship lost power and the pumps were unable to keep up with the dewatering.* At that time we immediately contacted the USCG for assistance. A C130 was sent to there position approximately 90 miles SE of Cape Hatteras. Sunday morning approximately 0400, the Captain ordered all hands to abandon ship. There were 16 Crew on board. The USCG dispatched helicopters to rescue the brave crew. At this time, 14 of the 16 crew members have been safely returned to land and are in good health. We are saddened to report that there is still one crew member missing and one crew member that did not make it. Our hearts and prayers go out to the family of the crew member that is no longer with us. The USCG is continuing their efforts to search for the missing crew member and we are praying for a safe return. Please keep them in your prayers! We will keep everyone informed as info becomes available.

I cannot find more

It you are referring to this the important is to know why the two engine stop working and why there was such a big ingress of water. The conditions were not that bad. I assume the ingress of water was the main problem that lead to non functioning engines and to a compromised stability and posterior capsize. Of course this is only a logical assumption, I can be wrong

Do you found anything about what lead to that big ingress of water?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

I'm a bit torn over the lesson to be learned here. Since we know the forecast when they left, have seen their track on SailWx and read the Capt last email, we virtually know what they were trying to do. Outrun the storm to the West, between it and land. I presume they were hoping to get south of it before it made its turn and can give them credit that they knew their boat speed should do it. That's giving them that benefit of the doubt.

It would be quick to think you should have a plan B and not put yourself in a position to be stuck between rocks and a hurricane. You should have a Plan B and landing a port in those seas, isn't a good one. The harbors could be impossible to enter or you could end up with the storm coming right over head when you get there.

However, they clearly lost hull integrity somehow. If that happened in the calmest weather and they swamped the diesels and generator, it would have ended the same way. So, in that regard, the hurricane didn't matter, unless it was the heavy seas that caused the damage. Presumably, the crew knows this answer. On the other hand, there may have been a shortcoming in the integrity of hull, in which case, they should not have been offshore.

It will be interesting to learn more, so that we can understand decision making a bit better.

For the conspiracy theorists, maybe the Captain left in a different vessel and they all scuttled the thing for the insurance.


----------



## JulieMor

Christian Science Monitor
By EMERY P. DALESIO and TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press / October 31, 2012

_Walbridge was a teacher, not only for the visitors to the Bounty, but for his crew, too. They were 11 men and five women, ranging in age from 20 to 66, and many of them weren't experienced on the sea. In a 2010 interview, the captain told a radio station that was how he liked it.

"We take people and we actually put them to work, just like a regular crew member. They will do everything the normal crew does, whether it is steering the boat, setting sails, hauling lines," he told radio station KFAI in Duluth, Minnesota.
...

The crew was tight-knit. One of the more experienced sailors, 66-year-old Doug Faunt, wrote on his blog in May that they seemed to be learning fast and getting along well.

"We had a new crew, most with no experience on BOUNTY, and we're a bit short-handed," Faunt wrote. "The crew has shaken down well."

The Coast Guard did not make the 14 survivors available to reporters, and the group collectively decided not to talk out of respect and sympathy for Christian and Walbridge, said Kimberly Hewitt of Baltimore, whose sister Jessica Hewitt was on board._


----------



## Minnewaska

JulieMor said:


> ..... the group collectively decided not to talk out of respect and sympathy for Christian and Walbridge.....


I guess that's plausible. Suspicious, but plausible.


----------



## MedSailor

My wooden boat leaked the most right after a refit. Wooden boat owners (read: crazy people) commonly called this time "taking up" as the planks "took up" water, swelled, and hopefully became tight again.

The torrent of water that rushed in between each and every plank after a refit of my boat was enough to make your heart turn cold. 2 months later though, she'd be tight as a drum when sitting in the slip. Water would come in again in a seaway which was "just the planks _working_".

I bet they were still "taking up" after their refit only a few days ago.

MedSailor

PS Wooden boat owners have too many euphemisms for water ingress through the hull. Now that I own a plastic boat, there is only one; "We're sinking!!!"


----------



## miatapaul

zeehag said:


> ok...bounty sailed. bounty sank. bounty isnt coming back from the dead. ever.
> she was not inside hurrycame sandy, but NEXT to it . and between hurrycame and frontal system coming from west to east-- weird but i can see the tactic--wouldnt sail it,, but i can see it----
> RIP BOUNTY AND CAPT ROBIN AND CLAUDENE.
> may others learn from the problems encountered on the fatal trip.
> 
> bounty website and bounty fb pages offered much info.
> 
> more people should have read those pages.


Actually the latest is that they plan to tow it back in. Apparently it is not sunk, just down to deck level in water. So it will be back again, though Robin is still thought to be lost.


----------



## PCP

MedSailor said:


> My wooden boat leaked the most right after a refit. Wooden boat owners (read: crazy people) commonly called this time "taking up" as the planks "took up" water, swelled, and hopefully became tight again.
> 
> The torrent of water that rushed in between each and every plank after a refit of my boat was enough to make your heart turn cold. 2 months later though, she'd be tight as a drum when sitting in the slip. Water would come in again in a seaway which was "just the planks _working_".
> 
> I bet they were still "taking up" after their refit only a few days ago.
> 
> MedSailor
> 
> PS Wooden boat owners have too many euphemisms for water ingress through the hull. Now that I own a plastic boat, there is only one; "We're sinking!!!"


I had a wooden boat, a 80 year's old one. Half of the hull was replaced and the rest I recovered. I used a lot of epoxy, one that was absorbed by the wood and turned hard, closing the wood cells and another type, similar to the one that is used on fiberglass boats to prevent osmosis. I had the boat for about 10 years and it was a dry boat. Not even on stormy conditions the boat made water. The only water inside entered when it rained by the mast.

Even if you don't chose modern materials to take care of a wooden boat and use traditional methods, yes it is natural the boat to make some water but really a small amount and one that can be easily taken away by an old pump and that would be an easy task with a modern one. However you are right on one point, if the boat is old and is not properly maintained it will "work" and it will make water,and that can be a lot of it. Old time sailors were well aware of that and were rightful afraid of sailing in old boats. Most of them were lost in storms just because they made more water than the one the crew could take away. It was normal to have in a storm the pumps working continually.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## rockDAWG

svHyLyte said:


> Ah... Well... Actually not. They abandoned ship 90 miles southeast of Hatteras. The NDBC in the vicinity (34.561 N 72.631 W) was reporting 30.5' waves and NNE winds gusting at 64 knots.
> 
> *We spent some time aboard that ship awhile back and it was a disaster. Planks and frames were rotted, seams were weeping, the timbers around all of the windows in the stern castle were rotted enough that I could push a knife-blade in to the hilt, etc. When I commented on this to the kid that was the watch captain he acknowledge all of the problems but said they didn't have the money to make all of the repairs needed and so focused on the engine, generator and pumps and "..never sail in a following sea".*
> 
> My daughter wanted to spend a season sailing/studying aboard but we prohibited it. (Instead she and 9 other kids spent the season sailing a 52' Beneteau from St. Martin to Trini with two teacher/instructors).
> 
> Jeeze I hope they find all of the kids. Some are missing as I write.
> 
> The following was taken during our visit aboard:


The Bold text above is really disturbing. Just how seaworthy is Bounty when she set sail last week. The boat was built as a PROP, just wonder if the construction of her hull is good enough for the sea.

Like many tragedies at seas, I don't like to point finger since I was not there. I respect those who made the decision and lost their lives, I hope they have a safe journey to Heaven.

For all us, one wishes that we all learn from each one of the tragedies especially at the time when we plan our next voyage. May be we all set sail by ourselves alone, sail our own boat, and throw away the SPOT and EPRIB, so others don't have to risk their lives to recuse us. So no live is lost except ours and no heated discussion on Sailnet.


----------



## smurphny

Anything is possible as far as why she was leaking. There is all sorts of stuff in the water that can stove in a plank. I've seen it happen more than once. A "deadhead" piling (and there are PLENTY of them) can sink you in a heartbeat. In a boat that large, finding a major leak could be next to impossible for a small, green crew. It could be that the leak was so severe that the CG could not even lower crash pumps in time. All the facts are not in yet but the one rock-solid rule the captain forgot when he decided to try to beat the storm was Murphy's Law. I know it's chic, in style nowadays to cut every bloody thing down to the last second but you just cannot cut things that close with any boat.


----------



## LinekinBayCD

This article from a Portland ME newspaper provides a little more info on the nature of the work done in Boothbay Harbor ME shortly before the voyage south. There was a major overhaul in 2007. The recent work sound pretty minor.

1 dead, 1 missing after Sandy sinks Maine-linked ship | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram


----------



## casey1999

For what it is worth:
HMS Bounty: the inside story of its final days (+video) - CSMonitor.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...daf8-21d8-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story_1.html


----------



## SloopJonB

JulieMor said:


> Christian Science Monitor
> 
> "We had a new crew, most with no experience on BOUNTY, and we're a bit short-handed," Faunt wrote. "The crew has shaken down well."


Great - take on an undersized and green crew on a 50 year old movie prop, head for, and try to sail around a hurricane.


----------



## Ninefingers

SloopJonB said:


> Great - take on an undersized and green crew on a 50 year old movie prop, head for, and try to sail around a hurricane.


Why did they try to sail around the hurricane? We're they actually sailing or under motor? How fast does that ship motor btw? Or sail?


----------



## Brent Swain

We have learned a lot about boat building since the time of the Bounty. Back then, crossing oceans was considered very dangerous, due to the boat building technology and inferior materials of the time. They switched to metal hulls as soon as possible for good reason.
Nothing more fool hardy than using such outdated material ( dead vegitation) and technology, when so much better technology and materials are available. That was just plain bad seamanship.


----------



## rockDAWG

They asking for donations for the crews and the two victims. I wonder where is the owner and how come he does not step up to take care of the victims. I think it is a right thing to do. He can't be poor and the insurance pay out must be huge.


----------



## casey1999

Previous poster said the boat was still floating and would be salvaged? Is this true or has it sunk completely?


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> For what it is worth:
> HMS Bounty: the inside story of its final days (+video) - CSMonitor.com
> 
> HMS Bounty: A tall ship's final hours in hurricane-ravaged seas - The Washington Post


They talk about power failure that shut down the pumps. On the article they talk about the failure of a generator

It is needed a generator to make the pumps work? The engines cannot produce enough electrical output to have the pumps working through the batteries? The pumps relied on only a generator?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

Not following what the crew needs money for? To get home? That should clearly be the owners tab. I can see compassion for those that lost family, but again, not sure it's clear what the money would be for. 

I've also read one of the news links above that maintains they were trying to get east of the storm. I don't see on their track that they ever made that effort. Based on models when they left, the storm could have landed anywhere in New England or the Mid-Atlantic and it was clear that it would extend hundreds of miles from shore until it did. I wonder where the heading East info originated.


----------



## Minnewaska

PCP said:


> .....It is needed a generator to make the pumps work? The engines cannot produce enough electrical output to have the pumps working through the batteries? The pumps relied on only a generator?....


I agree that this doesn't make a lot of sense, but have read the same. It seems more likely that they swamped both the engine and genset. I'm more curious why water was coming in that quickly.


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> They talk about power failure that shut down the pumps. On the article they talk about the failure of a generator
> 
> It is needed a generator to make the pumps work? The engines cannot produce enough electrical output to have the pumps working through the batteries? The pumps relied on only a generator?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Not sure either, but I would guess they had some large say 110 volt or 220 volt pumps that ran off a genset. The pumps were probably to large to run off the diesel 12 volt (or 24 volt) battery bank as inverter would be large and maybe diesel alternator was not big enough- just a guess.

The coast guard can drop diesel powered pumps and fuel to strickened boats, but sounds like the Bounty was too far gone by the time CG got there.


----------



## casey1999

Ninefingers said:


> Why did they try to sail around the hurricane? We're they actually sailing or under motor? How fast does that ship motor btw? Or sail?


I am just guessing, but a lot of these reproduction ships depend on their diesels to get from place to place on schedule (as they do not sail to windward well, or it may be easier to motor sail to keep speed up and ship handling easier), I am guessing she could make 10 knots under power.


----------



## rockDAWG

casey1999 said:


> I am guessing she could make 10 knots under power.


It was doing 10.3 kn from the Examiner.com



> The last Facebook posting by the Bounty on the ship's fan page was at 2 p.m. on Sunday. "Looks to be sailing thru the tail end of the rain storms."
> Last reported coordinates from the ship were at N 34 degrees 22' W 074 degrees 15', speed 10.3 knots.
> 
> The last communication with another ship was from Captain Walbridge sent to the Miss Tracie, and commenting that the ships might pass one another late Sunday night:
> 
> "I think we are going to be into this for several days, the weather looks like even
> after the eye goes by it will linger for a couple of days."
> 
> We are just going to keep trying to go fast and squeeze by the storm and land as
> fast as we can. I am thinking that we will pass each other sometime Sunday night or Monday morning."
> 
> All else is well,
> Robin


----------



## Classic30

smurphny said:


> Anything is possible as far as why she was leaking. There is all sorts of stuff in the water that can stove in a plank. I've seen it happen more than once. A "deadhead" piling (and there are PLENTY of them) can sink you in a heartbeat. In a boat that large, finding a major leak could be next to impossible for a small, green crew. ....


Given that (a) the aerial pic of Bounty half-submerged appears to show at least the main topmast snapped off and (b) the "abandon ship" call apparently happened in the dark.. maybe the topmast went overside and punched a hole in the hull before it could be cut away in time??...

Sheer speculation on my part, but I've read that exactly that scenario caused the loss of many ships during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the wrong place, in the dark and in heavy seas, a hole that large could overwhelm the pumps and kill engine electrics before the crew could do anything about it.

EDIT: They probably hauled the topmasts down before leaving port, so ignore the above.

It seems that without engines charging batteries, the batteries can't keep the pumps going to pump out water coming in through the seams. It's a common problem... I guess "man the pumps!" is a little too old-fasioned for a modern ship like this.


----------



## ShoalFinder

If the ship was designed like most modern ships, the pumps are purely AC. The main engine turns the screw and nothing else. They probably had a GM 671 or similar genset for a boat designed in the late fifties or 1960. (just a guess) I say this because it sounds like this ship was designed like a tugboat that looked like a sailing ship, not an oversized sailing yacht as one would believe. On many large vessels, the bilge pumps cannot keep up with a hull breach. You rig up dewatering using the fire main and eductors. The problem is the fire main runs off an electric motor, too. 

All the water had to do was knock out the switchboard, then it would all be over with. No bilge pump, no fire main, no way to survive a hull breach.


----------



## wingNwing

At some point they lost propulsion too, which meant they couldn't keep themselves from being broadside to the waves = broached. Skipper had a lot of sailing experience in general, and 17(?) years on this boat.

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-10-30/local-bounty-survivor-reunited-family#.UJJrj8X7KSo

HMS Bounty: 'We will bring our captain home' :: WRAL.com


----------



## ShoalFinder

wingNwing said:


> At some point they lost propulsion too, which meant they couldn't keep themselves from being broadside to the waves = broached.


Which makes perfect sense, since the fuel transfer pump would be electric. Once these poor folks lost power during flooding the ship was doomed. If the ship was broached, can you imagine what that ride was like? There's no telling what kind of gear adrift was sliding around trying to kill everyone. I'd be in the lifeboat, too. At least nothing in the lifeboat is going to crush you.


----------



## jimjazzdad

Some here have made reference to the fact that the HMS Bounty was built for the 1962 film "Mutiny on the Bounty" and speculated that the vessel may have been a 'movie prop' and, therefore, less than seaworthy. The HMS Bounty was built by Smith & Rhuland in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Smith & Rhuland were commercial shipbuilders from 1900 until 1967, launching over 250 hulls including, tugs, ferries, minesweepers, cargo vessels, yachts, and Grand Banks schooners (including the Bluenose and the Bluenose II). They didn't build movie props; everything launched from their slip was solid & seaworthy. 

Apparently quite a bit of work was done over the last 10 years (mostly in Maine yards), including re-planking the hull, replacing and rebuilding main engines and generators and some new spars. That said, I can't comment on the condition of the HMS Bounty as she sailed on her last voyage. Any wooden boat owner will tell you it is a continuous cycle of maintenance. I, for one, will wait until the report of the investigation comes out (at least a few months, I am guessing) before speculating on the root causes of this tragedy.


----------



## PCP

wingNwing said:


> At some point they lost propulsion too, which meant they couldn't keep themselves from being broadside to the waves = broached. Skipper had a lot of sailing experience in general, and 17(?) years on this boat.
> 
> http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-10-30/local-bounty-survivor-reunited-family#.UJJrj8X7KSo
> 
> HMS Bounty: 'We will bring our captain home' :: WRAL.com


Yes, but you forgot this is a sailboat. On sailboats engines are auxiliary to the main propulsion system that is sail. A sailboat will be much safer in a storm with some sail, unless it is really high winds and hurricane force winds. Till 70/75k these boats can and should carry some sail in a storm. That will make roll a lot less severe and one of the big problems with these boats in severe weather and waves is just roll.

The winds were not too high (for this kind of boat) and the boat could be sailed and not be at the mercy of the sea without an engine. Unfortunately for a boat like this one an experienced captain is not enough: You need a big and very experienced crew. It seems that the crew was neither big enough or experienced.

*"A lot of the people in our group are just regular guys and gals who like to dress up as pirates, but many of them have never really set foot on the deck of a ship at sea," he said.*

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-10-30/local-bounty-survivor-reunited-family#.UJKGdG9ImE9

But off course, even if the boat could be sailed properly if it was taking more water than the one he could take out and the pups were failing due to an electrical problem there was not much they could do. It is clear that the electrical problem happened first. It is not clear if the engines failed due to water ingress, but it is a strong possibility because they had two engines and it would be odd that both get out of working order at the same time.

*On Sunday evening, the Bounty's crew sent word that there was an electrical problem on board. Walbridge said the situation was under control and could wait until morning. The Coast Guard was notified and stayed in contact with the ship through the night.

But by early Monday, the Bounty was taking on water and its engines had failed. Around 4:30 a.m., the organization said, Walbridge ordered his crew to don survival suits and life preservers and abandon ship.*

HMS Bounty: 'We will bring our captain home' :: WRAL.com

The only broach I heard talking about happened when they were trying to get to the life-rafts and at that time the boat was already flooded and its stability compromised.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

jimjazzdad said:


> Some here have made reference to the fact that the HMS Bounty was built for the 1962 film "Mutiny on the Bounty" and speculated that the vessel may have been a 'movie prop' and, therefore, less than seaworthy. The HMS Bounty was built by Smith & Rhuland in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Smith & Rhuland were commercial shipbuilders from 1900 until 1967, launching over 250 hulls including, tugs, ferries, minesweepers, cargo vessels, yachts, and Grand Banks schooners (including the Bluenose and the Bluenose II). They didn't build movie props; everything launched from their slip was solid & seaworthy.
> 
> Apparently quite a bit of work was done over the last 10 years (mostly in Maine yards), including re-planking the hull, replacing and rebuilding main engines and generators and some new spars. That said, I can't comment on the condition of the HMS Bounty as she sailed on her last voyage. Any wooden boat owner will tell you it is a continuous cycle of maintenance. I, for one, will wait until the report of the investigation comes out (at least a few months, I am guessing) before speculating on the root causes of this tragedy.


A sail boat or any boat is built by a builder following a specification list. This was a boat that was meant to be used on a single movie and burned at the end of the movie. I am quite sure the specification list take well in consideration that this was just a boat that should last some months and not a boat to endure many storms and many years of sailing.

The price of building a boat with the specifications needed to stay together during some months would be very different of one that was built to stay afloat a lifetime so I am pretty sure the specifications would take that into consideration. Movies are run on a tight budget

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jimjazzdad

PCP said:


> A sail boat or any boat is built by a builder following a specification list. This was a boat that was meant to be used on a single movie and burned at the end of the movie. I am quite sure the specification list take well in consideration that this was just a boat that should last some months and not a boat to endure many storms and many years of sailing.
> 
> The price of building a boat with the specifications needed to stay together during some months would be very different of one that was built to stay afloat a lifetime so I am pretty sure the specifications would take that into consideration. Movies are run on a tight budget
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Sorry Paulo, but you are misinformed. The HMS Bounty was built to the original drawings for the 1784 Bounty, found in the British Admiralty archives (she was made slightly larger to accommodate the filming of the movie). Also the budget argument doesn't hold true in that era - think of films like Ben Hur - huge money was spent by Hollywood in those days. After launch in Nova Scotia, HMS Bounty was SAILED to Tahiti for location filming. In fact, MGM planned to burn the vessel there for the movie, just as the original was burned by the mutineers - realism at any cost! Anyone who was ever been aboard HMS Bounty will tell you that this was not a prop boat - think of her as more like Gazela Primiero or other working sailboats built in your country.


----------



## wingNwing

PCP said:


> . It seems that the crew was neither big enough or experienced.
> 
> *"A lot of the people in our group are just regular guys and gals who like to dress up as pirates, but many of them have never really set foot on the deck of a ship at sea," he said.*
> 
> http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-10-30/local-bounty-survivor-reunited-family#.UJKGdG9ImE9


This is out of context or the article wasn't clear; the quote is from William McRea, who works for the St Augustine Pirate Museum, not the Bounty, and the "our group" he's talking about are the people who play pirates in St Augustine who visited the ship, not who sailed it. Here's a bit more context for the quote:

"McRea said the crew was "a good bunch" who impressed the members of his group with stories of sailing the high seas.

"A lot of the people in our group are just regular guys and gals who like to dress up as pirates, but many of them have never really set foot on the deck of a ship at sea," he said. "So it was a thrill to hear all the exciting stories offered by the crew members, ..."


----------



## rockDAWG

jimjazzdad said:


> Some here have made reference to the fact that the HMS Bounty was built for the 1962 film "Mutiny on the Bounty" and speculated that the vessel may have been a 'movie prop' and, therefore, less than seaworthy. The HMS Bounty was built by Smith & Rhuland in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Smith & Rhuland were commercial shipbuilders from 1900 until 1967, launching over 250 hulls including, tugs, ferries, minesweepers, cargo vessels, yachts, and Grand Banks schooners (including the Bluenose and the Bluenose II). They didn't build movie props; everything launched from their slip was solid & seaworthy.


Smith & Rhuland in Lunenburg may be a good shipbuilder, but they were not the one who funded the project. There "may be" some compromise there building a prop for a movie to building a boat for ocean going voyage. Besides, over the years, Bounty has deteriorated without much of the funding. Bounty may be good to look at at the dock as for educational purpose. Heading into the storm of the century with limited inexperienced crews is a bit too much.

I understand that there are a few captain friends of Walbridge defend his decision. This tragedy could have been avoid.


----------



## rockDAWG

jimjazzdad said:


> Sorry Paulo, but you are misinformed. The HMS Bounty was built to the original drawings for the 1784 Bounty, found in the British Admiralty archives (she was made slightly larger to accommodate the filming of the movie). Also the budget argument doesn't hold true in that era - think of films like Ben Hur - huge money was spent by Hollywood in those days. After launch in Nova Scotia, HMS Bounty was SAILED to Tahiti for location filming. In fact, MGM planned to burn the vessel there for the movie, just as the original was burned by the mutineers - realism at any cost! Anyone who was ever been aboard HMS Bounty will tell you that this was not a prop boat - think of her as more like Gazela Primiero or other working sailboats built in your country.


We all here are just speculating, no more right or wrong. The true part was the boat was taking in water very fast. If Bounty has suffered hull damage becasue of the storm and causing the flooding, the survivors would have speaking out already. They are silent now out of respect of their Captain and families.


----------



## Minnewaska

A fundamental problem in the "fog of a hurricane foundering" is that facts we do know are not fully lining up with all the statements being made by interested parties. That always gives rise to some suspicion. I'm sure more of the story will come to light. It's almost impossible to keep 14 people from talking.


----------



## zeehag

we can theorize out our ears and invent scenarios, or we can read all the words penned in virtual log shared openly with all on their website and their fb pages--was described step by step thruout the situation and rescue was on tape provided by uscg, and uscg had pix of the sinking of bounty--her last minutes---
OR we can accept the words written about the event and respect the boat lost and her mater of 20 years missing in the same sea that claimed her.
is a sad time- why do folks have to bash decisions made and counter the info as written by the folks OF bounty? 
please read the info they provided then make your comments to the decisions made--to invent scenarios that were not in play is not respectful to the dead and missing.
it wasnt difficult to follow the proceedings closely thru their own words and pictures of weather and their tracking pattern thru the narrow spacing between storm front and hurricane.

when bounty was in sd in 2008, spring, i spent some time on board--more than the tour--as i had a friend who was crew and was incredibly proud of his ship--that boat was stout. she was well maintained, and hauled regularly--i saw pix of the work they did in 2007--wow!!--more often than our own recreational boats. i saw her bones. she was incredible, and she had soul and a spirit to match her build. 

bounty is an icon that will be missed.

dont ye think it strange that the bounty and her master of 20 yrs and direct descendent of fletcher christian all go missing on same day????


----------



## rockDAWG

wingNwing said:


> This is out of context or the article wasn't clear; the quote is from William McRea, who works for the St Augustine Pirate Museum, not the Bounty, and the "our group" he's talking about are the people who play pirates in St Augustine who visited the ship, not who sailed it. Here's a bit more context for the quote:


I am not sure if it is logical to assume most of the non-commercial tall ships are manned by volunteers who have a day job in other professions.


----------



## rockDAWG

Minnewaska said:


> I'm sure more of the story will come to light. It's almost impossible to keep 14 people from talking.


May be the survivors is waiting for a movie or book deal.


----------



## wingNwing

rockDAWG said:


> I am not sure if it is logical to assume most of the non-commercial tall ships are manned by volunteers who have a day job in other professions.


Okay, I still wasn't clear - the people in McRae's group - the ones he made the comment about - are NOT the people who were sailing on the Bounty. The people in McRae's group are fans of Bounty. Some of the Bounty sailors may have been volunteers, I don't know. I do know that Bounty has no shortage of people who wish(ed) to sail on her; they were required to serve on other, less glamorous duties, such as maintenance, for some time before being promoted to the opportunity to sail. That meant that the people who were sailing knew this old tall ship pretty well, regardless of how much experience sailing modern fiberglass boats they may or may not have had. (And yes, they did *sail* as much as possible to move the ship on their tours)


----------



## JulieMor

After the 2011 tragedy during the North American Rally to the Caribbean, Don Street wrote an article for Cruising World. In it he basically said heading south from New England in October is playing Russian roulette. He recommends leaving in September or November and has been advocating that since 1964, when he wrote "Going South" for _Yachting_.

If you look at this NOAA chart, which shows hurricane paths in the Atlantic, you see a bottle neck off the coast of the Carolinas, close to where the Bounty capsized.








There is an enormous amount of information regarding weather in the Atlantic. There are countless sailors, many with decades of experience, who have experienced first hand what the Atlantic can dish out in October, and lived to tell their stories. You don't have to be an experienced sailor to gain this knowledge, you only have to be able to read.

The information we have available thus far tells us the captain knew he was heading into rough weather. It tells us he liked to hire inexperienced crew so he could train them. It tells us he knew he would *at least* be skirting a hurricane and had decided to try to squeeze his boat between the coast and the west perimeter of the storm. And if he was as experienced as he is reported to have been, he would have known the paths of previous hurricanes and, more importantly, that *no one can predict weather so precisely as to create that magic window that will guarantee safety for ship and crew when heading into a storm.*

Time and again we see people making decisions that result in the loss of human life. Short of having a gun to his head, I see no reason why the captain had to head out to sea during the most dangerous season in the Atlantic.

Maybe chart plotters should have this over the Atlantic in October:


----------



## rockDAWG

Yes, I read both articles by Don Street and Jen Brett a few months ago. I agree with them. But for most of us, it will let us think twice every time we plan to go into the Pond. But it hardly deters us sailing to Bermuda or BVI.

I guess it depends on what is your objective for your hobby. It will be insane for me to ask a fisherman to stop fishing becasue he can buy the fish in the supermarket. Likewise, I can't ask the Golfer to pick his ball and put in the hole. It is sure more efficient than putting the ball with a stick.

Against all element and odds, to come out alive have its reward. When we go sailing, other human lives will be at stake, I advocate that we all should sail solo in the Pond and don't activate your EPIRB if our boat is sinking. We should get into our life raft and wait for the storm to pass, then activate our EPIRB and get pick up. By doing so, no one needs to risk their live to save our ass. I have thought about this for many years. That is what I am going to do .

For my $1.5 MM insurance policy, my wife encourages me to paddle my Kayak to UK. :laugher


----------



## wingNwing

A relative newbie asked one of our sailing mentors how he could tell if he was ready for his first major passage. Our mentor replied, "When you are willing to do it without insurance."

Like your EPIRB, this says it all.

Edit: "your" refers to RockDAWG's post


----------



## casey1999

zeehag said:


> dont ye think it strange that the bounty and her master of 20 yrs and direct descendent of fletcher christian all go missing on same day????


Good point.

Was there a good luck coin stepped under the mast when the ship was first built?

Was the coin removed and not replaced when new spars were installed?


----------



## bloodhunter

For me and possibly many others is why was the Bounty out there in trhe first place. What compelling reason had they for sailing out into what was being forecast as a superstorm.
As for the statement that ta ship is safer at sea than in a harbor -- maybe for a warship with power to burn, a large and experienced crew and backup systems on backup systems but not for anything else, esepcially for an undermanned square-rigger.
The original Bounty had a crew of 44 officers and men this version had 16. 
The original Bounty was a Royal Navy ship and as such her officers had started out as midshipmen in their young teens and had sailed these ships in all kinds of conditions and all sorts of weather. The same was true of the petty officers. While the crews usually had at least a leavening of experienced sailors. 
The Bounty was not a sailboat, she was a full-rigged sailing ship. She handled in a very different manner from the vessels we sail, especially in extreme conditions. With all due respect to this captain and crew there is no way they could have had the experience necessary to sail the Bounty through Sandy. 
I suspect that the plan was to motor until they were past the storm and then motorsail. I have no idea how the Bounty would handle under power especially with no press of canvas to provide some stability. 
We don't know why the Bounty started taking on a lot of water.We also don't know whether the rising water drowned the engines and the generator or whether power was lost for some other reason. In either xase the ship was doomed. 
So again why was the Bounty out there in the first place.


----------



## smurphny

No one here knows what the condition of the boat was nor what the original specifications were. Did they use the right kind of wood to frame and plank her? No one knows (although we do know some of the shipbuilding woods used to build the original hulls are simply unavailable now at any price). It's all pure speculation. All we know is that she was in a dangerous place and did not have to be there.


----------



## zeehag

years ago i was advised she had coins. 
i was shown the hull. she was awesome. 
read the epic tale in the bounty's pages of the reality of the situation. is revealing and accurate to what was occurring, per the cpt and crew as it happened. most interesting material, including his chosen path BETWEEN front and storm--they were in calmer seas and lighter winds and had only the generator as a problem. they were NOT in the hurricane, they were west of it, and east of the approaching cold front that eventually merged with the hurricane. very interesting stuff.
it will be interesting to read each crew's memories as they are written, or after they are--but i believe the overall facts will match that which was on the pages of bounty as she endured the situation.


----------



## casey1999

zeehag said:


> years ago i was advised she had coins.
> i was shown the hull. she was awesome.
> read the epic tale in the bounty's pages of the reality of the situation. is revealing and accurate to what was occurring, per the cpt and crew as it happened. most interesting material, including his chosen path BETWEEN front and storm--they were in calmer seas and lighter winds and had only the generator as a problem. they were NOT in the hurricane, they were west of it, and east of the approaching cold front that eventually merged with the hurricane. very interesting stuff.


Could you post a link to this?
Regards


----------



## wingNwing

Zee, I saw the same thing. And I'm reminded of a t-shirt that says something like, "Don't go sailing, you could get turned over by a wave and die. You could get swallowed by a shark and die. You could get struck by lightning and die." After the cartoon of a guy on a sofa with the big beer belly watching TV with the remote control in his hand and the snacks in front of him, "You could fall out of bed and die."

Or something like that. (sorry, this is all hitting really close to home these couple of days)


----------



## casey1999

More news:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1...s-about-loss-of-HMS-Bounty-to-hurricane-Sandy

Many questions, few answers about loss of HMS Bounty to hurricane Sandy - CSMonitor.com


----------



## SloopJonB

jimjazzdad said:


> I, for one, will wait until the report of the investigation comes out (at least a few months, I am guessing) before speculating on the root causes of this tragedy.


Most of the comments here seem to be about the *specific* causes of the sinking. The *root *cause seems pretty apparent - being at sea, in notoriously dangerous waters, with a hurricane bearing down.


----------



## SloopJonB

rockDAWG said:


> May be the survivors is waiting for a movie or book deal.


That's pretty cynical - they are probably still in shock, if not actually hospitalized.


----------



## PCP

wingNwing said:


> This is out of context or the article wasn't clear; the quote is from William McRea, who works for the St Augustine Pirate Museum, not the Bounty, and the "our group" he's talking about are the people who play pirates in St Augustine who visited the ship, not who sailed it. Here's a bit more context for the quote:
> 
> "McRea said the crew was "a good bunch" who impressed the members of his group with stories of sailing the high seas.
> 
> "A lot of the people in our group are just regular guys and gals who like to dress up as pirates, but many of them have never really set foot on the deck of a ship at sea," he said. "So it was a thrill to hear all the exciting stories offered by the crew members, ..."


You are right. Sorry about that. No intention meant. It seems that the article is a bit confusing and I read it too fast even if in another article it is said that the sailors were paid but not a permanent crew on this boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

Hartley18 said:


> Given that (a) the aerial pic of Bounty half-submerged appears to show at least the main topmast snapped off and (b) the "abandon ship" call apparently happened in the dark.. maybe the topmast went overside and punched a hole in the hull before it could be cut away in time??...
> 
> Sheer speculation on my part, but I've read that exactly that scenario caused the loss of many ships during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the wrong place, in the dark and in heavy seas, a hole that large could overwhelm the pumps and kill engine electrics before the crew could do anything about it.
> 
> EDIT: They probably hauled the topmasts down before leaving port, so ignore the above.


I think you could be right about the mast breaking. From the pics it looks like the three mast broke as well as the bow sprint. Can imagine what would have done all that damage.

Do the crew going aloft normally wear a harness? From pic looks like some do and some don't.

Also, maybe water came in through the windows on sides and stern of ship. Did they have a method to cover these during rough weather?

The other thing I find interesting, even with the ship totally swamped, she still is floating. For the original square riggers, would they have not been heavily balasted such that if swamped, they would completely sink? Was this ship properly ballasted?

FYI:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...C3BD34F8C73B5684A62A621BE9B1F717A21&first=192


----------



## PCP

bloodhunter said:


> ...
> * The original Bounty had a crew of 44 officers and men this version had 16.
> The original Bounty was a Royal Navy ship and as such her officers had started out as midshipmen in their young teens and had sailed these ships in all kinds of conditions and all sorts of weather. The same was true of the petty officers. While the crews usually had at least a leavening of experienced sailors. *
> The Bounty was not a sailboat, she was a full-rigged sailing ship. She handled in a very different manner from the vessels we sail, especially in extreme conditions. With all due respect to this captain and crew there is no way they could have had the experience necessary to sail the Bounty through Sandy.
> I suspect that the plan was to motor until they were past the storm and then motorsail. I have no idea how the Bounty would handle under power especially with no press of canvas to provide some stability.
> We don't know why the Bounty started taking on a lot of water.We also don't know whether the rising water drowned the engines and the generator or whether power was lost for some other reason. In either xase the ship was doomed.
> So again why was the Bounty out there in the first place.


I guess it is one of the best posts if not the best on this thread.

I think that the lost of this boat and Concordia should raise some questions about the way these ships are administrated, the minimum requirements in what regards the number and qualification of the crews and mandatory regular inspections in what regards the condition of the ships. Very old wooden ships should have very frequent mandatory inspections.

What you say about the crew and the comparison of a high professional and seasoned 44 crew with a skeleton crew of semi-amateur sailors is obvious. It seems that the only true professional on that boat was the Captain.

I don't know if that was relevant for the accident but I know that the conditions that the boat faced would not be fatal for a well manned ship of that type. I don't know if the number and quality of the crew contributed to the accident or if the boat was just not in condition to take that kind of punishment and made too much water.

In any of the cases the Captain should know that his crew was not up to face really bad weather in that ship or that the ship was not in conditions to endure bad weather. In any of the cases it should have stayed in Port.

*"But as the search enters its fourth day, persistent questions arise about why the captain put a small, mostly greenhorn crew into the treacherous waters off Cape Hatteras, N.C., within reach of a hurricane"...

In the 18th century, the original Bounty's full crew would have hoisted smaller storm sails to keep the ship plowing in one direction. But that didn't happen as things began to go wrong on Sunday, including the reported loss of diesel power.

Powerless, "that ship would have been careening on all three axes and it's possible that a hole opened up, a plank loosened up, and once she lost power there's no chance to get storm sails up and manage them with just 16 people on board - remember, the original Bounty had a crew of 100," says Mr. Mercogliano.

*

Many questions, few answers about loss of HMS Bounty to hurricane Sandy - CSMonitor.com

Regards

Paulo


----------



## preventec47

Some comments from am amateur freshwater catamaran jockey....
note that at the time of sinking and the previous 12 hours that
the Bounty was approximately due west of the storm eye
and even if there were 18 to 25 foot waves, the wind direction
from the counterclockwise storm should have been blowing directly
from their tail end. Now I know it would be foolish to have
any kinds of canvas up ( I think ? ) or maybe not, if the engine
is lost perhaps a small one up front to maintain direction
and stability.... Could the crew of pretty girls managed to hoist
any canvas in that manner in 45 knot winds is another question.

Someday we will know if they were unlucky and had a mechanical
breakdown or whether the waves coming over the sides 
of the ship and down into the bottom drowned the engines.

In that case, the ship simply succumbed to conditions bigger
than it could handle ( and sunk by design ).
I wonder if the ships log for the last 50 years could reveal what
the tallest and roughest seas the ship has ever encounted and handled.
were.

Academically, I would like to know if the ship had sailed due east
out into the Atlantic how far it could have gotton since it would
have been sailing head on into the hurricane head winds because
of the counter clockwise storm. Or maybe when the ship left
port there were no headwinds for a day or two and they
could have made good progress.

I do remember that the ship was capable of 10 knots speed
under power and that is in dead calm seas and winds.

So, assume first two days of no headwinds and the ship could have
been 480 miles ( 48 hrs times 10 knots) due east from dock into the 
atlantic and then maybe 75 miles a day for the next 3 days. That would
have put it 700 miles out into the Atlantic after 5 days at sea.

I think that is the decision that should have been made if
we went back in a Time Machine and could tell captain what to
do. 

Also, regarding survival suits and swimming in washing machine
seas of 18 to 25 feet. The problem is breathing and fatigue
exhaustion of fighting for clear air to breathe. Do we have any
technology that could help us breathe other than tanks which
would run out of air anyway. I was thinking a mask and snorkel
would be better. Dont the navy swimmers wear mask and snorkel?

Maybe you could float and get a breath when you hit clear air
and then hold your breath and exhale a minute later to get
another breath when you hit clear air once again.

But wow, what if you had to do that for 24 or 36 hours to stay
alive ?

I do have a suggestion, the firemen wear small tanks good for
20 minutes and I think survival suits should have them just to
allow enough air to swim to the life raft etc. It is a shame
the last two to leave the ship could not make it to the
life rafts. What a pretty little girl.. Miss Teen Alaska a few years
back.


----------



## casey1999

preventec47 said:


> Also, regarding survival suits and swimming in washing machine
> seas of 18 to 25 feet. The problem is breathing and fatigue
> exhaustion of fighting for clear air to breathe. Do we have any
> technology that could help us breathe other than tanks which
> would run out of air anyway. I was thinking a mask and snorkel
> would be better. Dont the navy swimmers wear mask and snorkel?
> 
> Maybe you could float and get a breath when you hit clear air
> and then hold your breath and exhale a minute later to get
> another breath when you hit clear air once again.
> 
> But wow, what if you had to do that for 24 or 36 hours to stay
> alive ?
> 
> I do have a suggestion, the firemen wear small tanks good for
> 20 minutes and I think survival suits should have them just to
> allow enough air to swim to the life raft etc. QUOTE]
> 
> Some survival suits have a piece of clear plastic to cover your face to allow you to breathe air and not water/sea foam. But your are right, after many hours one would be exhausted I would think.
> 
> Some cat sailors apparently carry a small scuba tank good for 20 minutes.


----------



## nolatom

This from Sailing Anarchy front page, earlier interview with the capt. Look at 10:47 for what he thinks about hurricanes.

If this is not a doctored interview, then I just can't believe what I'm hearing:

Sailing Anarchy Home Page


----------



## PCP

There are no bad seas, only different seas? From an Hurricane we want a god ride? Jesus

Look after min 10.40.


----------



## robmo

this guy seemed to have had a strong death wish


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> There are no bad seas, only different seas? From an Hurricane we want a god ride? Jesus
> 
> Look after min 10.40.


Yea, looks like he got the ride of his life..........


----------



## JulieMor

That is unbelievable! I got the impression he thought the boat was invincible and therefore his ambitions were reasonable. I just wonder if the crew had the same opinions on the subject.

It almost makes you wonder if he didn't sail out towards Sandy specifically for the thrill. I hope not. There's no place for thrill-seeking when you're responsible for human lives.


----------



## casey1999

"Biography - Captain Robin Walbridge

According to Captain Robin Walbridge, Bounty has no boundaries. As her captain, he is well known for his ability and desire to take Bounty to places that no ship has gone before. "

From:
TallShipBounty.org

Give him credit, he did what he set out to do..........


----------



## casey1999

JulieMor said:


> That is unbelievable! I got the impression he thought the boat was invincible and therefore his ambitions were reasonable. I just wonder if the crew had the same opinions on the subject.
> 
> It almost makes you wonder if he didn't sail out towards Sandy specifically for the thrill. I hope not. There's no place for thrill-seeking when you're responsible for human lives.


Looks that way, see my above post. You know it makes you wonder, the best captains are probably green captains.


----------



## zeehag

they were never IN a hurricane. never. they wer e WEST of the hurricane and AST of a strong cold front, that was merging with the hurricane. if you GO TO BOUNTY'S FB AN DWEB PAGES you will see the path exactly between the two fronts. no steep seas and winds were only 40 mph, as per the rescue scene. where the two fronts have meeting winds, is a space not wide , to be able to use for a time. 
please read bounty's sites and see what he was doing and what exactly happened. if you noticed in some videos of the bounty, her hatches were open, causing ingress of plenty of water. her sailing in a sea fast is a twisty action on the hull-- therefore need for pumps in any wood ship. is most important tool in wood boat--pumps and extra pumps.
answer your questions, as i answered mine -- read the pages written by the team receiving the info from the ship as they had problems. is posted in both sites.


----------



## casey1999

Ok answer these questions:
From video Capt states (I think I herd this correctly, audio is poor on my end) that the original Bounty was 97 feet, and the replica was 180 feet. The replica in no way can represent the sea worthy qualities of the original. Capt states although drawings were obtained during the ship's building, they probably were not used.

Capt also states the ship can only go 90 degrees to the wind and the ship cannot sail into the wind. Then Capt says they do not use the engines at sea, only sail. Do not see how you can sail a ship by basically always going sideways or down wind, seeing they went to places that were opposite direction to the normal trade wind routes. And if the ship normally always sailed while at ses, why would the loss of the engines be a problem- apparently the engines were not used to dewater the boat, the genset was (which was knocked out of service).


----------



## casey1999

zeehag said:


> they were never IN a hurricane. never. they wer e WEST of the hurricane and AST of a strong cold front, that was merging with the hurricane. if you GO TO BOUNTY'S FB AN DWEB PAGES you will see the path exactly between the two fronts. no steep seas and winds were only 40 mph, as per the rescue scene. where the two fronts have meeting winds, is a space not wide , to be able to use for a time.
> please read bounty's sites and see what he was doing and what exactly happened. if you noticed in some videos of the bounty, her hatches were open, causing ingress of plenty of water. her sailing in a sea fast is a twisty action on the hull-- therefore need for pumps in any wood ship. is most important tool in wood boat--pumps and extra pumps.
> answer your questions, as i answered mine -- read the pages written by the team receiving the info from the ship as they had problems. is posted in both sites.


Please post links, I cannot find what you speak of, and the Bounty site says they are down.
Regards


----------



## mistermizu

rockDAWG said:


> It was doing 10.3 kn from the Examiner.com


If you look at the position log available via the Bounty website (tallshipbounty) - (current location) it seems that from 10:31 to 13:33 on the 28th Oct, the ship covered 58nm at an average speed of over 19 knots. If this is correct, then given the ship's normal cruising speed of 10 knots, something out of the ordinary must have been experienced. The ship could have been surfing and also riding a gulf stream back eddy. Without input from crew members, it is hard to know exactly what was going on. But if the ship did in fact manage to cover those 58 nm in 3 hrs (and the satellite records suggest they did), the conditions encountered by the vessel would have been beyond extreme, and it would not be surprising that many systems started to fail and the integrity of the rig and hull were compromised. Hard to imagine that any number of crew could have handled such a ship on such a sleyride.


----------



## casey1999

mistermizu said:


> If you look at the position log available via the Bounty website (tallshipbounty) - (current location) it seems that from 10:31 to 13:33 on the 28th Oct, the ship covered 58nm at an average speed of over 19 knots. If this is correct, then given the ship's normal cruising speed of 10 knots, something out of the ordinary must have been experienced. The ship could have been surfing and also riding a gulf stream back eddy. Without input from crew members, it is hard to know exactly what was going on. But if the ship did in fact manage to cover those 58 nm in 3 hrs (and the satellite records suggest they did), the conditions encountered by the vessel would have been beyond extreme, and it would not be surprising that many systems started to fail and the integrity of the rig and hull were compromised. Hard to imagine that any number of crew could have handled such a ship on such a sleyride.


Were they in the Bermuda Triangle?


----------



## L124C

nolatom said:


> This from Sailing Anarchy front page, earlier interview with the capt. Look at 10:47 for what he thinks about hurricanes.
> 
> If this is not a doctored interview, then I just can't believe what I'm hearing:
> 
> Sailing Anarchy Home Page


Wow!....Talk about "Tugging on Superman's cape"! I'll bet you would be hard pressed to find skippers of modern ships with that much disregard for the forces of nature... Much less, an old style "underpowered" wooden boat with massive windows in the Stearn (nice view, but what could go wrong there in a hurry in big seas?)!
In addition, regarding an earlier post stating this ship carried considerably fewer and less experienced crew than the original Bounty - According to this interview, it was twice the size of the original! Unlike the Bounty, it did have a motor, but still...


----------



## PCP

JulieMor said:


> That is unbelievable! ...
> 
> It almost makes you wonder if he didn't sail out towards Sandy specifically for the thrill. I hope not. There's no place for thrill-seeking when you're responsible for human lives.


If I was the owner of that boat I would have fired him after this interview.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## L124C

mistermizu said:


> If you look at the position log available via the Bounty website (tallshipbounty) - (current location) it seems that from 10:31 to 13:33 on the 28th Oct, the ship covered 58nm at an average speed of over 19 knots. If this is correct, then given the ship's normal cruising speed of 10 knots, something out of the ordinary must have been experienced. The ship could have been surfing and also riding a gulf stream back eddy. Without input from crew members, it is hard to know exactly what was going on. But if the ship did in fact manage to cover those 58 nm in 3 hrs (and the satellite records suggest they did), the conditions encountered by the vessel would have been beyond extreme, and it would not be surprising that many systems started to fail and the integrity of the rig and hull were compromised. Hard to imagine that any number of crew could have handled such a ship on such a sleyride.


In the interview, the Skipper claims his cruising speed at sea was around 4 Knots, and that his top speed was 12 Knots with bare poles in over 90 Knots of wind. I guess Sandy helped him beat his record. Too bad a lovely lady was also apparently lost doing it!


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> If I was the owner of that boat I would have fired him after this interview.
> 
> Regards Paulo


My thought exactly. If that interview had been required viewing for all prospective crew, maybe this wouldn't have happened.


----------



## mistermizu

L124C said:


> In the interview, the Skipper claims his cruising speed at sea was around 4 Knots, and that his top speed was 12 Knots with bare poles in over 90 Knots of wind. I guess Sandy helped him beat his record. Too bad a lovely lady was also apparently lost doing it!


So if 12 knots *was* a possible top speed, and they were in, say, a five knot current, then 2 knots of added surfing speed over the ground might just be possible! It must have been extreme to say the least.


----------



## scottbr

Coast Guard suspends search for missing captain of HMS BountyPORTSMOUTH, Va. — The Coast Guard suspended its search Thursday for the missing captain of the HMS Bounty 200 miles southeast of Hatteras, N.C.

Missing is Robin Walbridge, 63.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the Walbridge and Christian families," said Capt. Doug Cameron, the chief of incident response for the Coast Guard 5th District. ”Suspending a search and rescue case is one of the hardest decisions we have to make.”

The following Coast Guard assets assisted in the search:

•HC-130 Hercules aircrews from Elizabeth City, N.C. and Clearwater, Fla.
•MH-60 Jayhawk crews from Air Station Elizabeth City
•Coast Guard HC-144 Ocean Sentry crews from Miami, Fla.
•Crew aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Elm, a 225-foot buoy tender homeported in Atlantic Beach, N.C.
•Crew aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Gallatin, a 378-foot high-endurance cutter homeported in Charleston, S.C.
Coast Guard crews searched more than 90 hours, covering approximately 12,000 overlapping square nautical miles in the Atlantic Ocean since the Bounty's crew abandoned ship Monday morning.


----------



## Ninefingers

PCP said:


> If I was the owner of that boat I would have fired him after this interview.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


He's dead.


----------



## Minnewaska

Ninefingers said:


> He's dead.


And wouldn't be.


----------



## jimjazzdad

Requiescat in pace, Capt. Walbridge. May you find Fiddler's Green.


----------



## xymotic

rockDAWG said:


> the insurance pay out must be huge.


I wouldn't bet on it. Insurance companies are not stupid and not in the business of paying claims. I'd be willing to bet they have a rider in there specifically referring to named storms.


----------



## preventec47

I have seen the plot that shows the Bounty's position for what appears
to be just the last 24 hours or so. Has anyone seen any plots showing
the Bounty's track for each day since leaving the dock in Connecticutt ?

I've read that he first headed due east before turning south and I'd
like to know how far east he went before the turn.

I saw a projected Hurricane cone track published on the 24th the day
before the Bounty left and that hurricane track shows it goiing
out to sea instead of turning into land in New England.

If, the captain used the projected track from the 24th, I can
see his reasoning for hugging the coast line.

Regarding the hi speeds recorded for a few hours, wouldnt
that have been when he was about due west of the Eye
with the hurricane winds straight behind him ?

I'd like to know the height above the water in calm seas
of the sides or rear of the boat. ie how high waves
would have to be to wash over the side. Now I realize
the boat would be pitching up and down and if the boat
was pointed up the face of a very steep large wave
the tail end of the boat might be just about water
level and a tall 25 wave could be 25 feet above the
rear of the boat.washing over it. This is what we
are talking about here as far as the ship taking
on lots of water. Right ?


----------



## Minnewaska

preventec47 said:


> I have seen the plot that shows the Bounty's position for what appears
> to be just the last 24 hours or so. Has anyone seen any plots showing
> the Bounty's track for each day since leaving the dock in Connecticutt ?
> 
> I've read that he first headed due east before turning south and I'd
> like to know how far east he went before the turn.
> 
> I saw a projected Hurricane cone track published on the 24th the day
> before the Bounty left and that hurricane track shows it goiing
> out to sea instead of turning into land in New England.
> 
> If, the captain used the projected track from the 24th, I can
> see his reasoning for hugging the coast line.............


If you open this link and change the hours on the top to 360 and Update, you'll see it all. They didn't make any effort after leaving Long Island Sound to head East of a 900 mile wide storm, as early reports suggested. On their day of departure, the storms size was absolutely clear and all models had it coming to Hatteras, with almost all showing a turn to NJ. You can google the date read storm reports.

Bounty

If you watch the video above, it seems Robin was a nice guy. But he also said they "chased hurricanes". The pieces are starting to suggest a very intentional act to grab the Western side of the storm and be pushed south. They had done it before. But lion tamers are sometimes attacked by their lions.

Some continue to repeat that they weren't actually in a hurricane. I find that irrelevant. They seem to be intentionally in very heavy weather and looking for the southerly flow of the Western side of the storm. That choice left few if any options, if it turned out to be too tough for the boat or crew to handle.



> a tall 25 wave could be 25 feet above the
> rear of the boat.washing over it. This is what we
> are talking about here as far as the ship taking
> on lots of water. Right ?


We don't know, but the survivors should be able to tell us. Also possible that planking let loose. Or both.


----------



## jameswilson29

Hello, wrongful death lawsuit...Wonder what a jury will think about this dude's actions? I don't think it will matter that the actual conditions leading to her death were merely a gale instead of a full-blown hurricane. The conditions were such that a reasonably prudent professional captain would not have set out to sea in that particular boat at that time. If I were plaintiff's counsel, I would replay the YouTube video portion at 10 minutes 40 seconds as many times as humanely possible, where the "captain" explains how he chases hurricanes.

It's nice that some of you are so sweet and forgiving, but a young woman died as a result of extremely poor decision making by someone in charge of a boat. A captain of a boat is responsible for his crew, period, end of story. This was not an act of god, it was an act of pure stupidity and recklessness.

This incident also demonstrates the fallacy of the importance of years of experience and/or a USCG Captain's license. Neither one means anything without common sense. Applying the pareto principle to sailing, the successful completion of a cruise depends 80% on the captain and 20% on the boat. The ability of the captain is 80% common sense, good judgment and problem-solving ability, and 20% technical know how gained through study and experience.

If you have read the posts on the listerv long enough, you will already have realized there is no shortage of fools who take to the sea as an escape. Do not risk your life on someone who does not demonstrate common sense and sound judgment.

I am beginning to see a pattern on the listserv. After every major storm, we do a play by play on some jackass who decides to leave port immediately prior to the arrival of the storm. Who is going to be next unfortunate victim?


----------



## kjango

When I was young an old sailor told me something & I always remembered it. " You cannot bullsXXt the ocean."


----------



## PCP

jameswilson29 said:


> .. The conditions were such that a reasonably prudent professional captain would not have set out to sea in that particular boat at that time. If I were plaintiff's counsel, I would replay the YouTube video portion at 10 minutes 40 seconds as many times as humanely possible, where the "captain" explains how he chases hurricanes.
> 
> It's nice that some of you are so sweet and forgiving, but a young woman died as a result of extremely poor decision making by someone in charge of a boat. A captain of a boat is responsible for his crew, period, end of story. This was not an act of god, it was an act of pure stupidity and recklessness.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you have read the posts on the listerv long enough, you will already have realized there is no shortage of fools who take to the sea as an escape. Do not risk your life on someone who does not demonstrate common sense and sound judgment.
> 
> I am beginning to see a pattern on the listserv. After every major storm, we do a play by play on some jackass who decides to leave port immediately prior to the arrival of the storm. Who is going to be next unfortunate victim?


I was really shocked with what this Captain says on that video. I knew several Captains that worked on the white fleet, the last sail fishing ships and they all had a natural reverence about the sea power and all feared bad weather. They were no cowards, just men used to earn their lives sailing on one of the nastiest seas (Greenland and Newfound land).

Their views about the sea and seamanship strongly contrasts with the ones expressed by Bounty's Captain.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## lancelot9898

After hearing about the video of the Captain and his cavilier attitude concerning hurriacanes, I question the licensing process. I would think the initial licensing process might be pretty stringent, but are there periodic reviews? Adequate periodic reviews? I would think that such an interview would be cause for him loosing his ticket.

Then there is the question of adequate regulation concering the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the vessel. A 50 year old wooden ship built as a movie prop does not pass the smell test. I know for a fact that there are too many useless regulations. Try getting a permit for building a dock and bulkhead in Maryland. Regulations should be based upon good engineering practices and not on burecratic bull ****.


----------



## jameswilson29

The interesting legal liability issue is whether the owner would be liable for the woman's death after this video is posted to YouTube, assuming he continues to employ the captain.

I believe he is the president and CEO of a large intl. corp, Dow Corning maybe? Find the deep pockets, as they say in the PI field.

If you continue to employ this kind of captain, should you be held personally liable for his negligence? Does the posting of the video constitute sufficient notice/knowledge of the captain's recklessness and incompetence?


----------



## JulieMor

The ultimate goal of choosing a captain for a ship should be to find one who is experienced, skilled and knowledgeable enough to keep the ship and crew out of those situations where all of the captain's experience, skill and knowledge would not be needed to save the ship and crew.


----------



## chef2sail

You guys are really too much. Sitting in your computer chairs making speculations and pronouncements with only the evidence you can find on your computer screens....and then whats worse...making judgements with the limited information you have. Some of you have appointed yourself members of the jury, donned spacesuits, taken an oath not to allow or listen to any evidence or arguments which are contrary to what you think, listened to only the first 10 minutes of the prosecutors evidence, and delivered your verdict. Hohw can you even form an opinion on this until there are more facts....especially first hand statements.

Most of you are adults who have made done things in your hisory you may not be proud of and even made stupid statements youd love to retract. Using some statement of You tube ( which could of been altered even) , which could have been taken out of context, which really has shown to have no relevance to the captain leaving on this journey and then making it the central theme of your hysterionics is ridiculous.

There beleive it or not may be other scenerios to this accident then a man hell bent on dying and taken 15 people with him while he commited suicide.

Maybe something catastrophic happened to the ship physically which the bulider or restoreing commpany did which the captain didnt know about. Maybe they used defective materials or a defective process in repairing the ship, how would you know? You wount even wait to find out...guilty as charged

Maybe the captain was not even in control of the ship, maybe he was hurt, maybe there was a mutiny who knows for sure yet.

No person who left on board that day was forced to by gunpoint as far as I know, the forecasts were out.

While the* INITIAL *evidence looks suspect it is only the beginning of the evidence and only what you can see from your computer screens. To draw conclusions from it is dangerous, unsubstantiated, and shallow IMHO.

Oh yeah some denizen will post like they always do that we are doing this so we can learn some kind of "lesson" or "teaching experience" from it, when actually up to know it has been a character assasination by the internet mob who love to speculate on others tradgedy. Ive seen it happen here with the Rule 62, Fairlones Incident, Encenada incident, the lady leaving on the boat in England, and now this tragedy. What is it about tradgedies which brings the worst out in some of you? You dont even wait for all the facts before your theories start and then come the judgement. But I guess thats easy because no one knows who you really are making these public statements, as you hide behind your screen.

Slow down here, two people have died......hardly any of the facts are in yet. The ship left on the 25th,THE CG is remarkable. Those are really the only facts which are really undisputed and have been verified. There will be plenty of time to understand and process the facts and I am sure it will be done by real experts on the field and real lawyers rather thean the computer screen lawyers here. Then and only then will we really have the truth about this. Until then tell me....what pleasure do you derive from speculating on this.

Dave


----------



## kjango

Another way to look at it is.....you roll the dice & take your own chance.


----------



## JulieMor

jameswilson29 said:


> The interesting legal liability issue is whether the owner would be liable for the woman's death after this video is posted to YouTube, assuming he continues to employ the captain.
> 
> I believe he is the president and CEO of a large intl. corp, Dow Corning maybe? Find the deep pockets, as they say in the PI field.
> 
> If you continue to employ this kind of captain, should you be held personally liable for his negligence? Does the posting of the video constitute sufficient notice/knowledge of the captain's recklessness and incompetence?


Tricky question. You would first have to be established that the captain was serious when he made the "chasing hurricanes" comment. You would need testimony of the crew that either he said that and followed up on his word or that he had established a history of putting the ship and crew in stormy weather while avoiding calmer weather.

Then you would have to establish if the owners knew about the video. That would require eye-witness testimony or some documentation proving the owners were aware of the video.

If you didn't have that you would need to convince a judge or jury that it would be a reasonable expectation to say the owners *SHOULD* have known about the interview as it was their responsibility to be proactively knowledgeable on what activities were taking place on the ship. Any lack of knowledge on their part about the captain's activities and attitudes, especially regarding safety, could be construed as negligence on the part of the owners.

You can be sure the insurance company lawyers are already looking into this. This video is very damning.


----------



## JulieMor

chef2sail said:


> The ship left on the 25th,THE CG is remarkable. Those are really the only facts which are really undisputed and have been verified.


This is also verified - "Tropical Depression 18 strengthened into Hurricane Sandy on Oct. 23, 2012"


----------



## bloodhunter

That video is incredible -- I can't imagine anyone with any sailing experience chasing hurricanes in a 50-year-old wooden ship. 
Seems that standard practice when facing really heavy weather was to send down the topmasts. Wonder if they did that before they left the dock. Can't imaging them doing it while underway. Those ships also had heavy shutters to protect the stern windows in a following sea. Wonder if this version of the Bounty had them and if they were deployed. 
If not then flooding through the stern windows is another possibility.
I have to confess that through an act of incredible stupidity I've actually been in conditions that almost duplicate those faced by the Bounty. 
Simply put, at the beginning of March, 1962, four of us decided to sail from Long Island to Bermuda. We were all young men and young men in groups are exponentially more stupid than any one individually. We got caught by one of the worst winter storms to hit the east coast, and the strength and direction of the wind forced us to take the inside track. We survived because we we on a very strongly-built steel ketch, because we did know our boat very well and because of our seaswing stove. I figure I owe the ocean one so I am very cautious.
In any case, we were running in really mountainous seas and we did everything we could to keep our speed as slow as possible. Our real problem was the huge following sea. The boat would rise to the crest and then plunge down to the trough. During all of this the boat had to be steered kep at a slight angle to the crest and to the trough. If we came straight down the crest the bow of the boat could be buried enough that it would coem up in time and we'd be pitchpoled. If we were too far orr we could be rolled. It meant whomever was at the helm had to pay attention every second and and react when necessary. We relieved the helm every 90 minutes or so, you just couldn't keep it up for longer.
I suspect the Bounty was in the same situation and I wonder if they had enough experienced people to keep relieving the person at the wheel. It doesn't matter whether they were under sail or power, the conditions would have been the same.
I just can't understand how anyone could put so many lives at risk, Not just the crew but all those Coast Guard pilots and rescue swimmers ... it's just beyond me.


----------



## scottbr

Coast Guard to conduct investigation into HMS Bounty sinkingPORTSMOUTH, Va. - Rear Adm. Steven Ratti, the Coast Guard 5th District commander, ordered a district formal investigation Thursday to determine the cause of the sinking of the Tall Ship Bounty, a three-masted sailing ship, 90 miles southeast of Hatteras, N.C., Monday, which resulted in the death of one crewmember, and one crewmember who remains missing.

A district formal investigation consists of a Coast Guard investigating officer who will receive evidence and testimony using formal rules and procedures and is convened when the information to be derived has considerable regional significance, or may indicate vessel class problems or areas of technical importance.

The district formal investigation will probe every aspect of the accident and will determine as closely as possible:

the cause of the accident;
whether there is evidence that any failure of material or equipment was involved or contributed to the casualty;
whether there is evidence that any act of misconduct, inattention to duty, negligence, or willful violation of the law on the part of any licensed or certificated person contributed to the casualty;
whether there is evidence that any Coast Guard or other government agency personnel caused or contributed to the casualty; and
whether the accident should be further investigated by a Marine Board of Investigation.
The Investigating Officer, Cmdr. Kevin M. Carroll, is the chief of the Coast Guard 5th District Marine Inspections and Investigations Branch and will be assisted by investigating officers from Coast Guard Sector North Carolina in Wilmington, N.C.

Coast Guard investigations of marine casualties and accidents are for the purpose of taking appropriate measures for promoting safety of life and property and are not intended to fix civil or criminal responsibility.

A district formal investigation often takes several months to properly complete.

http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/4007...conduct-investigation-into-HMS-Bounty-sinking


----------



## rockDAWG

jameswilson29 said:


> This incident also demonstrates the fallacy of the importance of years of experience and/or a USCG Captain's license. Neither one means anything without common sense.


X100. 
Everyone who knows the captain, including his good friends, said that Robin W is a good captain. May be he was a good man, good teacher to the youngsters (He has no children of his own), good in mooring and docking the boat in good weather, has sailed the Bounty for 17 years. If I were the parent of the young girl victim, I would ask the questions:

1. How seaworthiness of Bounty in fighting the hurricane
2. How much experience of the Captain sailing in this condition
3. What is the preparedness of the crews to sail through the storm.
4. Obviously, the green crews believed their captain and trusted his judgement, do they feel the same way now ?
5. Did anyone challenge the Captain to take shelter to Norfolk and up Bay?

It is sick to my stomach and feel very bad for the families. The deaths are avoidable. It may be a blessing for the captain lost his life so haunting of this human tragedy goes with him.


----------



## bloodhunter

chef2sail said:


> You guys are really too much. Sitting in your computer chairs making speculations and pronouncements with only the evidence you can find on your computer screens....and then whats worse...making judgements with the limited information you have. Some of you have appointed yourself members of the jury, donned spacesuits, taken an oath not to allow or listen to any evidence or arguments which are contrary to what you think, listened to only the first 10 minutes of the prosecutors evidence, and delivered your verdict. Hohw can you even form an opinion on this until there are more facts....especially first hand statements....
> Dave


Actually we know a lot more than that.
1) We know that Sandy was reported a huge dangerous storm, long before the Bounty left.
2) We know that Sandy was headed up the east coast and prevailing weather systems made it very unlikely that Sandy would head out to sea.
3) We know that Sandy was most likely to come ashow somewhere between Delaware and New York
4) We know that all this information was available to the captain and crew of the Bounty.
5) We know that the original Bounty was manned by 44 officers and crew. This version had less than half that and there is no way they could have had the experience sailing a full rigged ship needed to take her through a storm of this magnitude. 
6) we know that the Bounty heades south toward the storm rather than east to try to go around it.
7) We know that it is ultimately the captain's responsibility to go or no go and to set the course.
8) We know the Bounty sank on the western edge of Sandy with the loss of two lives.

There is no way we can know exactly what happened that caused the Bounty to sink but that really isn't the main question, at least not for me. What I really would like to know is why, given all that was known at the time, the Bounty left port in the first place.


----------



## preventec47

Doesnt anyone else remember the projected storm track published on
the 24th ( I think it was way back in this thread ) that showed
the overwhelming probability of the storm curving out into the Atlantic
without comming ashore ? I have to say honestly on that day
it does look that by hugging the coast line he could make it to
Florida. Now I believe the 25th and for sure the 26th (on the
2nd day out) the storm models began to show storm path 
curving into new england. I can justify him leaving port leaving
with info from the 24th but on the 26th the storm news was bad 
and he had a chance to find safe harbor somewhere. On the 26th
is where I think his decision making was faulty and he even sent
the facebook message after two rough days at sea that he seemed
to recognize that he had underestimated the difficulties ahead.

I am not trying to pass judgement but I do think it fun to recreate
what info was available day by day and speculate whether the
captain knew it and then then look at his actions to try to understand
his "bets" as essentially that is what all our decisions are. Some are
carry more risk than others.

I would like to see a replay day by day of the ships position and the
weather forcasts that were available on those days.

You can bet that from the survivors we will someday know more
about the conversations and decisions made aboard the ship
on a day by day basis and how both the crew and the ship
were handling the rough conditions. I think it would be safe
to say most of the survivors had had not had any sleep 
for 36 or maybe even 48 hours and the skipper maybe
even 72 hours.. How could anyone sleep
in 25 to 30 foot seas in that small of a boat and probably
they were in a constant state of panic for fear of dying.

So in addition to the crews lack of experience and training, being short handed,
and overwhelming fatigue, we might have had a ship that was
basically being operated by maybe two people who had
not slept for a couple of days. Yessir there will be movie
rights worth millions. Wonder who gets the millions ?


----------



## jameswilson29

preventec47 said:


> Doesnt anyone else remember the projected storm track published on
> the 24th ( I think it was way back in this thread ) that showed
> the overwhelming probability of the storm curving out into the Atlantic
> without comming ashore ?


One of the outstanding characteristics of this storm from its inception was the lack of consensus on its probable track. The European model and others showed it hitting the east coast anywhere from Va. Beach to N.Y. early on, before it hit Cuba. There was a huge cone of probable tracks.

There is simply no excuse for leaving port when he did. Human life is more important than saving property. It does not really matter what he did after he left port, other than his choice to head South toward the storm, and his failure to seek a port after leaving.

It also does not matter what a great guy he was, or how outstanding his seamanship was, or what experienced yachtsman think about his plans.

This case will be decided by a jury of ordinary people, with competing expert witnesses testifying about whether he failed to meet the standard of a reasonably PRUDENT professional captain.

Even if the ship sank due to material failure, or a freak wave, or mechanical breakdown, it does not matter. Those are all things that are reasonably foreseeable by a prudent professional captain who heads out in that kind of weather.

I believe a jury can easily find the causal connection to this tragedy. The only issue will be damages.


----------



## chef2sail

Guilty as charged....lets electrocute him...oh hes already dead and couldnt defend himself and he paid with his life...oh thats right he went down with the ship because he knew the SN jury would convict him

So lets say you are right.He went on a suicide mission and took 15 people with him. 

Lets move on to the compensation phase since the SN jury has already convicted him. What should the compensation be? 

So lets say you are right and he made an eggregious error in judgement, which cost the ship, and one life. Lets say this is true. Lets say a jury finds this and makes an award. So what????
This happens all the time in real life with auto accidents, product injury cases etc.

What is it about this that attracts the amateur Perry Masons ( showing my age), the spectators in the Collesuem of SN to rant on and on about this? Is it your like for a train wreck? What fascinates you about this story?

People are dying every day from poor judgement. Why isnt anyone focused on that young mother who didnt heed the warnings to evacuate on Staten Island who had the babies ( 2 and 4) ripped out of arms and killed by the storm surge? They just found tem yesterday...dead. Shouldnt she have known the storm was coming, shouldnt she have evacuated...why did she try and drive out through the surging water...maybe they should look at all the statements shes made about kids in her short life....find the one where she says raising the kid is a pain and then go after her for killing them because of her negligence....everything you are saying about this captain could be said about her. 

Dont give me the excuse you are looking for a learning or teaching moment Focusing in on tradgedy is human we all feel for these people. But talking about them add nauseum and affixing blame, making assunptions not knowing ALL the facts, assasinating the reputation of a dead man while sitiing at your computer desk eating twinkies smacks of the mobs going to the Roman Collesuem to watch the inevitable outcome and cheering it on.

Thats my humble opinion and only mine. Take it for whats its worth one mans opinion right, partially right, or wrong. Excuse me I need to get some coffee with my twinkie.

dave


Dave


----------



## Minnewaska

Chef,

I think I understand your concern for the dignity of those lost. However, you ironically tried and convicted all those that you've accused of trying and convicting Bounty. 

Some feel, like I do, that the loss of human life was avoidable in this circumstance and discussing it is not as reprehensible as some feel. I recall the exact prediction on the day they departed CT. I hauled out the day before. This novice crew would have been influenced by the Captains decision making. There didn't need to be a gun to their heads. If my daughter were aboard, I would be doing more than just simply analyzing a decision making process at this point. I think you would too.


----------



## SloopJonB

Chef, I don't agree that this is a lynch mob a la some of the Treyvon Martin discussion.

There seems to be enough clear fact here to condemn the captains decisions in putting to sea. Setting sail in an old square rigger, with an untrained crew that would have been undersized if they WERE trained, and then heading towards a hurricane, hoping to dodge it doesn't meet my criteria for good seamanship or even basic judgement.

Think about this - suppose Sandy HAD stayed well offshore - that would have put the Bounty in or near the "safe" quadrant of the storm at which point the high winds would have been blowing against the Gulf Stream with consequent NASTY effect on sea state.


----------



## preventec47

chef2sail said:


> Why isnt anyone focused on that young mother who didnt heed the warnings to evacuate on Staten Island who had the babies ( 2 and 4) ripped out of arms and killed by the storm surge? They just found tem yesterday...dead.
> 
> Dont give me the excuse you are looking for a learning or teaching moment Focusing in on tradgedy is human we all feel for these people. But talking about them add nauseum and affixing blame, making assunptions not knowing ALL the facts, assasinating the reputation of a dead man while sitiing at your computer desk eating twinkies smacks of the mobs going to the Roman Collesuem to watch the inevitable outcome and cheering it on.
> Dave


Because Dave, the last time I checked this forum is a "SAILING" forum and it
is what we want to talk about. IF it were a child care forum we would
be talking about the dead babies. I for one am trying to find out more
of the facts in the hopes his decision making can be better explained.
I personally have made as stupid or worse mistakes but luck was with
me... We learn from our mistakes and sometimes from the mistakes of 
others and we sometimes die when luck is not with us.

Maybe they should make videos of the half dozen worst preventable
sea tragedies and make all captains view the video each year in order
to renew their license. That type of thing occurs in some other industries.

I do somewhat agree that we have done as much as we can with
available info. Until we get the feedback from the survivors which could
be substantial, we probably wont be able to form many more opinions.

I dont expect the Coast Guard investigation will turn up much because
they dont want to find very much. The guys who refurbished the ship
a few years back would be experts as to the type and manner of construction but they better watch their butts or could be named as a cause
of problems occuring.

Also someone said several 1st Engineers have quit the job ostensibly 
because of the impossible condition of the ship and what I inferred
to be the unwillingness to assume responsibility etc. Wait till we
hear from those guys.

My engineering background makes me want to know the angle
of the ships pitching to and from between waves tops to troughs
and what the bow or stern looks like when reaching the bottoms
of the troughs. One fellow talked about a similar situation
where his boat would bury the bow under the water comming
down to the trough..

Just cant wait till we hear from the crew so we can know when
the masts broke along with other stuff that made it apparent
the ship had crossed the threshold from survivability.

How bout this as a question.... did the Captain wait too
long to abandon ship or to call for rescue ?

If I am not mistaken, his first distress call was 10:30 pm
right? Abandon ship then at 4:00am. That is a long long
four and a half hours for a crew that probably all thought
they were going to die.


----------



## smurphny

I agree with Dave about the excessive captain-bashing. The video said it all. The caption on SA had it right. But this *is* a learning opportunity and will continue to be so as the facts emerge. People are interested because we are all threatened by storms. It's only natural to want to know what happened because it is much more personal and relevent to sailors than to those on land. Every sailor learns from these types of tragedies.


----------



## casey1999

The things that don't make sense to me is the Capt states in the video he likes to chase hurricanes. But then he states the ship normally sails when at sea at 4-5 knots, and the ship can only go sideways to the wind or downwind. Does not sound like the ship could hove to. The Capt also states the diesel auxillaries are underpowered for the ship and are only used when coming into port.

So this Capt wants to chase hurricanes in a ship that is limited to sailing only 90 degrees off the wind (and with lee way probably more like 100 degrees or more), and the ships diesels were not strong enough to power it in any kind of stong wind or high sea condition.

Sounds like a suicide mission to me.


----------



## JulieMor

Let's say, for arguments sake, that the conversations held regarding this incident lead to safety measures that ultimately result in a reduction of loss of life at sea. Would it be worth questioning the decision the captain made (and possibly tarnishing his reputation) to head out to sea in the direction of a hurricane, that at the time was decimating the Bahamas, if that meant saving lives in the future?

We are all emotionally invested in the loss of the life of a sailor. We can't help it. We all know the call of the sea and most of us have put ourselves into a situation that we later regretted. But trying to stifle the conversation, when emotions are high? I don't agree with that.

After the shootings in Aurora, CO, officials were asking those who were calling for an end to the sale of assault weapons to please withhold their criticism and demand for action out of respect for the deceased. Where is that conversation today? But it will begin again the next time it happens. And it will.

The same goes for sailors needlessly dying at sea. One side wants to know how this could have happened, the other side says remain silent out of respect for the deceased. And if we follow the latter, the conversation dies and only re-emerges when another life is avoidably lost at sea. And that too will happen again if measures aren't put into place to prevent it. 

We can't prevent all loss of life at sea but we can certainly take certain measures to reduce that loss. Heading out to sea in the direction of a hurricane is one of those measures.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> People are dying every day from poor judgement. Why isnt anyone focused on that young mother who didnt heed the warnings to evacuate on Staten Island who had the babies ( 2 and 4) ripped out of arms and killed by the storm surge? They just found tem yesterday...dead. Shouldnt she have known the storm was coming, shouldnt she have evacuated...why did she try and drive out through the surging water...maybe they should look at all the statements shes made about kids in her short life....find the one where she says raising the kid is a pain and then go after her for killing them because of her negligence....everything you are saying about this captain could be said about her.
> Dave


The difference is a Capt is trained and licensed to take responsibility of a ship and crew, and is held 100% responsible.

I do not know much about the story of the loss of the 2 kids in new york other than it is a tradgedy, as is loss of the Bounty, Capt and crew. But anyone can become a parent, and become one without training or licensing (sometimes I wish their where training and licensing because raising kids is the hardest thing I have ever done, and I done quite a bit). I think most parents try to do the best they can, and its somthing they need to do (or should do) 24/7, 365 days a year for at least 18 years. Some parents have other problems like paying bills, and finding food and shelter. So I will not judge this woman, only grieve with her,

The Capt on the other hand did not have to sail towards the eye of a storm in a ship that appears was not fit for the task at hand, he had other options. With 20 or so years of experience, a lot of people think he should have choosen the other options. Yea we might all be wrong, and time will reveal more information that might prove us worng, most of us have an open mind.


----------



## casey1999

JulieMor said:


> Let's say, for arguments sake, that the conversations held regarding this incident lead to safety measures that ultimately result in a reduction of loss of life at sea. Would it be worth questioning the decision the captain made (and possibly tarnishing his reputation) to head out to sea in the direction of a hurricane, that at the time was decimating the Bahamas, if that meant saving lives in the future?
> 
> We are all emotionally invested in the loss of the life of a sailor. We can't help it. We all know the call of the sea and most of us have put ourselves into a situation that we later regretted. But trying to stifle the conversation, when emotions are high? I don't agree with that.
> 
> After the shootings in Aurora, CO, officials were asking those who were calling for an end to the sale of assault weapons to please withhold their criticism and demand for action out of respect for the deceased. Where is that conversation today? But it will begin again the next time it happens. And it will.
> 
> The same goes for sailors needlessly dying at sea. One side wants to know how this could have happened, the other side says remain silent out of respect for the deceased. And if we follow the latter, the conversation dies and only re-emerges when another life is avoidably lost at sea. And that too will happen again if measures aren't put into place to prevent it.
> 
> We can't prevent all loss of life at sea but we can certainly take certain measures to reduce that loss. Heading out to sea in the direction of a hurricane is one of those measures.


Agree, we as a society have become too politically correct.


----------



## SloopJonB

JulieMor said:


> We can't prevent all loss of life at sea but we can certainly take certain measures to reduce that loss. *Not* heading out to sea in the direction of a hurricane is one of those measures.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## chef2sail

OK back from my twinkie



> Let's say, for arguments sake, that the conversations held regarding this incident lead to safety measures that ultimately result in a reduction of loss of life at sea. Would it be worth questioning the decision the captain made (and possibly tarnishing his reputation) to head out to sea in the direction of a hurricane, that at the time was decimating the Bahamas, if that meant saving lives in the future?
> JuilieMor


Just like I said...a teaching moment would be the answer from many of you. I agree with you if it lead to a safety procedure which would save someones life it would be worth while. I dont hink the discussion of sailing into a hurricane warrents what is common sense. And the lessons to be learned would be from the* RESULTS* of an *impartial investigation *not the Colleseum members cheering on the decapitation of the dead captain. So my issue here is not about learning a lesson for all sailors, that can be done after this truly gets investigated and thoroughy thought out. My issue is the rush to judgement and the finger pointing at the captain at such an early moment in this tradgedy. It may come to bear that he had 80 % of the responsibilty for the accident, but we dont have any idea of that now. Again the colleseum mentality hasnt even heard a statement of *ONE* of the survivors, but the captain bashing has begun.

I supervise over 1500 employees. A great amount of my time is dealing with issues related to personel. Usually there are two sides to a story and then there is the truth which may be closer to one side than the other but usually lies between the two stories. What I have learned humbly as I grew more mature, was that I had to be careful not to go with my *INITIAL*evaluation and facts concerning an incident, and allow the ivestigation to play out without predisposing myself to an opinion. I cant say I was always good at that or even now perfect about that, but letting facts surface is better to realizing what really happened instead of speculating.



> other side says remain silent out of respect for the deceased


No I didnt say that either. Remaining silent until some of the facts are known and you have at least eyewitness acccounts would seem to be more rational and just. Read some of these posts villifying the Captain and ridiculing him. Since you just recently joined go back to the threads on Rule 62, the Farlonnes incident, the Encinada incident, the british Lady and read the threads. These threads perhaps got almost as much if not more paticipation than the gun or anchor threads. The blame game starts early on in those threads too. Even before very many facts were in evidence. Mmost of the "lessons" came only after all the facts were revealed and resulted in good lessons ie teathers and sea state close to shoal area ( Farlonnes), crew sleeping ( Encinada- the initial collesuem reaction had them looking for a freighter who cut them up), coming in during a Rage, how a crew cant affect best judgement of a captain when they get sick ( rule 62)

What I object to is the rush to judgement...remember that phrase. It can means taking a few facts and then* CONSTRUCTING* scenarios to fit what *YOU* want it to appear to be. When that happpens other facts can be ignored or overlooked. What I have seen in some of the posts here is a rush to judgement on the captain. Weve seen posts looking at the righting moments, sea state, condittion of the vessel etc. We see hypothesis from a few facts. No eyewitness accounts yet, except a hypothesis of a conspiracy as to why that has not occured. Even a recent statement that the Coast Gaurd would hold hearings, but wont want the facts to come out. Why would someone say that? Why would someone say its a suicide mission? Do you think the captain though as he did this that he wanted to commit suicide with 15 people?

One thing I have not posted here which I guess I should. Like wingnwing I have been on the Bounty and met the captain. If someone asked me for a judgement of him, and this is a big time snap judgement, he seemed professional, knowledgeable about his ship, a teacher of others and dedicated to his responsibility for the ship and its crew.

I guess its human nature for people to love to take something, think the worst, and then fabricate reasons to support their conclusions

I am withholding my personal opinions about what happened till I find out more facts, but one fact I know is that if he is found to have been the whole cause he paid the ultimate price.


----------



## preventec47

In the world of aviation, I know that certain kinds of conditions require
certain kinds of equipment and special training certifications.
I wonder if in the nautical world if certain kinds of boats either
by size or type or category etc could legally be restricted
from venturing into certain sea states. Further that 
any captain after the fact having violated the rules could
be liable legally for having done so. Carrying passengers
verses not is a big distincition in aviation and in this case
the untrained crew or many of them might be characterized
as passengers based upon actual training history.

Also, it has been mentioned several times that the
winds going against the gulf stream would result
in worse conditions, ... why not invent a new term
of airspeed called air vs water speed or hydromic relative
air speed etc. I assume the seastate of a 25 knot wind
pushing against a 7 knot gulf stream would be the equivalent
of a 32 knot wind over calm seas. Right ?


----------



## chef2sail

> I assume the seastate of a 25 knot wind
> pushing against a 7 knot gulf stream would be the equivalent
> of a 32 knot wind over calm seas. Right ?
> preventec47


NO. Not at all.


----------



## SloopJonB

chef2sail said:


> one fact I know is that if he is found to have been the whole cause he paid the ultimate price.


And that could be viewed as rough justice. The problem is he wasn't the only one.


----------



## chef2sail

While you all are trying to respond to me remember I am not defending the captain or his actions. Not to be politically correct, cause the chips should fall where they may. Lets find all the chips first and examine them.

dave


----------



## casey1999

preventec47 said:


> In the world of aviation, I know that certain kinds of conditions require
> certain kinds of equipment and special training certifications.
> I wonder if in the nautical world if certain kinds of boats either
> by size or type or category etc could legally be restricted
> from venturing into certain sea states. Further that
> any captain after the fact having violated the rules could
> be liable legally for having done so. Carrying passengers
> verses not is a big distincition in aviation and in this case
> the untrained crew or many of them might be characterized
> as passengers based upon actual training history.
> 
> Also, it has been mentioned several times that the
> winds going against the gulf stream would result
> in worse conditions, ... why not invent a new term
> of airspeed called air vs water speed or hydromic relative
> air speed etc. I assume the seastate of a 25 knot wind
> pushing against a 7 knot gulf stream would be the equivalent
> of a 32 knot wind over calm seas. Right ?


The coast guard required the Pride of Baltimore II to be designed differently (higher free board, larger engine, different ballasting) after sinking of the original Pride. I had crewed on the original Pride, and knew some of the crew that was on the ship when it sank.






"Guided by the experience of the original Pride, the Board determined that this vessel could better fulfill the mission of Globe-trotting Ambassador that had evolved over the years if she was larger and had more cruising range both under sail and under power. It was also determined that Pride II would be licensed by the US Coast Guard as a subchapter "T" vessel approved for carrying passengers. With these guidelines in hand, designer Gillmer set out to create a new Pride that would look much like the original on the outside but have more contemporary amenities and safety features below deck."

Regards


----------



## chef2sail

> The problem is he wasn't the only one.-sloopJonB


Probably correct....time will tell


----------



## rockDAWG

casey1999 said:


> Agree, we as a society have become too politically correct.


May be or may be NOT. I think our society have become a whining society. No one is willing to take responsibility for oneself. We have lost our spirits of self-reliance.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> While you all are trying to respond to me remember I am not defending the captain or his actions. Not to be politically correct, cause the chips should fall where they may. Lets find all the chips first and examine them.
> 
> dave


Chef, I appreciate your call not to rush to judge, but there are a lot of experienced captains that question why the Bounty set sail.:

Local captain shocked and dismayed by sinking of HMS Bounty - Baltimore Sun

It is also human nature to judge prior to knowing all the facts, and is hard to surpress. But even when you have a long jury trial with all the facts presented, justice is many times not served.


----------



## PCP

rockDAWG said:


> May be or may be NOT. I think our society have become a whining society. No one is willing to take responsibility for oneself. We have lost our spirits of self-reliance.


I hope this is going to be different. Remember that the reason of the inquery is not to find if the Captain took or not bad decisions : *"Coast Guard investigations of marine casualties and accidents are for the purpose of taking appropriate measures for promoting safety of life and property and are not intended to fix civil or criminal responsibility".*

Remember that have been several accidents with tall ships and the public demands measures to be taken in what regards safety. If they don't propose measures to control the risks of sailing on those ships, and remember these ships take public and teenagers to sail, next time a accident happens it will be said that was because they had sit and watch, doing nothing.

I think many things can be purposed: a sensible minimum crew requirement for each boat, a minimum sailing qualification on these type of ships for each crew member, regular and very frequent inspections for old boats and so on.

Also in what regards wooden boats it makes all sense to have a permanent naval carpenter as part of the crew. When ships were made of wood the carpenter was an indispensable member of the crew and the one that advised the captain what the boat could endure and when was time to stop sailing and take defensive measures. He could also made emergency repairs and the ship had aboard material for that.

The crew on the original Bounty had not only a master carpenter as also two other auxiliary to take care of any emergency.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## preventec47

chef2sail said:


> NO. Not at all.


 I worded that badly.

I should have said does not a 25 knot wind pushing over opposing 7 knot current
result in the same sea state as a 32 knot wind blowing over water
that is not moving. My use of the terms "calm seas" screwed up
the meaning.


----------



## casey1999

FWIW, Pride II Capt job description:

Pride of Baltimore II Job Descriptions


----------



## chef2sail

> Chef, I appreciate your call not to rush to judge, but there are a lot of experienced captains that question why the Bounty set sail.-Casey1999


As do I. Hopefully that comes out. And also those who tried or attempted to dissuade him. Time will tell this.

Of course I was summarily awarded the Darwin award by a quick to judge SN who beleived because i stayed with my boat during the storm that my judgement was not to be trusted.



> It is also human nature to judge prior to knowing all the facts, and is hard to surpress- Casey1999


It is something which people who have good judgement learn to control or their decisions will fall vistim of their own haste and immediate gratification. One of the lessons of Rule 62


----------



## wingNwing

I'm waiting for the results of this: Coast Guard to conduct investigation into HMS Bounty sinking

The sea is big and sometimes scary. If we can convince ourselves that other peoples' dumb decisions are the cause of their problems, then we can convince ourselves that since we would NEVER make a decision like that, we would be safe no matter what, and we don't have to face the real truth, that whenever you go to sea, however much you prepare, however vigilant you are, sometimes things will happen that put you at risk that you cannot control.


----------



## chef2sail

> worded that badly.
> 
> I should have said does not a 25 knot wind pushing over opposing 7 knot current
> result in the same sea state as a 32 knot wind blowing over water
> that is not moving. My use of the terms "calm seas" screwed up
> the meaning.-preventec47


Answer is still NO, not at all.

Waves, seas state not only depend on wind speed, but also depth, fetch, topography,and current at a minimum. There are other factors also.

I have crossed the Gulf Stream many times. Take 4-5 GS knot current with wind from the North. Lets assume a gentle 20 knots. The sea state outside the GS could be 4-6 swells at 15 second period, which is easily sailed in all directions, but in the GS the same 20 knorts would make it a very uncoimfortable ride and almost stop you from heading northerly. The sea state might be 10-12 with a 8 second period.

Inlets such as Barnegat in NJ are another example. Water rushing out the inlet on the outgoing tide in Barnegat Bat moves at 2 knotss east. In the inlet channel which is narrow ( Bernullis pricipal) that water is now moving 5 knotts east.

If you come in on an onshore breeze of 15 knts ( opposing) the ocean would be a nice 2-4 easy swell, because there are shoals extending outward 1/2 mile from the inlet these 2-4 foot sweels hit the 5 knot current in substabtially shallower water these swells now become 8 foot breaking crashing rollers aross the inlet which can throw you on the rocks.
Back in the Bay behind the inlet the water has no swell in the 15 knot breeze becasue there is no open fetch. Sames scenario with incoming tide would be maybe 2 ft brakers in the inlet channel with no danger at all.

Other NJ Inlets without the shoaling such as Cape may, AStlantic City ( Absecon) and Manesquan have no shoals so there arent breakers like barnegat, bit the current against wind does create a rougher sea state in the inlet.

This is a very simple explaination to a solution that contains many variables including the ones I mentioned above.


----------



## casey1999

wingNwing said:


> I'm waiting for the results of this: Coast Guard to conduct investigation into HMS Bounty sinking
> 
> The sea is big and sometimes scary. If we can convince ourselves that other peoples' dumb decisions are the cause of their problems, then we can convince ourselves that since we would NEVER make a decision like that, we would be safe no matter what, and we don't have to face the real truth, that whenever you go to sea, however much you prepare, however vigilant you are, sometimes things will happen that put you at risk that you cannot control.


A skilled mariner does not simply go to sea. They look at their ship, they look at their crew, the look at the weather and the forecasted weather. They look at the risk vs reward of the trip, they look at the need for making the trip, they look at back up plans in case of foul weather, they look at how they can perform damage control, they look at safety gear and equipment, they look at communications equipment.

Sailing is actually very safe if done in a seaman like manner, you make it out to be much more dangerous than it has to be.


----------



## rockDAWG

PCP said:


> I hope this is going to be different. Remember that the reason of the inquery is not to find if the Captain took or not bad decisions : *"Coast Guard investigations of marine casualties and accidents are for the purpose of taking appropriate measures for promoting safety of life and property and are not intended to fix civil or criminal responsibility".*
> 
> Remember that have been several accidents with tall ships and the public demands measures to be taken in what regards safety. If they don't propose measures to control the risks of sailing on those ships, and remember these ships take public and teenagers to sail, next time a accident happens it will be said that was because they had sit and watch, doing nothing.
> 
> I think many things can be purposed: a sensible minimum crew requirement for each boat, a minimum sailing qualification on these type of ships for each crew member, regular and very frequent inspections for old boats and so on.
> 
> Also in what regards wooden boats it makes all sense to have a permanent naval carpenter as part of the crew. When ships were made of wood the carpenter was an indispensable member of the crew and the one that advised the captain what the boat could endure and when was time to stop sailing and take defensive measures. He could also made emergency repairs and the ship had aboard material for that.
> 
> The crew on the original Bounty had not only a master carpenter as also two other auxiliary to take care of any emergency.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo

If you read it carefully may statement



> May be or may be NOT. I think our society have become a whining society. No one is willing to take responsibility for oneself. We have lost our spirits of self-reliance.


was to reply to the statement made by casey1999 on Political Correctness comment. There is nothing to do with Bounty tragedy.

I do not want to the Chesapeake Lion troll to use your pose to attack me.


----------



## wingNwing

I didn't say you "simply put to sea." I said that no matter how carefully you prepare and how vigilant you are, that you can only influence, but not control, what happens after you set sail - and that some of that will be dangerous.


----------



## chef2sail

> I do not want to the Chesapeake Lion troll to use your pose to attack me-Rockdawg


Man up. Was that comment aimed at me? Kind of personal dont you think?

Dave


----------



## JulieMor

I can't imagine anything coming from the investigation that could result in me saying, *"Okay, now I see why he had to set sail in the direction of a hurricane. Not his fault."* I haven't seen anything written here and I've racked my brain to figure what could have possibly compelled him to set sail. And I have yet to read one comment, anywhere, that says, _*"Yeah, given what we all knew at the time, I can see heading out to sea like he did,"*_ or anything even close to that.

We know when he set sail there was a hurricane thrashing the Bahamas. He knew of the hurricane. (If he didn't he should never have been a captain of that ship.) We know his destination was Florida and that he headed south. What more could possibly come out of the investigation that could exonerate him from blame?


----------



## casey1999

wingNwing said:


> I didn't say you "simply put to sea." I said that no matter how carefully you prepare and how vigilant you are, that you can only influence, but not control, what happens after you set sail - and that some of that will be dangerous.


After you set sail, you can control your boat, maybe not the weather, but you should be in control of how and where your ship is going. Sure things break and weather changes, but a good seaman adjusts for that. And most seamen would not set sail when a huricane is lurking. And knowing that predicted huricane tracks are not very accurate, and in no way should lives be dependent on a predicted course of a storm that would have nearly a 100% chance of causing equipment damage and or loss of life.

Everything we do can be dangerous, from waliking across a street, to driving to flying, sailing is actually one of the safest activities.


----------



## chef2sail

> What more could possibly come out of the investigation that could exonerate him from blame?-JulieMmor


I dont know. I knd of agree, but I want to wait until the facts come out.

We dont know how much pressure he was getting from outside interests. I know he could have said know to that, but we dont know. There may be others responsible for his leaving on this schedule.

Exonerate is a big word here....that implies guilt. "To free from blame.
To free from a responsibility, obligation, or task"

In the USA were are presumed innocent till proven guilty. Guilt is determined by the*all the facts *after an* independent investigation*.
There may be shared responsibility here. I know to you and others that sounds incredulous, but it may be true.

Again my point here is not to defend the captain. It appears on first look you *may* be right It is to say that a rush to judgement before all of the facts are in and certainly no first hand statements is unwise, unecessary and smacks of poor judgement itself.

People on here have been criticised recently, given Darwinism awards foor poor judgement even though they *knew all the facts *before they made decisions to remain on their boats during the storm, even to the extent they were said to have poor judgement

Now some of the same people who did the above want to judge and pillory this captain *without all the facts yet*. Who is the one with the poor judgement



> I propose we give the sailing Darwin Awards to everybody who stayed on their boats thru Sandy ( I mean those in Sandy's zone of damage). If you stay aboard, nobody thinks you are brave, we think you're a moron. You endanger your life, you endanger any rescuers and you make sailors in general look foolish.Frogwatch





> I have yet to hear anyone who survived a serious storm by deciding to ride it out say they would do it again. That alone should be enough to compel anyone who is predicted to be in harms way to leave. But there are always those who believe there's something special about them that enables them to fend off the onslaught of Mother Nature-JulieMor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you stayed aboard then sell the boat NOW before you endanger somebody else.-Frogwatch
Click to expand...

And then the voice of reason steps in, look at everything before deciding or judging



> It depends on the particular situation. There are too many variables to set some sort of mindless rule designed for the least capable sailor. Not all storms require abandoning your boat. Some people are capable of making that call on their own-smurphy


My question...why CANT you wait until most or all of the facts are in....what compells you to rush to judgement...people who rush to judgement scare me big time...maybe that means on their boats they will rush to judgement and not get all the facts to make a proper decision therefore endangering others.


----------



## Minnewaska

I'm waiting to hear more about why she was taking on water. 

Ironically, the absolute first mention of this tragedy that I recall, insisted Bounty was not off the Coast of Hatteras, because there was rumor she sailed East of the storm.

That said, I really can't even think of a scenario that could be learned that will justify having departed on this trip. I may be proven wrong, but the reason will have to justify risking lives of people reportedly not experienced on Bounty to assess the risk for themselves. Even if the weather and inexperienced crew were not the direct cause of the sinking, it put even more lives at risk to rescue them.

There seems to be a common denominator that those that met the Captain are most protective. That may be equally clouding perspective.

While some don't want to hear speculation, I submit this in the spirit of demonstrating this isn't a witch hunt, but rather an attempt to understand. My suspicion is that Robin was a good Captain that survived many difficulties at sea and each one emboldened the thought that risk was more manageable. That would, in fact, be a good lesson for others to learn, IF it proves to be the case.


----------



## PCP

rockDAWG said:


> Paulo
> 
> ....
> I do not want to the *Chesapeake Lion troll* to use your pose to attack me.


Not bad, a Lion troll.

Who is attacking who? and about what?:


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> people who rush to judgement scare me big time...maybe that means on their boats they will rush to judgement and not get all the facts to make a proper decision therefore endangering others.


Interesting. My job description actually says I need the skills to make decisions and take actions without knowing all the facts.

Sometimes you don't have and no matter how much time passes, you will never have all the facts. But you still need to make a decision, as no decision can be worse than making the wrong (ie. not perfect) decision.

A lot of times this is the case on your boat, time is of the essence.

People who need all the facts before making a decision scare me, especially on a boat, where by the time that get all the facts the boat has sunk, struck a reef, or people are dead.


----------



## smurphny

The height of waves is largely determined by fetch. Their shape is determined by currents, depth and bottom topology. This storm was so wide that there was a huge area of maximum wind over a long stretch of water. Watching the NOAA wave height charts as it approached shore, there were 42' waves on the dangerous side of the circulation! While it was crossing the Gulf Stream off the Outer Banks, a NE wind opposing the Stream likely made some monstrous breaking waves.


----------



## chef2sail

> A lot of times this is the case on your boat, time is of the essence.-Casey 1999


Of course . A lot of time we need to make instantaneous decisons on our boats I agree however this thread wasnt about that. I also understand your comment about people who need all the facts all the time. That can be equally indecisive and poor judgement.

Is that the case here, what harm in waiting for the all or most of the facts to come to light. Do you think two days is enough time for you to understand the *WHOLE* situation. Will someone be in danger if we wait a week or two to hear what the survivors say? The company he worked fors statement? The CG ivestigation?

Is this one of those times an instantaneous decision is required? Again the sign of maturity and experience and judgement. To be able to tell the difference when a decision must me made immediately with the information you presently know or wait a while until more information is available to make a more responsible jedgement.

Understand I am in agreement with most of you that he *PROBABLY *is responsibile in some way or percentage

In this case of the Bounty and the Captains role in it, why does this have to be decided immediately until all or even most of the facts are ascertained? Common even the most strident of you dont have much to go on. You dont have any first hand peoples statements, you dont have first hand knowledge, you dont have the CG report, you dont know the comnditions really first hand...just what charts tell you, you have a U tube statement you keep harping on and you dont have all the information that the captain knew and when he knew it, You also dont have the reason for the boat sinking. Thats a lot of stuff there. Yet you already want to foist the blame on him publically. What will imminently happen if we wait a little.

Why o why the *rush to judgement*


----------



## rockDAWG

casey1999 said:


> Interesting. My job description actually says I need the skills to make decisions and take actions without knowing all the facts.


Mine too. Plus able to walk in water, but prefer to fly over water.


----------



## chef2sail

> Not bad, a Lion troll.
> 
> Who is attaching who? and about what?aulo


Paulo,

The person I addressed it too knows the answer but he wont come out in the open and say it. I beleive it was directed at me. Some sign of disrespect .

Actually I am proud to be a Chesapeake Lion. Its a great place to keep a boat and where I live and sail most of the time. In additon I sail to Ne and the LI Sound and have some bluewater time in. There are a number of us who have looked into getting a Chesapeake Lion flag after some of us were called that before. Now being deemed a troll....thats a horse/ boat of a different colour.

Dave


----------



## wingNwing

Minnewaska said:


> While some don't want to hear speculation, I submit this in the spirit of demonstrating this isn't a witch hunt, but rather an attempt to understand. My suspicion is that Robin was a good Captain that survived many difficulties at sea and each one emboldened the thought that risk was more manageable. That would, in fact, be a good lesson for others to learn, IF it proves to be the case.


Interesting way of articulating it, Minne, the more so as this was a storm of unprecedented characteristics. Nicely done.


----------



## i_amcdn

Paris Review


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Is that the case here, what harm in waiting for the all or most of the facts to come to light. Do you think two days is enough time for you to understand the *WHOLE* situation.
> 
> In this case of the Bounty and the Captains role in it, why does this have to be decided immediately until all or even most of the facts are ascertained? What will imminently happen if we wait a little.
> 
> Why o why the *rush to judgement*


The fact is that he sailed into a hurricane, not just any hurricane, but one of the largest on record. And historically, October is the month when most of the monster hurricanes are generated.

Why not wait till all the facts come in? The major fact is in: the ship sailed into a hurricane.

Why not wait longer for more facts? The sailnet posse needs to be ready to move on to the next disaster.


----------



## JulieMor

Interesting article. The author beautifully romanticizes life at the sea and tells a story that tugs at your heart strings. This is what draws us to the sea. And we become one with her. 

Maybe this is both a celebration of one life and the mourning of the loss of another. It seems the captain lived life the way he wanted and his death could be seen as a celebration of that life. But what of the life of the crew lost? Only those who knew her can answer that.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> I hope this is going to be different. Remember that the reason of the inquery is not to find if the Captain took or not bad decisions : *"Coast Guard investigations of marine casualties and accidents are for the purpose of taking appropriate measures for promoting safety of life and property and are not intended to fix civil or criminal responsibility".*


Maybe not totally different:



scottbr said:


> The district formal investigation will probe every aspect of the accident and will determine as closely as possible:
> 
> *...whether there is evidence that any act of misconduct, inattention to duty, negligence, or willful violation of the law on the part of any licensed or certificated person contributed to the casualty...*


----------



## casey1999

For Chef and WingnWing.

Check out this site. These guys really know what they are talking about. GCaptain apparently a site for maritime professionals, got some good reads in it.

HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy

HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy - Page 7


----------



## JonEisberg

Please bear with me, I tried to post this early this AM, but my internet is painfully slow at the moment... Not surprising, for one whose house went underwater Monday night... (grin)

Paolo said it first, about 20 pages ago... that boat simply should not have been where it was, period... I've seen it suggested that there might be extenuating circumstances, perhaps even that Trowbridge was not even in command... Well, OK, in that event, whoever was holding a gun to his head when they left New London is the one who bears responsibility for this tragedy...



zeehag said:


> they were never IN a hurricane. never. they wer e WEST of the hurricane and AST of a strong cold front, that was merging with the hurricane. if you GO TO BOUNTY'S FB AN DWEB PAGES you will see the path exactly between the two fronts. no steep seas and winds were only 40 mph, as per the rescue scene. where the two fronts have meeting winds, is a space not wide , to be able to use for a time.


"No steep seas"??? In the axis of the Gulf Stream, abeam of Hatteras, with the eye of Hurricane Sandy abeam to the east???

Sorry, but you cannot be serious&#8230; There is simply no way to "skirt" a storm 800 miles wide, that tracks north a couple of hundred miles off the Outer Banks, by passing to the west of the eye&#8230; And, your belief that the BOUNTY would have been in "milder winds and seas" betrays precious little understanding of what a southbound passage around Cape Hatteras entails&#8230;

Even for a seasoned crew of Volvo Race veterans, departing Newport a week ago aboard a 100' Swan, such an attempt to shoot the gap between such a monstrous area of circulation and Hatteras, and being in the Stream abeam of the passage of the storm's eye when the breeze was northerly at it's greatest strength, to do so would be a maneuver of extreme risk&#8230; For a vessel as un-weatherly as the BOUNTY, with that compliment of crew, reliant upon engines and generators to deal with such conditions, such a plan borders on the suicidal, one of the most ill-advised acts of seamanship by a professional mariner I've seen in a VERY long time&#8230;

Watching that interview, I'll cut Trowbridge a bit of slack, perhaps to a certain extent he was grandstanding for that idiot conducting the interview&#8230; But anyone who takes literally his preposterous claim that being on the deck of the BOUNTY in 70' seas would be a tame, placid experience, not much different than standing there on deck while moored in Belfast, is either a fool, or dreaming, or has never sailed on any body of water beyond a pond&#8230;

I can appreciate the comments from those who caution that we should "wait until we know the full story", et cetera, before rendering judgment on the master's decision to proceed when he did&#8230; Fair enough, and generous and respectful in spirit, but I find his decision nothing short of unfathomable&#8230; And, I would like to hear anyone's suggestions for any reasons or rationale that were sufficiently compelling to take such a gigantic risk, aboard such an unsuitable vessel, with a shorthanded crew of indeterminate experience&#8230;

Again, "unfathomable" is the only word I can conjure suitable to describe it...


----------



## JulieMor

JonEisberg said:


> Please bear with me, I tried to post this early this AM, but my internet is painfully slow at the moment... Not surprising, for one whose house went underwater Monday night... (grin)
> 
> Paolo said it first, about 20 pages ago... that boat simply should not have been where it was, period... I've seen it suggested that there might be extenuating circumstances, perhaps even that Trowbridge was not even in command... Well, OK, in that event, whoever was holding a gun to his head when they left New London is the one who bears responsibility for this tragedy...
> 
> "No steep seas"??? In the axis of the Gulf Stream, abeam of Hatteras, with the eye of Hurricane Sandy abeam to the east???
> 
> Sorry, but you cannot be serious&#8230; There is simply no way to "skirt" a storm 800 miles wide, that tracks north a couple of hundred miles off the Outer Banks, by passing to the west of the eye&#8230; And, your belief that the BOUNTY would have been in "milder winds and seas" betrays precious little understanding of what a southbound passage around Cape Hatteras entails&#8230;
> 
> Even for a seasoned crew of Volvo Race veterans, departing Newport a week ago aboard a 100' Swan, such an attempt to shoot the gap between such a monstrous area of circulation and Hatteras, and being in the Stream abeam of the passage of the storm's eye when the breeze was northerly at it's greatest strength, to do so would be a maneuver of extreme risk&#8230; For a vessel as un-weatherly as the BOUNTY, with that compliment of crew, reliant upon engines and generators to deal with such conditions, such a plan borders on the suicidal, one of the most ill-advised acts of seamanship by a professional mariner I've seen in a VERY long time&#8230;
> 
> Watching that interview, I'll cut Trowbridge a bit of slack, perhaps to a certain extent he was grandstanding for that idiot conducting the interview&#8230; But anyone who takes literally his preposterous claim that being on the deck of the BOUNTY in 70' seas would be a tame, placid experience, not much different than standing there on deck while moored in Belfast, is either a fool, or dreaming, or has never sailed on any body of water beyond a pond&#8230;
> 
> I can appreciate the comments from those who caution that we should "wait until we know the full story", et cetera, before rendering judgment on the master's decision to proceed when he did&#8230; Fair enough, and generous and respectful in spirit, but I find his decision nothing short of unfathomable&#8230; And, I would like to hear anyone's suggestions for any reasons or rationale that were sufficiently compelling to take such a gigantic risk, aboard such an unsuitable vessel, with a shorthanded crew of indeterminate experience&#8230;
> 
> Again, "unfathomable" is the only word I can conjure suitable to describe it...


Silence...

Rip Captain Walbridge









Rip Claudene Christian


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> For Chef and WingnWing.
> 
> Check out this site. These guys really know what they are talking about. GCaptain apparently a site for maritime professionals, got some good reads in it.
> 
> HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy
> 
> HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy - Page 7


Some of the content on the first site, one for professional Captains:

*The Idiot aboard ( I am somewhat reluctant to call him 'the Master') posted a pretty interesting note on Saturday. 
It read something like this: " we are heading out, some would call this wrong. It is a calculated risk".

Well buck-o me thinks you have a different set of calculators than a prudent seaman! And for him to post such a dumb statement shows he was wrestling with the prudence of this decision and trying to justify it.

Another guy:
They sure are acting like they are reckless yachties. Not only did they put themselves in grave danger by trying to sail aroundp Cape Hatteras during a hurricane they will also be endangering the CG chopper crews who will have to go out and save them.

Another:
No I am sorry but a voyage of choice not necessity in an old ship into a storm of historic proportions? I don't care about hull condition or experience of the master or crew. We're experienced professionals here and don't need a USCG report to judge this one. If the ship is truly lost then it is a massive failure and if people are lost then it is manslaughter!

Another:
Michael Murray, a former crewmember on the Bounty, raises issues that may implicate the owner of the vessel:*

I will say this about the Bounty... As memorable and as valuable of an experience it was to be an integral part of her first restoration as her bosun, I left the project a few weeks early along with several others because of the reckless decisions that were made by the owner at the time that put people at risk.

Namely, a decision to remove a 35x35 inch bowsprit that was rotting without the proper support left a 17 year old 3rd mate severely injured after he toppled over the headrail along with several others. I remember that nightmarish scenario like yesterday when I saw it all go down up on the foretop. That, most definitely, never needed to occur...

My guess is that Capt. Walbridge was overruled as to a decision to continue on with the voyage to St. Pete in the face of this monster storm. If that is truly the case, then it is indicative of a management condition, that unfortunately, has now finally resulted in such a majestic and endearing vessel to come to grief. Truly tragic in every sense of the word!

another:
*This whole thing is totally tragic. So surreal watching this whole thing play out on GCaptain and internet blogs. Having made comments prior to the rescue attempt, I take solace that my negative comments towards the captain were made during the period that the HMS Bounty organisation reported ALL hands safely aboard liferafts. I wonder where they got there info. Let us at least respect the dead, for he is surely lost at sea. Obviously, mistakes were made, yet I find comments praising his death to be rather sickening. Anyone posting that his family should be happy of his death so he won't have to live in shame, should be ashamed of themselves. The man did have a wife, son , and daughter, and my heart truly goes out to them. I believe the scrutiny should now fall on the HMS ORGANISATIOn. I do agree, I hope all the insurance money goes to the deceased female crew's family. Someone who personally new Walbridge assured us here that the comments supposedly made by him on the Bounty site were my his words. Really curious to see how this one plays out now that scrutiny will now fall on the organisation!! The man was well intentioned.despite making a dire mistake, that hopefully only cost him his life. However, I would not be surprised to learn he went into the water after Claudene. Let's hope she makes it, I pray the reports of her dying at the hospital are false. A death at sea probably isn't nearly as romantic as books and movies make it out to be. At least the last stage of hypothermia you get drunk and happy, all things probably seem right in the world, when they are truly not.*

Well, I am going to read the rest of it ...it is really interesting.


----------



## PCP

I have been reading on that Captain's forum and there are there interesting stuff. *This time about the Bounty:*

Yes, t*he bounty was an uninspected vessel classed as a dockside attraction.*The ship was only allowed to take up to 12 passengers.

.......

So that means it should never put to sea. I feel that Chief Rob is correct in assuming what he thinks it sounds like: a dock side attraction is a 'dock side attraction' and not a vessel for sailing with or without passengers, at the very most as Near Coastal. And....how do you determine an "un inspected vessel classed as a dockside attraction" but is allowed up to 12 passengers? Seems to be a large grey area here.

.....

*as an uninspected passenger vessel, BOUNTY's hull was not in any way obligated to hull examination by the USCG.*

....

*I am sure the investigation will touch on this subject to the great dismay of the carnival boat crowd.*

.....

Here is what I feel is the most disrespectful aspect of the 'Industry'. The industry depends upon almost solely "paid" crewmembers who PAY for the privilege of being allowed to crew! These people are on a 'pay to play' vessel. They are not considered passengers, because they are necessary to operate the vessel. The sail training org has used this as a way to help cover operating expenses for years. They are in effect taking paying passengers for hire, using them as crew, and as far as anyone outside knows they are signed on as crew. O*nly a couple people on the ships are actual professional deckhands. Likely the Captain is the only one with a license.*

....

*Having sailed through many on the bounty I can tell you, we would have to keep the pumps running almost constantly to keep the boat dry. When it was dead calm out, we would still pump out the ship every hour. That is the reality of these wooden ships. *

...

So a vessel that leaked this amount, departed for sea KNOWING it was dependent upon power operated bilge pumps for surviving, and did NOT have plain old mechanical hand operated pumps? THAT is your redundancy you were discussing a couple posts ago. Having two electric pumps on a wooden hull is ok.... IF there is a hand pump as backup. Every sailboat I have been on has one.

Sorry Charlie, that right there is all I need to hear about the negligence of both the Captain AND the owner for allowing the vessels to sail (at all)
I would venture to guess that they started taking on more water than they could handle, engine room floods, no more power...

there are two motor/generators and two engines on the Bounty. *One MG was in continuous use because the other MG was broken and had been that way for at least a year. The running MG was never turned off even in port because they "were afraid it wouldn't start again" if they shut it down. There is a water tight door below the galley however there is a 1' x 2' gap underneath the WTD which wouldn't seal. *The aft mast was broken from the previous storm they endured. There was little or no way to keep water from going into the ship via the deck because there were no hatches on the deck. The bottom line is that the ship was in very poor mechanical condition even to the most ignorant of inspectors. It certainly should not have been taken into rough seas.

...
Without doubt! In wildly short and steep stern seas, that horn timber and rudder would be twisting constantly and it was only a short matter of time before all the plank ends sprung and then popping the planks off the frames forward from there. With the engine and generators all aft, that was the first space to flood and I hazard to guess that the vessel did not have an emergency generator or an emergency bilge pump?

....

With this scenario, the way to save the vessel would have been to have to wear ship to bring her head to the sea and to stream anything possible in the form of a storm anchor to hold the head up. With the strain off the sternpost, the flooding might have subsided enough for the pumps to keep up with the inrush of water. What I want to know is each and every step Walbridge took in the 12 hours prior to the loss of the vessel? The survivors hopefully will tell us soon.
...

As you can all see this is pretty bad. No inspections at all? Jesus I know that in the US you don't like rules and regulations but this seems plain crazy to me And by the way, it is not normal to a wooden boat to make that amount of water...it is only normal in an old boat that should be grounded ore have a complete refit.

...


----------



## scottbr

TakeFive said:


> Maybe not totally different:


My post was a cut and paste of the USCG News Release. Should have posted that on the original.

Coast Guard to conduct investigation into HMS Bounty sinking


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> I have been reading on that Captain's forum and there are there interesting stuff. *This time about the Bounty:*
> 
> Yes, t*he bounty was an uninspected vessel classed as a dockside attraction.*The ship was only allowed to take up to 12 passengers.




Sounds like another shining example of the benefit of free and unregulated capitalism. It certainly demonstrates the "self regulating" nature of that philosophy - too bad people had to die for such Friedmanesque purity.


----------



## Minnewaska

SloopJonB said:


> Sounds like another shining example of the benefit of free and unregulated capitalism. It certainly demonstrates the "self regulating" nature of that philosophy - too bad people had to die for such Friedmanesque purity.


Unregulated capitalism? Seriously? Not in the USA, despite rhetoric. Our Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is almost 160,000 pages long!! There are something like 50 federal regulatory agencies. Add State and Local and the number is countless. You can't make a ham sandwich here without being subject to a regulation.

Let's see if they were operating within the limits of the regulations that do exist. I highly suspect we are going to learn they were not, but let's see. If not, writing more won't obviously make much difference, will it.

p.s. "uninspected vessel" is a term of art in USCG certificates and doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want.


----------



## wingNwing

preventec47 said:


> I worded that badly.
> 
> I should have said does not a 25 knot wind pushing over opposing 7 knot current
> result in the same sea state as a 32 knot wind blowing over water
> that is not moving. My use of the terms "calm seas" screwed up
> the meaning.


Think about the relative densities - a cubic foot of air weighs about 1-1/4 ounces; a cubic foot of water weighs 64 pounds. Which one will push you about more? A 2-knot breeze won't even ruffle the hair on your head, a 2-knot current will move your boat and screw up your docking if you're coming into a marina. One of our Navy friends said that when you're trying to figure out which way you'll lie at anchor, it takes about 30 knots of wind to overcome 1 knot of current, though I assume that depends on the shape of your hull and your windage.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> Unregulated capitalism? ...
> 
> Let's see if they were operating within the limits of the regulations that do exist. I highly suspect we are going to learn they were not, but let's see. If not, writing more won't obviously make much difference, will it.
> 
> p.s. "uninspected vessel" is a term of art in USCG certificates and doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want.


It seems that in this case all was legal and it is the legislation that has big holes that allow these boats to exist and sail without being inspected, being considered as an private yacht that can carry only 12 passengers. I don't know the US law, but these guys seem to know

*....

when MCA goes away for any and all "yachts" over 500grt and they become "ships" under SOLAS...will that ever happen?
....
Unfortunately, no. In my opinion, the MCA hangs onto the yacht licensing scheme as an income stream. It is years beyond the point where it should have been abandoned and I also blame the IMO for allowing the MCA to describe yacht limited licenses as having the same STCW code as legitimate licenses.

....

I have been repetitively using the term Sail Training Vessels but in reality these are simply private yachts run as a tax deductible non profit, for dreamers and using a loophole in the manning and operations regs to make it work. Look on the bounty web site. It lists ways to get sailing trips in with the vessel. And do you really think they just took 12 pax? Heck no. there were...... a whole bunch of trainees! (who paid for the privilege.

Ask yourself honestly, Is this industry viable? really? If so, then I (an a couple thousand other people) must have read it wrong. I have yet to find (out of 6 attempts) a Sailing Vessel or Yacht or both graduate who has been successful entering my industry. There may be some. But not alot and none that I have seen....

You bring up a very interesting observation here. Technically a STV carries a certified crew and a group of uncertified trainees which cannot exceed . STVs have COIs so they do have a minimum complement of mates and able seamen but the BOUNTY was not an STV and so did not have any minimum safe manning determination from the Coast Guard other that 46CFR15.605 which only mandates a master and a mate but sets no requirements for ABs, OSs, engineeers or anybody so by theory an uninspected 12pax <300grt can carry a crew of 100 uncertified "volunteer crew" and 12 "paying passengers" as long as there are enough lifesaving appliances for all of these persons onboard, but who is a volunteer and who is a passenger? Provided the vessel is under 200 tons then STCW would not apply so no basic safety training for anybody (but the BOUNTY was more than 200grt so I guess the crew must have had BST certificates).

THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOOPHOLE IN THE REGULATIONS HERE LARGE ENOUGH TO DRIVE AN M1A1 ABRAHAMS TANK THROUGH!

.....

For T boats, volunteers, that do not meet the qualification to be legally considered crew, are passengers. Any crew, paid or not must meet the same requirements.

STV's and attraction vessels have different standards.

STV standards are clear and easy to understand in the CFR's. Attraction vessels have much less oversight.

.....

I'm not talking about T boats or SSV/STV's or attraction vessels...I'm talking about Subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel (>100grt but <300grt ) which is exactly what the BOUNTY was! The BOUNTY was not inspected as a Sail Training Vessel under 46CFR subchapter R but was a subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel...big difference!

....
*

In Europe all coastal yachts and offshore yachts of any size have to be inspected by the maritime authority experts normally all four years. Without a valid inspection the boat is grounded.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Grendel

*HMS Bounty*

The following link details the HMS Bounty's inspections.

cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=345399]USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page


----------



## PCP

*Re: HMS Bounty*



Grendel said:


> The following link details the HMS Bounty's inspections.
> 
> cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=345399]USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page


I always said that the boat was in a legal situation.

Do you care to en-light us?:

I understand the boat is classified as a dock side attraction and was inspected as one.

The BOUNTY was not inspected as a Sail Training Vessel under 46CFR subchapter R but has a *subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel*.

There are a huge difference between the requirements needed on a Dock side attraction classified ship and the ones needed on a ship classified as a Sail training Vessel.


----------



## Grendel

sailtraining.org/about/sailtraining/world/regulations.php


----------



## billyruffn

*Bounty crosses the Rubicon*



chef2sail said:


> You guys are really too much. Sitting in your computer chairs making speculations and pronouncements with only the evidence you can find on your computer screens....and then whats worse...making judgements with the limited information you have....
> 
> ....Slow down here, two people have died......hardly any of the facts are in yet. The ship left on the 25th,THE CG is remarkable. Those are really the only facts which are really undisputed and have been verified. There will be plenty of time to understand and process the facts and I am sure it will be done by real experts on the field and real lawyers rather thean the computer screen lawyers here. Then and only then will we really have the truth about this. Until then tell me....what pleasure do you derive from speculating on this.
> 
> Dave


Dave, I agree with some of what you've said about arm chairs and computer screens, but I disagree with your conclusion. The computer screens have provided us with more than the departure date and the heroism of the USCG SAR forces. For example, we know for a fact the track of the vessel and we have the weather charts and model runs available to the crew before they left and presumably after they were underway . Apparently, we also know that the captain intended to run down the west side of the storm as it was moving north. And we know the vessel had been launched after a yard period in Maine less than two weeks before the accident -- given that she was a wooden vessel that means it's highly probably she was making water sitting at a dock.

I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper, and then providing their opinions regarding the Bounty captain's decisions on departure and the track chosen. Such discussions help us all learn from each other's experinece and knowledge.

In that spirit I offer the following. The facts available to us (ship's known track and NWS weather charts / model runs) when combined with knowledge of the Gulf Stream's nature and location suggest that when Bounty left New London her captain made two fateful decisions -- first, to go to sea, and then once at sea the decision to cross the Gulf Stream. Crossing the Stream south of Long Island in moderate easterlies was probably not difficult, but by crossing the stream when he did, with the storm where it was and where it was forecast to go meant that he could not seek safe haven along the east coast until he was well south of the storm. It was at this point that options begin to disappear and the course of the vessel becomes more or less fixed. Why? Because by the time the Bounty was on the other side of the Gulf Stream, the storm was far enough north and he was far enough south that the winds were or were very soon to be out of the north, building in force AND running against the current of the Gulf Stream.

In vicinity of Cape Hatteras the Stream is 80-90 miles wide, the set NNE and it's speed is often 2-3 knots. 40-50 kts of N-ly wind against a 2-3 knot current is a very dangerous combination. An experienced seaman would not think of trying to cross the Gulf Stream in those circumstances. This means that by the time the Bounty was approaching Hatteras from the NE they had no place to go but straight ahead. They were literally squeezed between the storm and the eastern wall of the Gulf Stream into an area where seas were 20-25 ft and winds were approaching 50 knots both out of the north (according to Monday's wind wave charts available via computer screen). If he went further east toward the eye of the storm and thing would get worse. Going further west into the Gulf Stream itself, the wind speed might decrease but the sea state becomes untenable. If you plot the position where Bounty was abandoned on the OPC wind-wave chart for that day it suggests that Bounty may well have already been slightly west of the east wall of the Stream, bucking a northerly current running against 50 plus knot winds.

And the really sad thing is that ALL of this was more or less predictable once the vessel crossed the Gulf Stream headed SW sometime Saturday. The combination of the postion, speed and track of the storm and the position and direction of the Gulf Stream meant only one thing -- Bounty was in for a very rough ride and her skipper and crew had NO way to avoid it. That's not arm chair speculation, nor supposition based on hypotheticals, it's the facts.

Had he not crossed the Gulf Stream other options would have been available to Bounty and her crew, but once the ship crossed it.....well as Caesar said crossing the Rubicon, "The die is cast." At that point all that remained was to learn of the consequences of the decision to cross the Stream....and now we know that as well.


----------



## PCP

Grendel said:


> sailtraining.org/about/sailtraining/world/regulations.php


?????????????????????????

*The Bounty was in this class:*

*uninspected passenger vessels over 100 gross tons, carrying 12 or fewer passengers for hire.

These regulations will implement this new class of uninspected passenger vessel, provide for the issuance of special permits to uninspected vessels participating in a Marine Event of National Significance (e.g., OPSAIL 2000 and Tall Ships 2000), and develop specific manning, structural fire protection, operating, and equipment requirements for a limited fleet of PVSA-exempted vessels.*

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-the-passenger-vessel-safety-act-of-1993-pvsa

In the link you posted:

*Under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), vessels of any nation signatory to the convention and over a certain size or carrying more than 12 passengers and operating internationally must comply with the requirements of the Convention with regard to construction, safety equipment, manning, crew training, etc. Compliance is documented in a "SOLAS Certificate" issued by the ship's national maritime authority.

This is not a ship that carries more than 12 passengers and i don't know if the size will make it a SOLAS ship, but let's admit it is.

US-registered vessels listed in this directory will generally fall into one of the following categories: Small Passenger Vessel, Sailing School Vessel, Oceanographic Research Vessel, and Uninspected Vessel. For each category there is a comprehensive set of regulatory requirements governing construction and arrangement, watertight integrity and stability, lifesaving and firefighting equipment, machinery and electrical systems, vessel control and equipment, and operations.

With the exception of Uninspected Vessels, all categories of US-registered vessel are subject to Coast Guard inspection on an annual basis.  Upon satisfactory completion of the inspection, a Certificate of Inspection (COI) is issued, and must be permanently displayed on board the vessel. The COI spells out what waters the vessel may operate in (its authorized route), how many passengers or sailing school students may be carried, how many crew must be carried and what qualifications the master and crew must have, the requirement for and location of lifesaving and firefighting equipment, and so forth.

Although not inspected annually, Uninspected Vessels (which are generally vessels less than 65 feet in length and carrying 6 or fewer passengers for hire) must still comply with requirements for safety equipment and a licensed skipper.  The type of COI to be issued to inspected vessels is determined by both the size and construction of the vessel and the operating intentions of the owner. Some vessels carry dual certification.
.....

Attraction Vessel certification is required whenever a vessel is open to public boarding or conducts dockside programs.  The vessel may be permanently moored to a pier, or it may also be certified under one or more of the above subchapters, but the Attraction Vessel COI (ATCOI) certifies its safety for dockside programs and visitation only.*

*So the Bounty had to have an attraction vessel certification (and to be inspected on account of that) and, as an Uninspeted vessel, is not subject to Coast Guard inspection. But even if it was what would be verified would be the requirements for safety equipment and a licensed skipper. not the hull integrity and condition or the water tight condition.

If the boat was inspected in what regard water tight condition the boat would have failed because it needed to have the pumps working every hour even with the boat stationary as one member of the crew had stated.*

....


----------



## nolatom

Back when I was in the Coast Guard learning to be a marine inspector long ago, the saying I heard about uninspected vessels (referring to the rule that more than six paying passengers required a Certificate of Inspection):

"You can drown six---you can't drown seven"

I suppose you could change this to 12 and 13 as the circumstances may warrant. 

I await the Board of Investigation with interest. In my experience the Coast Guard is not unwilling to criticize themselves when warranted (read the report of the sinking of the SS MARINE ELECTRIC off the Delaware Capes as an example). Even more so if the NTSB gets involved, they regularly ping on the Coast Guard while sharing investigatory jurisdiction with them. I wonder if they will join in on this Board as they often do.


----------



## chef2sail

> I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper, and then providing their opinions regarding the Bounty captain's decisions on departure and the track chosen. Such discussions help us all learn from each other's experinece and knowledge.Billyruffin


Thank you for the thought provoking post. I have great respect for your experience and read your posts always. You manage to present your opinion which is well thought out, but also not accusatory. I couldnt agree with you more about the track he took,as well as the consequences of taking that track. Having done both Gone outside the GS ( both south and north and sailed closer through/ around Diamond Shoals, I have *always* advocated in many other SailNet threads what I perceived as the dangers of the inside route and for me personally, I avoid it and have not gone on vessels anymore with captains who chose the route.



> ]I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper


You will find on very few of the posters have this experience, but many have offered opinions or accusations and they did so without hesitatuion or hardly any information at all

My biggest problem with the postings are the* rush to judgement *to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. It leads to this feeding frenzy which can prevent them from looking and absorbing other details as wells as focusing on unimportant snippets of u tube postings as the paramount reasoning. Its like its a story of thodse damn shows following network news at 7 PM. The SN jury has already found the captain guilty as charged and not even waited for any evidence of the companies pressure or involvement, statements from the survivors. or atatements from professionals.

As this continues to play out with more and more information a clearer picture will take place. Already we have some CG reports and some people on a CG blog which I have seen are less vitriolic and hype minded than the posts on SN. There are key pieces of information I would like to see before I damn the Captain in hell like most of the SN posters. ( Funny many of the interviews I have seen with the Captains professional aquaitences do not paint a picture of a reckless man), I would like some eye witness testimony or statements ( what happened on boartd, sea state, how she got in trouble other than what we can see on GPS position fixing and storm histroy, I would like a professional report concerning the condition of the ship before it left ( not speculation reposrts of cousins whoi visited the ship once or saw it, but people who recently refit it and worked on it, I would like to know what role the company played in coercing or pressuring the captain to leave the dock in the first place.

None of us know for certain that this storm and waves were the only things directly responsible for its sinking. Which one of you know for a certain that there was no failure of the bulkheads/ structure on the ship which could have happened on the very next 
passage, heavy weather or not. How do you know there was not a material defect in the refit, wrong materials used, designs not followed?

I have my initial opinions of what has happened here. I question mightily him leaving and sailing into this particular enlarging storm with any ship let alone the one he had. I question like you trying to squeeze between a storm and the "Graveyard of the Atlantic. I also question why....why a man with good credentials and experience0 ( better than almost everyone on here casting judgement) would make this decision. Maybe then that gets answered we will find the real culpruit in this is just not him and that someone may be hiding behind the screen or that someone was negligent in the repair of the ship.

Ultimately he will be held with some of the responsibility because he was the captain of the ship. I am pretty sure of that.

When a plane crashes in bad weather do you think immediately that the captain was responsible and get on the internet blaming him/ her. If you saw him drinking with dinner two nights before...do you assume he/ she was a drunk and that caused it? Do you blame it on the heavy weather? The route he took...he could of flown around it or landed somewhere else. See in this instance...very similar to this incident there is a very detailed investigation and NO ONE declares after 1-4 days after the event happend that it was the captains fault. Here however those rules dont apply. Thats what I have a problem with

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> T....
> 
> You will find on very few of the posters have this experience, but many have offered opinions or accusations and they did so without hesitatuion or hardly any information at all
> 
> My biggest problem with the postings are the* rush to judgement *to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. ..
> 
> ...
> 
> Dave


Dave,

I don't think the comments that were made by professional sailors on a professional forum were less harsh than the ones posted here. This ones were posted even before the boat was in a mayday situation. They knew already what was going to happen with all probability. Your post and your comments regarding arm chair sailors deserve to be complemented with the voice of professionals and mind you, there was not a single voice in disagreement among them. They are arm chair sailors too?:

*.....
Sure lets take a wooden hulled sailing ship out into a hurricane, whats the worse that could happen?
.......
Oh but you see it's a sailing school vessel.
Fully seasoned crew ready for anything.
.....
From their Facebook page:



Bounty Update 10/28 2012 11PM EST
One of Bounty's generators has failed....they are taking on more water than they would like.
THE CREW AND BOUNTY ARE SAFE.....
At 2118 hrs The Coast Guard issued an Urgent Marine Information Broadcast for the HMS Bounty taking on water 90 miles SE of Cape Hatteras, with 15+ people aboard....THAT HAS BEEN RESCINDED...
The Captain will await till morning to determine if Bounty is in need of any assistance.
.......
Guess the captain needs a sea story
......
They actually left during a hurricane ? The captain is an idiot and should lose is license if that is the case. Needlessly endagering 14 other lives...very bad decision!!
.....
All I can say is pray for them. My local news station reported they sent out a mayday and have lost all propulsion...
......
I will be praying for them througout watch this morning. Perhaps the captain should stay onboard when they are rescued. Just kidding, but he should never be allowed command of another vessel for the rest of his days!
....
Update 7 minutes ago from CBC news. Abandoning ship!! CG working on rescue ideas, C130 on scene. I want to see this ******* cPtain crucified!!!!
.....
This captain should be in jail.
......
Indeed, if he survives he needs to be tried and hopefully convicted of reckless endangerment leading to manslaughter if others die of course.

In looking at the track from the woodenboat website, I suspect that what this clown was thinking was that if he maintained being on the west (good) side of the storm, that he'd have favorable winds throughout and a following sea to ride. Seems fine on paper, but a ship's hull works harder in a following sea that a head sea because they corkscrew so violently. I suspect that the hull worked so hard for so long that all the seams have sprung and that was that.
......
The praise people are heaping on the captain and saying he made the right choice on the bounty's Facebook page makes me sick. One went so far regardless of the outcome she would have never weathered the record storm surge dockside in new London. WHO CARES! She sinks at the dock its a loss but it still doesn't put 17 people 100 miles offshore in a 60 knot blow. The fact that people still make decisions like this, especially after incidents like the loss of the schooner Phantome baffles me. 
....

The Idiot aboard ( I am somewhat reluctant to call him 'the Master') posted a pretty interesting note on Saturday. 
It read something like this: " we are heading out, some would call this wrong. It is a calculated risk".

Well buck-o me thinks you have a different set of calculators than a prudent seaman! And for him to post such a dumb statement shows he was wrestling with the prudence of this decision and trying to justify it.

......
They sure are acting like they are reckless yachties. Not only did they put themselves in grave danger by trying to sail aroundp Cape Hatteras during a hurricane they will also be endangering the CG chopper crews who will have to go out and save them.

....
No I am sorry but a voyage of choice not necessity in an old ship into a storm of historic proportions? I don't care about hull condition or experience of the master or crew. We're experienced professionals here and don't need a USCG report to judge this one. If the ship is truly lost then it is a massive failure and if people are lost then it is manslaughter!

Click to expand...

*


> HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy
> 
> *Do you still think we have been too severe or out of line?*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

As I have quietly followed this thread, careful not to pass judgement (and realizing I lack the experience to do so), I keep wondering whether the nature of the failure might have led to a similarly fatal result in less severe conditions. It is possible that the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident.

It seems that not enough facts have been disclosed to determine this. So many people have repeated the speculation that the boat lost a plank under the stresses induced by the storm that it's easy to mislead oneself in believing that actually happened. So far as I can tell, that is PURE speculation and there has been NOTHING to support that.

So while it's interesting to speculate, we do need to be very careful not to "pile on" based on that speculation.

I do have a lot of experience with investigating safety incidents in the workplace, and in the vast majority of cases the question, "What in the world was he thinking when he did that?" usually has a straightforward answer that suddenly makes everyone realize that the case is not nearly as black-and-white as originally believed.


----------



## chef2sail

> As I have quietly followed this thread, careful not to pass judgement (and realizing I lack the experience to do so), I keep wondering whether the nature of the failure might have led to a similarly fatal result in less severe conditions. It is possible that the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident.
> 
> It seems that not enough facts have been disclosed to determine this. So many people have repeated the speculation that the boat lost a plank under the stresses induced by the storm that it's easy to mislead oneself in believing that actually happened. So far as I can tell, that is PURE speculation and there has been NOTHING to support that.
> 
> So while it's interesting to speculate, we do need to be very careful not to "pile on" based on that speculation.-Takefive


Yea....a voice of reason and wisdom

Rick all the amateur sleuths here know that couldnt be the case..... thats why they have decided already that it was the captain to blame. We dont need any facts

Here is their straight line reasonsing.

Captain wanted to chase a hurricane. Captain left knowing he was headed at a storm. Captain took a route to keep himself away from the strongest winds, though pinning himself against the GS and a notorius trecherous area. Ship sent a distress call that it was taking water...ship sent a distress call it was abondoning ship.

From this the sleuths have deduced that the storm caused the sinking because the captain wanted to sail into it and should be held responsible.

Lets see....lets use that similar airplane analogy again.

Airplane takes off during a rainstorm. Captain seen the week before before having a drink with dinner. Captain feels pressure to leave on time by his company and is cleared. Captain takes a route perscribed by control and flies upward throgh a growing t storm. Captain gets past a lot of the major wind, but comes upon a mountain chain notorius for increased turbulence because they are. Captain sends a Mayday call and plane disappears off radar. Plane crashes

1 hour after the crash is reported Sailnet pundits begin to analyze what they know and come up with the conlcusion the captain is responsible because ultimately the airplane captain is in charge of his plane, should have refused to leave, should have found an alternative route and he probably had a alcohol probelm which contributed. Gilty as charged and the ruining of his reputation can now begin. Sailnet pundits only see weather and the captain as pertinent information. Salinet pundits speculate about training of captain, Maybe a wing fell off, age of airliner fleet, maybe there was a bomb, maybe it was terrorists.

6 months later NTSB issues report saying there was wearing of the electrical wires and spark of electrical wires in one of the fuel tanks which occured because of a flawed design or improper insulation during a routine maintainence overhaul. While wires were covered by fuel...no problem...once the tanks became somewhat empty the wires sparked and caused an explosion which downed the plane. Captain died along with passangers. Weather played minimal or no imnpact in crash which would have eventually occured away, Captains reputation ruined forever.

All I am saying not enough of the important facts in evidence to draw conclusions or pass judgements yet


----------



## Minnewaska

Chef, I get your point, but chill out with the pilot analogy. Whenever there is a crash, there is mass hysteria far beyond anything you've seen here. If you've ever read an NTSB report, they are almost always determined to be the fault of the pilot in command.

In fact, if you launched a flight into analogous conditions, your licensed would suspended. All flight weather briefings are recorded and if you made similar public statements, the FAA has less patience than anyone on the thread.


----------



## Minnewaska

Now lets assume Bounty had pure mechanical failure. That would not exonerate a pilot that became exposed for having made an unsafe and unnecessary flight plan.


----------



## jameswilson29

The concept you are discussing is known in the law as "proximate cause" - whether there is a legally recognized causal connection between the breach of a duty and the damages caused.

What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.

There exists the unlikely possibility that some superseding, intervening cause resulted in the death of this young woman. For instance, if she died from food poisoning on board and just happened to stumble overboard just as the ship was sinking, or if the Navy accidentally bombed the ship as part of aerial bombing practice, then the captain's asinine decision to take to sea may not have been the proximate cause of her death. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting a superseding, intervening cause of death.

On the other hand, if she died because the ship lost a plank or the bilge pumps failed or the engine failed or she was hit by a loose life raft on deck, those would all be events that inexorably follow from the failure of the captain to exercise prudence in his decision-making. It is reasonably foreseeable, in fact likely, that mechanical failure during a storm on that ship would result in a sinking an a loss of life, even though such mechanical failure in calm conditions would cause no permanent harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a ship like the Bounty might founder and capsize in gale or hurricane conditions, so the captain who put the ship in that position will be held responsible for all consequences not due to a superseding cause.

People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.

Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces

There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.


----------



## Alias

Hi all,

I've been following this thread here and other sites on this subject for a bit now. I'm new to the forum and fairly new to sailing as well. I will not pass judgement on what happened aboard the Bounty but as a 747 captain (an airplane of that size is in many ways, a flying ship), I, however, will say a few things since I do find a similarity as far as responsibilities go between both airliner and ship's Captains.

First of all, as a Pilot in Command, you are responsible for everything that goes on, into and about that aircraft that you are about to fly. It is your job to check the aircraft logbook that all maintenance has been properly carried out according to the prescribed guidelines

Same goes for the weather along the route, destination and alternates. The physical well being of your crew and passengers, physically and mentally. The cargo if there are hazmat or other DGs on board.

Actually, the Flight dispatch will send you all the info in a nice thick packet half the size of a phone book for every flight. They will brief you as well but if they screwed up, it is still your airplane. You are responsible for everything and I mean everything.

What I'm saying is that, as a Pilot in Command, you make the final decision, period. No one can force you to leave if you do not feel that either you, your crew or the aircraft is capable and can safely complete the trip. Not your Company, Chief Pilot, Union etc. 

And not to take anything away from anyone, but I cannot just take a FAA test, buy an airplane and a nice white hat and be a Captain. The main difference here is that we, as far as professional pilot group goes, have to go through all kinds of emergency training scenarios and drills every six months. We must attend recurrent training annually (I believe freighters, tankers and cruise ship crew go through similar training). They pay us good money not to fly the airplane, the airplane can do all that by themselves. Heck, my 747-400 and land and come to a complete stop on the runway without me ever touching the yoke or the throttles. What they really pay us for is to make safe and sound judgements and prudent decisions. 

As a pilot in command, the decisions are all yours and yours alone. Whatever decision you make, good or bad, you'd better be able to defend it if you ever ended up at that long inquisition table with no ashtrays, if you survive the incident or accident that is.


----------



## JonEisberg

jameswilson29 said:


> What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.
> 
> ...
> 
> People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.
> 
> Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces
> 
> There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.


Exactly, very well said... Bottom line, the BOUNTY should not have been where she was, period... To suggest that "the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident" is nonsensical. All other mitigating factors are reduced to the peripheral, after that decision to depart New London Thursday, and laying a course directly into the path of the storm, was taken...

I would invite once again suggestions from those who fail to grasp that, who ELSE besides the captain might bear responsibility for this tragedy? And, what possible reason might have compelled him to sail into the teeth of such weather in such a vessel to meet the schedule of being in St Pete by Nov 9?

Seems to me, we are left only with scenarios as bizarre and fantastical as his being forced at gunpoint to depart New London, or being convinced that innocent schoolchildren in St Pete would begin being beheaded hourly if the BOUNTY was not there on schedule... One has to grant that such compelling, mitigating circumstances MIGHT have been at play - but I'd suggest such a case was not bloody likely...

The guy simply made a really, REALLY bad decision... Certainly, there may have been factors that influenced that decision, but I'm still hard-pressed to imagine any that even remotely begin to EXCUSE such a decision by a professional mariner...


----------



## Alias

jameswilson29 said:


> For instance, if she died from food poisoning on board and just happened to stumble overboard just as the ship was sinking, or if the Navy accidentally bombed the ship as part of aerial bombing practice,...


Here's a great example as far as Captain responsibilities go. If she died from food poisoning, did the Captain immediately contact the CG or the authorities, quarantine the food, treat other sick crew members and make for shore?

If she fell overboard when the ship is sinking, did he make sure or delegate his subordinates to ensure that everyone has their PFD on and are aware that they are about to abandon ship.

If the Navy destroy the boat during bombing run practice, did the Captain get all the pertinent information he needs in regards to his sailing route before he proceeds out to sea? As pilots, we get what is call NOTAMS (Notice to Airmans) so that we don't stumble into the Military Operating Areas or Restricted areas. Airplanes have been shot down for such excursions.

As I said earlier, no matter what, all the final decisions and responsibilities rest on the Captain and the Captain alone.


----------



## PCP

jameswilson29 said:


> The concept you are discussing is known in the law as "proximate cause" - whether there is a legally recognized causal connection between the breach of a duty and the damages caused.
> 
> What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.
> 
> ....
> On the other hand, if she died because the ship lost a plank or the bilge pumps failed or the engine failed or she was hit by a loose life raft on deck, those would all be events that inexorably follow from the failure of the captain to exercise prudence in his decision-making. It is reasonably foreseeable, in fact likely, that mechanical failure during a storm on that ship would result in a sinking an a loss of life, even though such mechanical failure in calm conditions would cause no permanent harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a ship like the Bounty might founder and capsize in gale or hurricane conditions, so the captain who put the ship in that position will be held responsible for all consequences not due to a superseding cause.
> 
> People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.
> 
> Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces
> 
> There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.


Regarding this I will point out a relevant fact that was discussed as unacceptable on a professional forum:

The Captain sailed away in a boat that he knew it was making water (a pump had to be put at work each hour) and that had one of the two genset that provided energy to the pumps was out of service. On that forum for professional sailors they say that even if he had the two generators working he should have a different safeguard system (as we have in our boats), a manual system or giving the ship dimension, diesel running emergency pumps.

The fact that he went to sea with a damaged pump system (one Genset out of service) and without a back up system is just unacceptable for them, hurricane or not.

We don't know the part bad weather took on the sinking of the ship, but we know that the direct cause was that the boat has making water and that the only remaining genset stopped to work making impossible for them to take the water out of the boat and eventually do a makeshift repair on the hull (if possible). Even with fair weather that boat could sink if the only remaining genset went out of service, as it did.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

Surely there can be reasons as to why he left port and sailed into a hurricane other than just going on some reckless, adrenaline-junkie mission. Could he have been asked to leave New London by harbor officials and turned down in New Bedford and everywhere else? You just don't pull into a harbor with a 190' ship and expect to find hurricane-proof dock space. Did the ship have adequate ground tackle to even attempt an anchorage up inside Narragansett? I doubt anyone had a mooring adequate to handle him. Could he have been pressured by the ship's owners at the risk of his job? No one knows and we may never know. What would any of us do if we were faced with no good place to use for a hurricane hole? Would we maybe try to put out to sea as a last resort? Let's hear the facts first before we hang this guy in effigy.

The fact is that he did put out to sea. That was his very bad decision. "Unfathomable" is Jon's appropriate adjective for this decision. He could have, instead, run her aground as a last resort rather than risk the crew. I just wonder why anyone with his experience would risk sailing into a hurricane in this apparently less than fully sound ship.


----------



## TakeFive

smurphny said:


> ...I just wonder why anyone with his experience would risk sailing into a hurricane in this apparently less than fully sound ship.


Just a reminder that this ship is deemed less than fully sound only because of all the "facts" that we have "invented" on this board. Nobody that I know of here inspected her just prior to departure. This is the danger or our speculation - we echo what each other says enough times that we start to believe each other's speculation as fact.


----------



## paul323

PCP said:


> The fact that he went to sea with a damaged pump system (one Genset out of service) and without a back up system is just unacceptable for them, hurricane or not.


Finally this makes sense to me. While following this thread, I kept on wondering if Sandy was a 'red herring' - an important element, sure. But not root cause. Looking at the video, the weather conditions did not look *too* bad. This boat had sailed to Tahiti and had many miles under the keel, and had surely faced such weather before. Sure, there was a hurricane in the area, and perhaps he should not have been there, but it did not seem bad where they sunk - thankfully, as the USCG chopper was still able to safely recover them (yay USCG!).

Sure they took on water - these older wooden square riggers did. Constantly. In a heavy storm, pumping out every hour does not sound excessive; from my reading - no direct experience in a boat like this - manual pumps were often working 24x7 in a storm. Of course they had the crew to do this.

However, having only one way to empty the bilge - no backup - bad. Very bad. On my tiny boat I have 2 electric pumps, one manual, and a bucket . You guys know boats - something always fails, and generally at the worse possible moment. Rehearsed backup plans are key.

My heart goes out to the people who lost their lives. The dangers of having a critical system without backup is a lesson we all can learn from. Personally, I am less interested in who is to blame; as with all of these tragic accidents, my interest is what I can learn to avoid a similar calamity.


----------



## chef2sail

Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> The concept you are discussing is known in the law as "proximate cause" - whether there is a legally recognized causal connection between the breach of a duty and the damages caused.
> 
> What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.
> 
> There exists the unlikely possibility that some superseding, intervening cause resulted in the death of this young woman. For instance, if she died from food poisoning on board and just happened to stumble overboard just as the ship was sinking, or if the Navy accidentally bombed the ship as part of aerial bombing practice, then the captain's asinine decision to take to sea may not have been the proximate cause of her death. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting a superseding, intervening cause of death.
> 
> On the other hand, if she died because the ship lost a plank or the bilge pumps failed or the engine failed or she was hit by a loose life raft on deck, those would all be events that inexorably follow from the failure of the captain to exercise prudence in his decision-making. It is reasonably foreseeable, in fact likely, that mechanical failure during a storm on that ship would result in a sinking an a loss of life, even though such mechanical failure in calm conditions would cause no permanent harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a ship like the Bounty might founder and capsize in gale or hurricane conditions, so the captain who put the ship in that position will be held responsible for all consequences not due to a superseding cause.
> 
> People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.
> 
> Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces
> 
> There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.-James Wilson


Guilty as charged no need to investigate and further says Judge Dred of Sailnet


----------



## smurphny

Takefive, Apparently you missed the word "apparently." There are posts and links here that seem to support that there were mechanical problems. Having no manual pumps, imo, indicates a major deficiency if it is true.


----------



## chef2sail

> Hi all,
> 
> I've been following this thread here and other sites on this subject for a bit now. I'm new to the forum and fairly new to sailing as well. I will not pass judgement on what happened aboard the Bounty but as a 747 captain (an airplane of that size is in many ways, a flying ship), I, however, will say a few things since I do find a similarity as far as responsibilities go between both airliner and ship's Captains.
> 
> First of all, as a Pilot in Command, you are responsible for everything that goes on, into and about that aircraft that you are about to fly. It is your job to check the aircraft logbook that all maintenance has been properly carried out according to the prescribed guidelines
> 
> Same goes for the weather along the route, destination and alternates. The physical well being of your crew and passengers, physically and mentally. The cargo if there are hazmat or other DGs on board.
> 
> Actually, the Flight dispatch will send you all the info in a nice thick packet half the size of a phone book for every flight. They will brief you as well but if they screwed up, it is still your airplane. You are responsible for everything and I mean everything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that, as a Pilot in Command, you make the final decision, period. No one can force you to leave if you do not feel that either you, your crew or the aircraft is capable and can safely complete the trip. Not your Company, Chief Pilot, Union etc.
> 
> And not to take anything away from anyone, but I cannot just take a FAA test, buy an airplane and a nice white hat and be a Captain. The main difference here is that we, as far as professional pilot group goes, have to go through all kinds of emergency training scenarios and drills every six months. We must attend recurrent training annually (I believe freighters, tankers and cruise ship crew go through similar training). They pay us good money not to fly the airplane, the airplane can do all that by themselves. Heck, my 747-400 and land and come to a complete stop on the runway without me ever touching the yoke or the throttles. What they really pay us for is to make safe and sound judgements and prudent decisions.
> 
> As a pilot in command, the decisions are all yours and yours alone. Whatever decision you make, good or bad, you'd better be able to defend it if you ever ended up at that long inquisition table with no ashtrays, if you survive the incident or accident that is. -Alias


Understood. No one is disputing that the captain will be held responsible WHEN the investigation is concluded. Dont you have an investigation though when their is an incident, or do the summarily dismiss you?

Jameswilson...I am not a lawyer, but if there was a lawsuit arent there % of causality assigned ( not legalese)


----------



## chef2sail

> I would invite once again suggestions from those who fail to grasp that, who ELSE besides the captain might bear responsibility for this tragedy? And, what possible reason might have compelled him to sail into the teeth of such weather in such a vessel to meet the schedule of being in St Pete by Nov 9?-Jon Eisenberg


No one has failed to grasp that the captain does bear some responsibility for this including me. What some of us have been saying is that there may be other factors involved, facts which we have not been aprised of yet. This is the purpose of an investigation. No doubt he had a hand in this, no doubt the captain has responsibilities. NO ONE has said otherwise.

So what have you really learned from this...course that was the stated purpose of so many for this posting, a teaching experience. You obviously dont need or want to investigate this any further cause you have your root cause.

Is the lesson you dont sail into a hurricane........duhhhhhhhhhh what else. Hatteras and the GS are a dangerous place....duhhhhhhhhh.


----------



## PCP

Alias said:


> Hi all,
> 
> ... They pay us good money not to fly the airplane, the airplane can do all that by themselves. Heck, my 747-400 and land and come to a complete stop on the runway without me ever touching the yoke or the throttles. *What they really pay us for is to make safe and sound judgements and prudent decisions.
> *
> ...


That is also the essence of a job of Sea captain. Of course you and them have to know a lot to know what is a safe and sound judgment and prudent decisions.

I confess that when I saw those very harsh comments on a professional sailing forum about the choices of Bounty's Captain, namely to go out on a small wooden ship with a hurricane coming and sailing out with a damaged pump system and without a back up system, I was shocked. After all it was one of them they were talking about.

Then I understood that it was precisely because it was one of them, a professional Captain, the reason they were so pissed: It should be basic to any professional Captain the exercise of safe and sound judgment and prudent decisions and that was not clearly the case in their opinion in what regards this case. It was just because it was not a navigation error or a mistake but such a basic thing that no Captain had the right to do wrong.

I found it funny that one of them, to characterize the attitude of the Captain, said he was behaving like an irresponsible Yacthee, I mean one of us, a non professional.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

Was wondering if anyone has heard about whether the ship broke apart, or sunk, or is still a hazard to navigation.


----------



## jameswilson29

chef2sail said:


> Jameswilson...I am not a lawyer, but if there was a lawsuit arent there % of causality assigned ( not legalese)


In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, yes, there is an apportionment of fault. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction like Virginia, any negligence is a complete bar to recovery.

I am not sure where this will be tried and under what governing law. I assume the Plaintiff will try to put this in the most advantageous forum. Maybe a maritime lawyer on the listserv can jump in here and tell us whether this has to be brought in federal court under U.S. maritime law, or whether a state court would be required to apply federal common law/maritime law to this case.

I have not read any claim that the woman's negligence contributed to her death. While the defendant may try to claim some kind of assumption of risk defense to defeat a recovery and may even produce some kind of signed waiver, I question whether that would be effective in these circumstances, that she would have understood and reasonably assumed the risk of the captain sailing into a hurricane...or that as a matter of public policy such a waiver would be enforced.


----------



## TakeFive

smurphny said:


> Takefive, Apparently you missed the word "apparently." There are posts and links here that seem to support that there were mechanical problems. Having no manual pumps, imo, indicates a major deficiency if it is true.


No I did not miss that word. But using the word "apparently" implies that there are some actual facts to make something apparent. I have not seen enough actual facts to make anything "apparent." I've seen the same posts and links that you have seen, usually from anonymous, faceless sources. Very weak evidence IMO.

I'm not going to go back over every post and link that I've already read, but I seem to recall someone (here or on another message board) claiming to have been on the boat insisting that it actually did have manual pumps at the time he was aboard. So your claimed "major deficiency" may be fictional. I'm not claiming that other person is any more credible than your source, just that there are really no credible facts on this, and there's enough disagreement to negate almost all the current speculation. But enough people will read your post that a week from now someone will vaguely recall your statement and think it was an established fact.

This echoing back and forth of speculation-masquerading-as-fact is one of the dangers of the Internet, where people of differing opinions can latch onto whichever portion of the congnitive dissonance that agrees with whatever they choose to believe. It's the classic conflict between "truth" and "truthiness." Just because something seems plausible does not make it true.


----------



## jrd22

A good friend of mine here on the island saw the Bounty in drydock in Maine just a few weeks before she sank. There are some of his pictures of her and some others from when she was in the San Juan Islands 20 years ago at the link below. Beautiful ship, tragic loss of life.

Saltwater People Log


----------



## mdbee

chef2sail said:


> No one has failed to grasp that the captain does bear some responsibility for this including me. What some of us have been saying is that there may be other factors involved, facts which we have not been aprised of yet. This is the purpose of an investigation. No doubt he had a hand in this, no doubt the captain has responsibilities. NO ONE has said otherwise.
> 
> So what have you really learned from this...course that was the stated purpose of so many for this posting, a teaching experience. You obviously dont need or want to investigate this any further cause you have your root cause.
> 
> *Is the lesson you dont sail into a hurricane........duhhhhhhhhhh what else. Hatteras and the GS are a dangerous place....duhhhhhhhhh.*


I got two different lessons:
1) Don't leave port and sail into a hurricane on a leaking wooden boat with few backup systems.
2) Don't sail with a captain that brags about sailing into hurricanes. (video interview)

Of course the investigation is critical to know all the facts BUT we do know one thing, if the captain had not chose to set sail in those known conditions, 2 lives wouldn't have been lost.


----------



## tdw

Hey look, this is nowt but an internet forum where a bunch of people with an interest in matters maritime get together to discuss common interests. As far as I am aware the musings of us SailNetters is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the official investigation. 

Pondering that the ship may have been unsound , that the skipper showed some signs of irresponsibility and/or that the ship should not have been out in that weather are all quite valid points on a discussion board. 

Some of the comments in this thread have bordered on abuse and quite simply if it continues and/or gets worse then the blue pencil is poised and ready for action. This is not PRWG so please , keep it civil.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> ....
> I'm not going to go back over every post and link that I've already read, but I seem to recall someone (here or on another message board) claiming to have been on the boat insisting that it actually did have manual pumps at the time he was aboard. So your claimed "major deficiency" may be fictional. I...


Perhaps you should, I certainly would like to see that. I only heard about an hydraulic pump connected to the engines, a type of pump that was completely unknown to all professionals on that professional forum, but even if it existed and it worked, it would have not served any purpose the moment the engines were out of order, as they actually become.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the main pumps being "half" operational, with one generator out of order from the two that provided energy to them.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kjango

Oh my gosh.....Paulo Paulo Paulo.....One generator not operational does not mean the pumps were half operational. As I read through these posts ( I too am interested in this events ) I detect so much misinterpreted info & increasing venom. I'm sure this is going to get picked apart just seeing this thread & thinking of all the attorneys across America that would love a piece of this pie. You know....the Captain of the Titanic was sound asleep in his cabin when it hit that Iceberg, but make no mistake......he hit that iceberg. ( Just my contribution to inane & irrelevant comments on this thread ).....lol


----------



## robmo

PCP said:


> Perhaps you should, I certainly would like to see that. I only heard about an hydraulic pump connected to the engines, a type of pump that was completely unknown to all professionals on that professional forum, but even if it existed and it worked, it would have not served any purpose the moment the engines were out of order, as they actually become.
> 
> That, of course, has nothing to do with the main pumps being "half" operational, with one generator out of order from the two that provided energy to them.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Here's another matter to consider: Bounty had been undergoing repairs in Boothbay and as we all know, repair of wooden ships usually results in wood shavings. Invariably these will end up in the bilge which may have caused the pumps to clog and malfunction. It wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## PCP

kjango said:


> Oh my gosh.....Paulo Paulo Paulo.....One generator not operational does not mean the pumps were half operational. As I read through these posts ( I too am interested in this events ) I detect so much misinterpreted info & increasing venom. I'm sure this is going to get picked apart just seeing this thread & thinking of all the attorneys across America that would love a piece of this pie. You know....the Captain of the Titanic was sound asleep in his cabin when it hit that Iceberg, but make no mistake......he hit that iceberg. ( Just my contribution to inane & irrelevant comments on this thread ).....lol


Do you have seen that I have said "half" operational? This means that the system was composed by two pumps and two generators in a system that will provides back up if one of the generators or one of the pups get out of order. Well, I should said the system was half operational, not the pumps...big deal.

Evidently if you have only one generator operational you have no redundance and no back up if that generator gets out of order...and that's exactly what happened. Is this not clear to you

regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

TakeFive said:


> No I did not miss that word. But using the word "apparently" implies that there are some actual facts to make something apparent. I have not seen enough actual facts to make anything "apparent." I've seen the same posts and links that you have seen, usually from anonymous, faceless sources. Very weak evidence IMO.
> 
> I'm not going to go back over every post and link that I've already read, but I seem to recall someone (here or on another message board) claiming to have been on the boat insisting that it actually did have manual pumps at the time he was aboard. So your claimed "major deficiency" may be fictional. I'm not claiming that other person is any more credible than your source, just that there are really no credible facts on this, and there's enough disagreement to negate almost all the current speculation. But enough people will read your post that a week from now someone will vaguely recall your statement and think it was an established fact.
> 
> This echoing back and forth of speculation-masquerading-as-fact is one of the dangers of the Internet, where people of differing opinions can latch onto whichever portion of the congnitive dissonance that agrees with whatever they choose to believe. It's the classic conflict between "truth" and "truthiness." Just because something seems plausible does not make it true.


The word "apparently" is often used by news media along with words like "alleged." The connotation of the word means that there is doubt, that things may or may not be true. I have not looked up the word derivation but it is likely the adverbial relative of the verb, to appear. The appearance of things is often very misleading. Check spelling on cognitive dissonance which is more a psychological term describing deep seated and persistent psychological turmoil. Sorry if this word causes you some dissonance.


----------



## wingNwing

Interesting ... several people who met the captain personally say that based on what they learned of him, there must be more to this story, and they will wait to learn what the Coast Guard has to say. People who never met him, DEMAND the right in this internet forum to state their opinions of unmitigated blame ... RIGHT NOW.


----------



## TakeFive

Smurphny - While you pick nits, I'll just wait for the investigation report.


----------



## JonEisberg

wingNwing said:


> Interesting ... several people who met the captain personally say that based on what they learned of him, there must be more to this story, and they will wait to learn what the Coast Guard has to say. People who never met him, DEMAND the right in this internet forum to state their opinions of unmitigated blame ... RIGHT NOW.


OK, I'll try one more time...

I'll accept that that the possibility exists that there may have been factors that compelled the master of the BOUNTY to depart New London when she did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Hatteras and the eye of a storm 800+ miles in diameter, featuring the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras...

Once again, can anyone here even IMAGINE, or suggest any likely scenarios/factors that would compel the skipper to take such a risk, or make such a decision appear even remotely prudent, or seamanlike?

Please, feel free to use your imaginations... (grin) I'm really curious to hear what some might feel may have justified such a departure, in such a vessel, in such circumstances...


----------



## wingNwing

It's really simple, Jon. I know that I don't know everything. Therefore, I'm willing to wait.

What's your hurry?


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> OK, I'll try one more time...
> 
> I'll accept that that the possibility exists that there may have been factors that compelled the master of the BOUNTY to depart New London when she did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Hatteras and the eye of a storm 800+ miles in diameter, featuring the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras...
> 
> Once again, can anyone here even IMAGINE, or suggest any likely scenarios/factors that would compel the skipper to take such a risk, or make such a decision appear even remotely prudent, or seamanlike?
> 
> Please, feel free to use your imaginations... (grin) I'm really curious to hear what some might feel may have justified such a departure, in such a vessel, in such circumstances...


That's the real reason for all the discussion. There is a TON of discussion about this everywhere. What on earth could possibly have been the reason to leave port at the same time sailors up and down the coast were running the other way. It just makes no sense.

This is a pretty damning piece concerning the ship's condition:http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-hms-bounty-investigation-20121102,0,7353839.story


----------



## priscilla

Jon, I agree!.....What must the insurance company be thinking, is there an insurance company?? By the way the new england hurricane of 1938 had a pressure of 941MB, Sandy recorded 946MB.


----------



## priscilla

Jon, OOPS you are correct Sandy did have the lowest pressure at 940MB...sorry.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> That's the real reason for all the discussion. There is a TON of discussion about this everywhere. What on earth could possibly have been the reason to leave port at the same time sailors up and down the coast were running the other way. It just makes no sense.
> 
> This is a pretty damning piece concerning the ship's condition:HMS Bounty sinking to be investigated; victim was 'very concerned' - latimes.com


Jesus Smurphy you find very interesting stuff with new information and then you don't post it?

It seems that the crew knew that the generators and the engines were not in good condition. Christian the woman that lost her life says that clearly.

What is more difficult for me to swallow is to know that the crew and Christian went to sea expecting very nasty weather and sailed away because they trusted the Captain even knowing that the ship was in bad shape. I find that very sad.

R*ex Halbeisen, a friend of Christian, said he received an email from her before she died at sea saying she was worried about the storm and the condition of the ship.

"She was very concerned for their safety and was 'praying to God that going to sea was the right decision,' " Halbeisen told the Los Angeles Times.

"You know me, I am not a mechanical person but the generators and engines on this ship are not the most reliable," Christian said, according to email text provided by Halbeisen. "They are always stewing over them. I would hate to be out to sea in a storm an [sic] the engines just quit or we have no power."

He said he turned Christian's email over to the Coast Guard, which said in a statement that it would investigate "every aspect of the accident."*

HMS Bounty sinking to be investigated; victim was 'very concerned' - latimes.com

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

wingNwing said:


> It's really simple, Jon. I know that I don't know everything. Therefore, I'm willing to wait.
> 
> What's your hurry?


Well, I certainly admire and respect the "evenhandedness" displayed here by yourself - and others - here&#8230; (grin)

But, c'mon, none of us here will be part of any official investigation, or be responsible for rendering some ultimate "verdict" regarding this incident&#8230; We're all just sailors BS-ing around this cyber sailor's bar, speculating about a very public tragedy&#8230; I happen to hold some fairly strong opinions about one of my life's greatest passions, and I'm a sailing forum gasbag to boot, so I'm sorry&#8230; But for me to sit back and simply say that I will offer no personal OPINION whatsoever on this tragedy until "the investigation is complete", well, that ain't gonna happen&#8230; What's the point of ever posting ANYTHING here, if those are gonna be the ground rules? (grin)

What's the point of discussing any of these incidents, if that is the case&#8230; Any word on when the final results of the "investigation" of the RULE 62 tragedy is gonna be forthcoming, for example?

Look, for me to withhold any personal opinion or judgment on this master's actions would be to deny giving voice to everything I've learned over a lifetime of sailing, and 35 years of delivering yachts &#8230; I'll freely admit I've still a great deal to learn, and am willing to be educated on this one&#8230; Hence, my call for plausible reasons for a course of action I have repeatedly branded "unfathomable"&#8230; Perhaps I'm simply a victim of my paucity of imagination, that's why I'm asking for some help in conjuring up some way in which this ill-fated voyage made ANY sense whatsoever&#8230;

Frankly, I think I'm being somewhat charitable, here&#8230; My opinions on the lunacy of the BOUNTY setting sail when she did is based solely on the facts as we currently know them&#8230; Namely, the time and place of departure, the forecast at that time, the unsuitability of a vessel like the BOUNTY for riding out or avoiding a hurricane at sea, the course steered directly into the path of such a monster storm, and so on&#8230; As stated earlier, I'm willing to discount that damning YouTube interview with that moron in Belfast, and the nonsensical statements made by Trowbridge regarding "chasing hurricanes", "no such thing as bad weather", or there being little distinction between standing on deck at dockside, and in the midst of 70' seas&#8230;

Again, I appreciate the apparent unwillingness on the part of yourself and others to render any judgment until "all the facts are in"&#8230; But by the same token, I'm comfortable with the opinions I've expressed here, and I resent the implication that always arises in these discussions that anyone doing so might be little more than an "armchair sailor"&#8230;

Few people alive, for example, likely know more about passagemaking under sail in the Western North Atlantic than a guy like Don Street&#8230; Does anyone believe that if he were dragged into this discussion, his response would be of the tepid sort, "Well, I think I'd rather wait until 'all the facts are known' about the final voyage of the BOUNTY, before commenting&#8230;" ? (grin)


----------



## TakeFive

I don't question your (or anyone else's) right to bloviate all you want about this incident. Go ahead, use your "imagination."

My reason for choosing not to get involved is that I have a real life to live, and prefer not to waste my time speculating when I suspect that the facts may render 90% of the speculation moot. I'm willing to wait.

But go ahead and lob your hand grenades all you want. It's hard for a dead man to sue for defamation. 

It goes without saying that the captain bears ultimate responsibility for the safety of his crew. And given that two died under his watch, it is clear that he shoulders a significant load of blame, no matter what other facts may emerge. But to me it seems unnecessary to pile on any further, especially given that he has already been subjected to the death penalty for his actions.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> My reason for choosing not to get involved is that I have a real life to live, and prefer not to waste my time speculating when I suspect that the facts may render 90% of the speculation moot. I'm willing to wait.


Fair enough... I'll be eagerly anticipating the emergence of the mitigating "facts" that will render "moot" the sailing of a pig like the BOUNTY into the teeth of the largest, most destructive hurricane ever to hit North America, and meeting it directly abeam of the most treacherous lee shore in the Western North Atlantic, and in opposition to one of the most powerful ocean currents on the planet...


----------



## TakeFive

JonEisberg said:


> Fair enough... I'll be eagerly anticipating the emergence of the mitigating "facts" that will render "moot" the sailing of a pig like the BOUNTY into the teeth of the largest, most destructive hurricane ever to hit North America, and meeting it directly abeam of the most treacherous lee shore in the Western North Atlantic, and in opposition to one of the most powerful ocean currents on the planet...


Oh, for crying out loud I promised I would not do this.

Suppose that the investigation reveals that the malfunction had absolutely nothing to do with the weather...that the lee shore had no effect on the outcome...that the vessel would have sunk anyway without a hurricane to the southeast? Based on the captain's statements, this ship had seen worse than 18 ft. seas and 40 knot winds before.

I am not denying the presence of the weather, and the questionable judgement to head out. But it is possible that the facts could show that the weather was not a factor in the root cause, and then much of the speculation about it becomes moot. Had he stayed in for the hurricane, nobody would have died on that day. But what if the nature of the malfunction was something that would have happened on his NEXT trip out, and would have led to the same fatal result? Then the hurricane is moot, and people still would have died. It's purely speculation, but two can play that game.


----------



## xymotic

Except a helicopter rescue in calm weather is a *little* different than one on the edge of a hurricane.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> Oh, for crying out loud I promised I would not do this.
> 
> Suppose that the investigation reveals that the malfunction had absolutely nothing to do with the weather...that the lee shore had no effect on the outcome...that the vessel would have sunk anyway without a hurricane to the southeast? Based on the captain's statements, this ship had seen worse than 18 ft. seas and 40 knot winds before.
> 
> I am not denying the presence of the weather, and the questionable judgement to head out. But it is possible that the facts could show that the weather was not a factor in the root cause, and then much of the speculation about it becomes moot. Had he stayed in for the hurricane, nobody would have died on that day. But what if the nature of the malfunction was something that would have happened on his NEXT trip out, and would have led to the same fatal result? Then the hurricane is moot, and people still would have died. It's purely speculation, but two can play that game.


How cannot have nothing to do with the weather? The ingress of water was progressive and in calm weather they had just to ask to CG to deliver them some diesel pumps and to tow the boat to shore.

Besides that email from the woman that tragically died makes clear that the engines and the generators (the only way to power the water pumps) were in bad shape, not reliable and that the crew was " always stewing over them".

Obviously the Captain knew that too as he knew the boat was making water. And here let me tell you that I live in a place where 30m wooden fishing boats still operate and a condition of a boat that needs to have the pumps working every hour to take water out would scare any fisherman.

How can this accident have nothing to do with the condition of the ship and the fact that the Captain took an unsuitable ship, in bad working condition to an hurricane taking a "calculated risk"?

The only situation it is acceptable for a Captain to take a calculated risk that puts in danger his crew is when all the other options imply a greater risk to the loss of human live. So you think that if he had not take that risk, sailing a Hurricane, and had stayed in Port the risk of loss of human life would be greater? Jesus

As it was already explained many times, it was not only the wind or the waves, but the type of sea condition that in that particular place, with that wind takes place.

Anyway, one thing is to be on high seas and be caught to an unavoidable storm, other thing is to sail deliberately to one, taking and avoidable risk.

I guess this Captain's statement says it all:

*"we chase hurricanes...You try to get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop, you don't want to get in front of it, you want to stay behind it, but you also get a good ride out of a hurricane," *

This Captain should have lost its license after having said this barbarity. He can do it alone in his boat and even so he is putting at risk the ones that sooner or later would be trying to save him, but doing this with a crew that has confidence his judgment about their safety, putting all in a "calculated risk"? This guy is irresponsible and that is the last thing a Captain should be.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

xymotic said:


> Except a helicopter rescue in calm weather is a *little* different than one on the edge of a hurricane.


Good example of a moot point. The helicopter rescue was successful. Everyone on the life rafts was rescued. It's possible the outcome would have been the same in other conditions.


----------



## Minnewaska

First, if you are going to call for a rescue, you have a responsibility to consider the conditions you might call them in.

I'm also finding most of the defense of the Capt to be more personal than rational. There has been major media that has been as damning as anyone here. I'll ask if those in defense of waiting for the investigation had lost a daughter, with little to no experience sailing this vessel and, therefore, reliant on the Captain's judgement, whether you would remain as patient. 

Sure, there has been some verbal lynching here, but mostly its been an expression of opinion. That's everyone's right and this is not a court of law. There is no verdict, even from that express one in anger. Understandable anger, IMO. Its a discussion.

Even if the Capt were forced to take the boat out to sea, he put his job ahead of others lives. I just can't think of a situation where he can come out clean on this one, but I'm listening. If you agree that he is mostly likely at fault, I'm not fully understanding the pushback on talking about it.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Fair enough... I'll be eagerly anticipating the emergence of the mitigating "facts" that will render "moot" the sailing of a pig like the BOUNTY into the teeth of the largest, most destructive hurricane ever to hit North America, and meeting it directly abeam of the most treacherous lee shore in the Western North Atlantic, and in opposition to one of the most powerful ocean currents on the planet...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for crying out loud I promised I would not do this.
> 
> Suppose that the investigation reveals that the malfunction had absolutely nothing to do with the weather...that the lee shore had no effect on the outcome...that the vessel would have sunk anyway without a hurricane to the southeast? Based on the captain's statements, this ship had seen worse than 18 ft. seas and 40 knot winds before.
> 
> I am not denying the presence of the weather, and the questionable judgement to head out. But it is possible that the facts could show that the weather was not a factor in the root cause, and then much of the speculation about it becomes moot. Had he stayed in for the hurricane, nobody would have died on that day. But what if the nature of the malfunction was something that would have happened on his NEXT trip out, and would have led to the same fatal result? Then the hurricane is moot, and people still would have died. It's purely speculation, but two can play that game.
Click to expand...

Again, fair enough, that's possible, one must suppose...

However, I will simply say that if a final investigation determines this tragedy had "absolutely nothing to do with the weather", I will be VERY _perplexed_, to say the least...

Such a determination would seem a bit like suggesting the loss of RULE 62 had nothing to do with the skipper's decision to attempt to enter a Bahamian cut, at night, during a rage condition... But, perhaps that's just me, who might see it that way... (grin)

I'll concede your point, that it's possible some information that comes to light that further illuminates the "malfunction" that sealed the fate of the BOUNTY... What I'm seeking, at this point, are suggestions of factors/scenarios that would make the Master's decision to leave New London when he did, sailing the course he laid, passing on the opportunity to put into the Chesapeake/Hampton Roads/Portsmouth when he did, and so on - all appear to be the actions of a _prudent and reasonable_ seaman...


----------



## TakeFive

I not defending, just pointing out that speculation may be fruitless. Go at it if you have time to spare.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> I not defending, just pointing out that speculation may be fruitless. Go at it if you have time to spare.


Not sure if your post is in response to mine, but...

Actually, I believe I've attempted to avoid pure "speculation" in the course of this thread. Based somewhat on the evidence provided by the interview with Trowbirdge in Belfast, I have my own "hunch" on what might have informed his decision to sail, but I've kept that to myself, and haven't offered it here... Sure, I have _invited_ speculation on the part of those who appear to believe there may have been some good reason(s) for this voyage, simply because I'm completely at a loss to come up with any on my own...

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree that it is not "speculation" to point out that to have deliberately placed his crew in the Gulf Stream, between Cape Hatteras and a storm as powerful as Sandy, aboard a wooden ship a half-century old, was a VERY risky and unwise maneuver... Generations of Atlantic sailors would likely agree, perhaps the Bay of Biscay is the only other place in the North Atlantic basin which might be as treacherous in such weather...

I've spoken to numerous friends and professional acquaintances about this tragedy, and to a person, EVERY one's initial reaction has been the same: Namely, "WTF were they doing out there in the first place???"

The burden of proof seems raised absurdly high, if it is not by now considered a reasonably well established FACT among sailors that the BOUNTY'S position would be a very, VERY bad place to be in such conditions... And, it was most certainly no ACCIDENT that she was there, at that time...


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> The burden of proof seems raised absurdly high, if it is not by now considered a reasonably well established FACT among sailors that the BOUNTY'S position would be a very, VERY bad place to be in such conditions... And, it was most certainly no *ACCIDENT* that she was there, at that time...


Hummm I wonder what you want to suggest with this. I know that they were trying to unsuccessfully sell the boat for several years but..... its is hard to believe even in the possibility of a Captain to risk the lives of others on account of insurance claims

Or do you mean that the Captain was just crazy and was just doing what he said he likes to do: Chasing Hurricanes?

Anyway it is obviously that the ship was there because the Captain wanted, not by accident in a sense that he was not caught inadvertently by that storm. He could have stayed in Port, several of them. Is this what you mean when you say "NOT BY ACCIDENT"?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

Does anyone know of any other captains who set sail toward hurricane Sandy at the approximate time Captain Walbridge did?


----------



## smurphny

TakeFive said:


> Oh, for crying out loud I promised I would not do this.
> 
> Suppose that the investigation reveals that the malfunction had absolutely nothing to do with the weather...that the lee shore had no effect on the outcome...that the vessel would have sunk anyway without a hurricane to the southeast? Based on the captain's statements, this ship had seen worse than 18 ft. seas and 40 knot winds before.
> 
> I am not denying the presence of the weather, and the questionable judgement to head out. But it is possible that the facts could show that the weather was not a factor in the root cause, and then much of the speculation about it becomes moot. Had he stayed in for the hurricane, nobody would have died on that day. But what if the nature of the malfunction was something that would have happened on his NEXT trip out, and would have led to the same fatal result? Then the hurricane is moot, and people still would have died. It's purely speculation, but two can play that game.


You're absolutely right about the fact that the boat could have dropped a plank or something similar and went down like a rock. Maybe someone on the re-fit forgot to fasten a plank...who knows? Anything is possible. The thing most are questioning is the decision to go rather than stay put. I don't think anyone on this thread would have set out and headed into a hurricane by choice. As I said previously, it just makes no sense. The simple equation is that if the boat was not where it was, these people would probably still be alive. Losing that theoretical plank when she was not heading into a hurricane would have very likely resulted in a different outcome. Then again, maybe in a worse outcome much farther from shore and help with the loss of all hands. The frustration and anger of most posters is based on the decision to sail which just can't be fathomed. In the grand fateful scheme of things, maybe it actually saved the other 14 crew members.


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> Hummm I wonder what you want to suggest with this. I know that they were trying to unsuccessfully sell the boat for several years but..... its is hard to believe even in the possibility of a Captain to risk the lives of others on account of insurance claims
> 
> Or do you mean that the Captain was just crazy and was just doing what he said he likes to do: Chasing Hurricanes?
> 
> Anyway it is obviously that he was there because the Captain wanted, not by accident in a sense that he was not caught inadvertently by that storm. He could have stayed in Port, several of them. Is this what you mean when you say "NOT BY ACCIDENT"?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


In my experience, when you want to find out why people do what they do, the FIRST place you look is at the money side of the issue, sex being a close second.


----------



## chef2sail

> I'm also finding most of the defense of the Capt to be more personal than rational-Minnewaska


Havent seen anyone defend the Captain including me. That seems to be the misconception about what those who think hes already guilty and those who think there are other factors invilved also and want to know why a sane mane who had realatively good credentials would do it.


----------



## chef2sail

> Does anyone know of any other captains who set sail toward hurricane Sandy at the approximate time Captain Walbridge did?-


JulieMor

At least 25 vessels of the US Navy from Norfolk

I know why and I know they didnt go out in wooden sailing vessels either so dont go in that direction. Just answering her question.


----------



## Minnewaska

JulieMor said:


> Does anyone know of any other captains who set sail toward hurricane Sandy at the approximate time Captain Walbridge did?


That would be an interesting answer. If none, that says something. If any, I'll bet Bounty was the only "period correct" hull design from the 18th century.


----------



## chef2sail

> sex being a close second- smurphy


:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher

I have seen captains run vessels aground for sex....but sailing to hurricane? Come to think of it the crews in acient days sailed their ships on the rocks for the Sirens


----------



## JulieMor

Minnewaska said:


> That would be an interesting answer. If none, that says something. If any, I'll bet Bounty was the only "period correct" hull design from the 18th century.


Well, we know Captain Moreland of the _Picton Castle_ stayed in port. Was there a tall ships gathering in Nova Scotia that was headed to FL? I think I read _Bounty_ was there before making port in New London. Maybe there were other tall ships in the area.

I'm kind of expecting stricter examinations of the tall ships coming from this tragedy, from number of crew and their experience to the ability of the ship and crew to handle any situations that may arise.

I was on the _Picton Castle_ website and it says they have 12 full time crew and berths for up to 40 guests. With over 12,000 square feet of sail, I can see a lot of logic in having a crew of 52 aboard. It was interesting to note they do not allow couples on the boat. The logic stated is that couples would put their partner before the ship. I guess you have to love the ship more than anything. I saw a picture of a woman (it might have been Claudene Christian) kissing the bow of the Bounty. Is that love or what?


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> :laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher
> 
> I have seen captains run vessels aground for sex....but sailing to hurricane? Come to think of it the crews in acient days sailed their ships on the rocks for the Sirens


Certainly. The bright one like Ulysses or Odysseus just tied themselves to the mast to resist their calling the stupid ones sunk. 



JulieMor said:


> ...
> I'm kind of expecting stricter examinations of the tall ships coming from this tragedy, from number of crew and their experience to the ability of the ship and crew to handle any situations that may arise.
> 
> ...


That is one of the problems. They can't.

I think Picton Castle is in another class (sail training vessels) while the Bounty and many others are in a special class created to make the live easy to these boats. In fact they are in a similar class to charter boats with six passengers but exceptionally extended to 12 passengers. These are boats that are excepted from serious structural inspections. They only see if the papers are in order, if the boat has the the security items regarding safety and so on.

.. The ship's last reported deficiency came in May 2011, when an inspector noted that the ship had some old nautical maps and faulty documentation after* "substantial" tonnage alternations*. Those problems were reported to have been corrected as of September.

Of course they did not inspect those tonnage alterations but only the papers regarding them. They can't, the Bounty is classified under the subchapter C *uninspected* 12 passenger vessel.

A member of this forum, an Ex Coat Guard said in what regards the class of uninspected vessels:



nolatom said:


> Back when I was in the Coast Guard learning to be a marine inspector long ago, the *saying I heard about uninspected vessels (referring to the rule that more than six paying passengers required a Certificate of Inspection):
> 
> "You can drown six---you can't drown seven"
> 
> I suppose you could change this to 12 and 13 as the circumstances may warrant. *
> 
> I await the Board of Investigation with interest. In my experience the Coast Guard is not unwilling to criticize themselves when warranted ...


Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> Good example of a moot point. The helicopter rescue was successful. Everyone on the life rafts was rescued. It's possible the outcome would have been the same in other conditions.


You've gotta be kidding. The coast guard rescure swimmers said somthing to the effect that was the hardest rescue they had ever done. ie: Bounty was putting CG in extreme danger when Bounty called for a extraction.


----------



## casey1999

I had posted this before, but all that think it would be ok to sail where a hurricane is lurking please provide an answer:

The things that don't make sense to me is the Capt states in the video he likes to chase hurricanes. But then he states the ship normally sails when at sea at 4-5 knots, and the ship can only go sideways to the wind or downwind. Does not sound like the ship could hove to. The Capt also states the diesel auxillaries are underpowered for the ship and are only used when coming into port.

So this Capt wants to chase hurricanes in a ship that is limited to sailing only 90 degrees off the wind (and with lee way probably more like 100 degrees or more), and the ships diesels were not strong enough to power it in any kind of stong wind or high sea condition.

How can the Capt stay in his perferred SW quadarant? 

Regards


----------



## casey1999

I thought this was interesting (Blog from LA article). Definitely a case where life is stranger than fiction:

From: 
HMS Bounty sinking to be investigated; victim was 'very concerned' - latimes.com

Bonnie Ember at 3:19 PM November 03, 2012 
I am a Lover of Tall Ships, & the Shipwreck of the HMS Bounty ii & crew member & Capt., is a story that did not have to end in Davy Jones Locker.

Now, for the Paranormal.

Claudene Christian, asked the Captain if he was sure that he wanted her onboard, being a desendent of Fletcher Christian, the Leader of the Mutiny & the Captain who scuttled the ship.

Before she sailed out into the Tail of the Hurricane, she called her parents & told them that she loved them incase something happened.

There were 16 crew onbaord the HMS Bounty ii. (Many crew members decided not to go, or it was a small crew.)

14 survived.

The HMS Pandoro, was sent to Tahiti, to capture the Mutineers. They found 16 Mutineers & captured them.

2 Died, before they left the island.

The Pandora, sank in a Hurricane.

The HMS Bounty II, carrying a descendent of the original ship, sinks & kills her & the Captain.

I am a fan of Christian Fletcher, but could this ship be a Ghost Ship, & could this shipwreck be

Bligh's revenge?

"The Floggings will continue, until Morale improves." Capt. Bligh

You can see some great footage of the Tall ships on my Film Trailers:

Carnivale di Venezia & Tahiti on

youtube under the names:

bonnieember & alphaember

RIP


----------



## zeehag

i found it most interesting and easy to follow on bounty's ownpages, website and fb--everything was told and retold to the readers--th folks who need to re - scenario everything would have known what really happened in the first page here--i believe i posted the info an where to find it.....
god rest the dead. 
also some info that would have been known was the schedule to which bounty was sailing-- they were to have been in st petes for some freak of a ceremony involving the muni pier and bounty---but, no, you guys didnt bother to read these pages, so even now, instead of saying rip souls and boat, which also had a soul, folks are still rehashing all that which was spelled out in bountys own pages... is actually a sad situation. 
folks died and only things can be said are denegrations and fake scenarios of the events leading to the tragedy.
and you guys are not the only ones doing same.
i am not supporting the stuff done--IS OVER--THEY DIED--RIP-- i am merely lost in wonderment about the nature of humanity



and--the weird stuff---(thee to outer limits playing in background)--direct descendant of fletcher christian, an the 20 yr master of the well made replica bounty, and ship , all go gone in same day--


----------



## JulieMor

At this point I would expect the governing authorities to take whatever measures they feel necessary to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. If that meant they re-classified a boat or changed the rules and doing so would result in a reduction in future loss of life, I would think they should do that. IMHO.

Because of my personal experiences, I have an immense respect for the forces of Mother Nature. I would never, under any circumstances, leave port if I thought there was even a remote chance of meeting up with a hurricane. *Never*.

Now, I have no idea if the Coast Guard would ever consider creating certain requirements that would call for Coast Guard clearance before setting sail because of this incident. But I can see insurance companies having an impact by voiding policies where they determined a captain or owner of a vessel put the ship and crew in jeopardy.

In the case of the Bounty, there has been sufficient testimony thus far (though not under oath) and evidence to support the belief of many that the ship was less than seaworthy and that the crew was too short-handed and too inexperienced to handle serious weather and therefore the captain should never have set sail. For me, all I had to know was Hurricane Sandy was out there waiting to swallow up anyone willing to take her on.

My girlfriend is in insurance and she said if the insurance company was aware of the Walbridge video, they may have cancelled the owner's policy. Also, quite possibly, Walbridge would be denied life insurance if he tried to apply. The Coast Guard may do nothing beyond the investigation but failure to obtain insurance can motivate people to do things they don't want to do. 

In my years in construction I found financial motivation be much more powerful than heartfelt concern when it came to instituting safety measures on the jobsite. Maybe this incident will have that kind of impact or maybe it will all be forgotten until it happens again.


----------



## casey1999

So that we may appease those they take offense to our "jump to conclusions" opinions and findings, I suggest you add the following disclaimer to your posts.

"Initial preliminary findings suggest the cause of the Bounty's sinking (and loss of life) was due to __________, a final report will be issued once all evidence and testimony has been reviewed and studied."


----------



## Minnewaska

A woman, who did have a soul, died on a boat trying to keep a schedule. Got it. Doesn't change a thing I've read above from anyone, nor render any of it off limits, IMO.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> So that we may appease those they take offense to our "jump to conclusions" opinions and findings, I suggest you add the following disclaimer to your posts.
> 
> "Initial preliminary findings suggest the cause of the Bounty's sinking (and loss of life) was due to __________, a final report will be issued once all evidence and testimony has been reviewed and studied."


I'm not sure who you're referring to, but speaking for myself, I don't take any offense. You don't need to bother with your proposed disclaimer, because I don't take your speculation seriously enough to need any disclaimer.

I merely choose not to give any credence to Internet rumors and speculation. I'm willing to wait for real facts to emerge. Since the USCG has announced that they will investigate, I'm confident that a useful report will eventually come out, and it will be worth waiting for.

At some point I'll get bored enough with your repetitious re-posts of your previous posts, and other circular logic, that I'll just stop reading this topic and move on.

I have the opposite view of some of you. It seems you're determined to stir up controversy by posting speculation. Then when some of us refuse to go along, you get offended and try to kick the hornets nest even harder.

I've seen (and participated in) enough safety investigations to realize that new, previously undisclosed facts often lead to new and unexpected interpretations of events. And if not, so be it. I'm just willing to wait to see what the real truth is.


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> I'm not sure who you're referring to, but speaking for myself, I don't take any offense. You don't need to bother with your proposed disclaimer, because I don't take your speculation seriously enough to need any disclaimer.
> 
> I merely choose not to give any credence to Internet rumors and speculation. I'm willing to wait for real facts to emerge. Since the USCG has announced that they will investigate, I'm confident that a useful report will eventually come out, and it will be worth waiting for.
> 
> At some point I'll get bored enough with your repetitious re-posts of your previous posts, and other circular logic, that I'll just stop reading this topic and move on.
> 
> I have the opposite view of some of you. It seems you're determined to stir up controversy by posting speculation. Then when some of us refuse to go along, you get offended and try to kick the hornets nest even harder.
> 
> I've seen (and participated in) enough safety investigations to realize that new, previously undisclosed facts often lead to new and unexpected interpretations of events. And if not, so be it. I'm just willing to wait to see what the real truth is.


Not referring to you, 
carry on.


----------



## PCP

Some more information:

*Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."

The National Weather Service's marine forecast for the area described the coming confluence of systems: "HIGH PRESSURE MOVES OFFSHORE ON FRIDAY AS A COLD FRONT APPROACHES FROM THE WEST. A COASTAL STORM ASSOCIATED WITH TROPICAL CYCLONE SANDY MAY IMPACT THE AREA LATE IN THE WEEKEND AND INTO EARLY NEXT WEEK."

Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.

"He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections.

....

While people may have been reluctant to question Walbridge's plan, that's not true today. A debate is raging about his decision to go to sea with a monster storm looming. At least three tall-sailing-ship captains have said they would not have tried that passage with Sandy barreling northward.

....

"Rest assured that the Bounty is safe and in very capable hands. Bounty's current voyage is a calculated decision &#8230; NOT AT ALL &#8230; irresponsible or with a lack of foresight as some have suggested. The fact of the matter is &#8230; A SHIP IS SAFER AT SEA THAN IN PORT!"

....

The first sentence of his biography on the Bounty's website says: "According to Captain Robin Walbridge, Bounty has no boundaries. As her captain, he is well known for his ability and desire to take Bounty to places that no ship has gone before."

.....
*
Bounty's ill-fated trip in face of hurricane scrutinized | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


----------



## casey1999

PCP, Thanks for link,
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/bountys-illfated-trip-face-hurricane-scrutinized

Quote:
"There are a lot of armchair sailors saying, 'What the hell was he doing out there?' " said Richard Bailey, a captain who worked with Walbridge and has known him for more than 20 years.

"He had a strategy," Bailey said. "*Aside from being dead, it makes great sense*. I think a professional examination will say it was *a good strategy, but it didn't take into account a complete and utter loss of power*."


----------



## jameswilson29

casey1999 said:


> "He had a strategy," Bailey said. "*Aside from being dead, it makes great sense*."


Isn't he supposed to give credit to Yogi Berra for that quote?


----------



## nolatom

jameswilson29 said:


> Isn't he supposed to give credit to Yogi Berra for that quote?


"When you come to a midchannel marker---Take it!"


----------



## PCP

About the sea conditions:

*"It's one of the biggest seas I've ever been in. It was huge out there," said coastguard rescue swimmer Randy Haba, who helped pluck four crew members off one of the canopied life rafts and a fifth who was in the water.*

HMS Bounty crew member dies and captain missing in stormy seas | World news | guardian.co.uk

About the possible reasons of generator failure, consequent impossibility to run the pumps and consequent engine failure:

Hansen said Walbridge was attempting to head east, away from the hurricane, when the ship began taking on water.

"*At that time it wasn't considered an emergency, even though **they had several feet of water inside the boat,*" Hansen said.

"She's a very large ship, and that little bit of water really does not do anything to her. *But somehow we lost power in our generator and in our main engines, and as a result, we could not pump any water out of the boat."*
As the waves continued to batter the ship, "it just got to the point where she couldn't stay afloat anymore."

Sandy claims 'Bounty' off North Carolina - CNN.com

From the gCaptain Forum, posted by a professional sailor (1600 Master)

I was sailing on board the tall ship Bounty as a guest in May and was not tasked with pumping the bilges. My photos of the engine room exist simply because I'd never seen an engine room with wooden bulkheads, or a wooden bilge. The engine room was cramped, the main engines were (Caterpillar?), and generator (yellow...Caterpillar?) were in custom made sound-proofed boxes. In the photos you can see the battery powered fire alarm, and typical electrical outlet mounted low on the FWD bulkhead.

The pumps...If I remember correctly, the main bilge pump was in the engine room, and was mounted low on the FWD bulkhead and was electric. *

With just a small amount of water sloshing around the engine room everything on board would have shorted out. *

You can see in my photos just how shallow the bilge is in the engine room.

... There were no other "emergency" pumps located higher than those in the engine room that I remember, and I do not believe she was required to maintain any other emergency pumps.

I do not believe she was required to have a licensed engineer/QMED or oiler on board.

Below the weather deck she was basically open bow to stern. *The next level below had many different transverse wooden bulkheads built for structural integrity but not watertight integrity. If there was 2' of water in one area, say in the lower crew berthing area, then there would be 2' of water in the engine room based only one the curvature of the hull, and slope of the keel. *

The bulkheads on the Bounty were not intended to isolate areas from free-flow water movement; they were not required to do so by the ABS or the USCG.

There was one watertight door installed to appease a disgusted marine inspector years ago. It separated the lower FWD sleeping area from the bosun stores area. There were also numerous non-watertight doors between decks.

As an old, wooden, movie prop, she leaked constantly and each watch was tasked to monitor the bilge water level and pump her out as needed.

*Underway, in rough seas she would have been leaking like mad and would have been totally dependent on her electric pumps&#8230;which were easy to short out due to their location.*
&#8230;&#8230;.
&#8230;&#8230;.

From another professional as a reply:

*A licensed engineer worth his or her salt would have walked off the gangway after one look around. *

Thanks for this, and thanks to everyone else who posted up. While I have an interest in the history of sail, and how our predecessors lived and worked, I never really paid much attention to contemporary replica tall ships, because it never occurred to me that someone would be so foolhardy as to take one out in a storm of Sandy's magnitude. I always thought of them as tourist attractions and museum pieces that were only sailed in fair weather. Silly, silly me. I've gotten a real education from this thread.

.....


----------



## casey1999

Can anyone post an AIS plott of what ships would have been in the Eastern Atlantic at the time of the Bounty sinking?

I understand Bounty was in communication with another vessel that they were going to pass.

Did a search but came up with nothing.

this gives live shots, pretty cool:
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?level0=100

Regards


----------



## chef2sail

Casey,

I have that app on the IPAD as well as android phone. Is a great help in figuring out anchored vessels as well as names of vessels to hail.

We also have ais module on our Raymarine system as well as the VHF which of course helps identify us as well


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Casey,
> 
> I have that app on the IPAD as well as android phone. Is a great help in figuring out anchored vessels as well as names of vessels to hail.
> 
> We also have ais module on our Raymarine system as well as the VHF which of course helps identify us as well


Was wondering if a "snap shot" is available at the time of sinking of the Bounty?


----------



## casey1999

Very interesting:
http://www.holdhmsbountyaccountable.org/


----------



## PCP

*Armchair sailor's opinion*

Some more information:

The opinion of another armchair sailor (now with 77), that was for 16 years the Bounty Captain:

*Hugh Boyd, 77, a former Bounty captain for 16 years, echoed Carey in wondering why Walbridge took the ship out as a hurricane approached.

"I'm so sorry he went out in this weather to risk the lives of him and his crew," Boyd said. "It was very risky business."
*

Another armchair sailor and former Captain of the tall ship Virginia:

Captain Hank Moseley:

*Moseley said many people questioned the decision to go to sea with the storm looming."All of us watched through social media that the ship had departed, and many of us were surprised that they left when they did and followed the route that they did. If the decision were mine to make, I wouldn't have made that passage."*

Another armchair sailor, the Captain of the tall ship Picton Castle:

*The captain of the Picton Castle says he can't understand why the Bounty was at sea Monday when a massive hurricane was forecast to hit.

Indeed, Dan Moreland postponed leaving Lunenburg more than a week ago precisely because of hurricane Sandy.

"It was an easy decision to make," he said. "It's black and white, there are no nuances with this. It's a huge system and that made the decision very simple."

Moreland said he has known Robin Walbridge, the longtime captain of the Bounty, for years and he is an experienced seaman, but Moreland said he was shocked that Walbridge decided to sail, given the forecast.

"Yes, I have to say yes, I can't say anything else. When I first heard the Bounty was out there, I thought, 'You've got to be kidding.' "

Moreland said there was very good information on the storm well in advance.

"I don't understand this one at all," he said. "This is a huge system, there is no way of avoiding this, there's no dodging and weaving around it."

Moreland has captained the Picton Castle on five circumnavigations, and the tall ship has sailed more than 400,000 kilometres under his command without incident.

Moreland had planned to set sail in the Picton Castle over a week ago but delayed the voyage because of the impending hurricane.

"I had no interest in going because of this storm," clearly a large system that would have extensive impact, he said.

He postponed the departure until last Wednesday, and then, given the latest weather information, decided to stay put until the storm passed....

Moreland expects the Bounty's sinking to come under intense scrutiny.

"When you lose a ship, there are some pretty obvious questions out of this. It's pretty horrible, and the big question is, the decision to go."*

Another armchair sailor but one that knows one or two things about the Bounty, the former president of the Society of Preservation of the HMS Bounty, Cathy Carey :

*she wondered why Walbridge was on the ocean with all the warnings about the looming superstorm. "He knew the storm was coming, for a couple of weeks. He had plenty of time to know," she said. "He shouldn't have gone out there...*

And the saddest and oddest thing is that this was not a first time for the Bounty (with the same Captain). Some years ago almost sunk exactly by the same reasons it sank now:

*This was not the first time the Bounty was in peril. In 1998, several newspapers reported the ship almost sank after three of its bilge pumps failed.

Investigators said the ship started taking on water when a storm banged the ship around, loosening the caulking between the planks and allowing water to seep in. The Coast Guard responded and delivered pumps to the troubled vessel.*

2nd day of searching for ship's captain is unsuccessful | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-...-cheers/story?id=17588614&page=2#.UJhRF29mKSo

Picton Castle captain questions Bounty being at sea during storm | The Chronicle Herald


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Hummm I wonder what you want to suggest with this. I know that they were trying to unsuccessfully sell the boat for several years but..... its is hard to believe even in the possibility of a Captain to risk the lives of others on account of insurance claims
> 
> Or do you mean that the Captain was just crazy and was just doing what he said he likes to do: Chasing Hurricanes?
> 
> Anyway it is obviously that the ship was there because the Captain wanted, not by accident in a sense that he was not caught inadvertently by that storm. He could have stayed in Port, several of them. Is this what you mean when you say "NOT BY ACCIDENT"?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Sorry, probably a poor choice of words, I'm not trying to infer anything by my choice of that word. I simply meant that the BOUNTY was put into her position deliberately, and I can't imagine anyone in their wildest imagination might think that sailing directly into a hurricane would be a likely means to obtain a satisfactory insurance settlement...

When I first learned of this story, I had assumed the BOUNTY was on a southbound passage from Nova Scotia, that had likely commenced far before forecasters had settled on the projected track of Sandy... Even then, the initial reports had claimed they had sailed due east in and effort to "skirt" the massive storm...

But when it was learned they had departed New London on Thursday, and upon clearing Montauk had laid a course directly into the storm's projected track, it became clear it was no "accident" that placed them off Hatteras when Sandy reached that latitude... There was no accident in the form of a rig or steering failure that disabled them, making it impossible for them to escape, or divert to the Chesapeake Entrance... The track of their voyage shows them making relatively steady, unwavering progress towards the point of her abandonment, that's all I meant by saying it was no accident, or unforeseen problem/failure that put them there...


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> I think a professional examination will say it was *a good strategy, but it didn't take into account a complete and utter loss of power*."


Seems to me, that for a "professional examination" to come to such a conclusion, one would have to largely disregard the fact that the BOUNTY was a _Sailing_ vessel...

Any military commander understands no battle plan is likely to survive the initial contact with the enemy... Similarly, one of the most elemental definitions of seamanship - particularly with heavy weather - IMHO, is the continuous thought given to the question "What do I do _IF_ such and such happens?"

Taking a sailing vessel dependent upon diesel propulsion to make headway, or generators to remain afloat, into the path of a hurricane... yeah, that's a great plan, alright...

Until it isn't...


----------



## rgscpat

Some other places has talked about whether there might have been an issue with removing the original lead ballast pigs and replacing them with a steel keel shoe.

One other issue that has been discussed elsewhere is communications.
Rather surprisingly, I didn't see anything about EPIRBs or PLBs, for example, in the winlink.org article:

http://www.winlink.org/node/662

On Monday morning, October 29, the tall ship HMS Bounty was in the embrace of Hurricane Sandy 90 miles off Hatteras, NC and taking on water. Doug Faunt, N6TQS, survivor and ship's electrician, told the ARRL that the Bounty crew tried various methods to call for help, including a satellite phone, "... we got nothing when tried calling out on HF. We tried calling the Maritime Mobile Net, but nothing was out there. We had Winlink on the ship that we used for e-mail and accessing the Internet to post to blogs and to Facebook, and we finally found an e-mail address for the Coast Guard. As a last-ditch effort, we used Winlink to e-mail the Coast Guard for help.


----------



## rgscpat

Also: 
Bounty crew - Good Morning America 007:30 tomorrow.


----------



## PCP

rgscpat said:


> ...
> On Monday morning, October 29, the tall ship HMS Bounty was in the embrace of Hurricane Sandy 90 miles off Hatteras, NC and taking on water. Doug Faunt, N6TQS, survivor and ship's electrician, told the ARRL that the Bounty crew tried various methods to call for help, including a satellite phone, "... we got nothing when tried calling out on HF. We tried calling the Maritime Mobile Net, but nothing was out there. We had Winlink on the ship that we used for e-mail and accessing the Internet to post to blogs and to Facebook, and we finally found an e-mail address for the Coast Guard. As a last-ditch effort, we used Winlink to e-mail the Coast Guard for help.


"*We had Winlink on the ship that we used for e-mail and accessing the Internet to post to blogs and to Facebook*"

Internet is great but hardly the best way to call a SAR

I found another armchair sailor that says the Bounty should have not sailed out of New London, the Captain of the Pride of Baltimore:

*Jan Miles, longtime captain of the tall ship Pride of Baltimore II, said going to sea was not a decision he would have made.

"It wasn't like it was a surprise there was a hurricane," he said

"These things are too big for a slow boat to outmaneuver," he said. "Had I been asked what I thought Capt. Walbridge would have done in this instance, it wouldn't have been this."*

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/tall-ship-crew-abandons-vessel-nc-coast

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Brewgyver

jimjazzdad said:


> Sorry Paulo, but you are misinformed. The HMS Bounty was built to the original drawings for the 1784 Bounty, found in the British Admiralty archives (she was made slightly larger to accommodate the filming of the movie). Also the budget argument doesn't hold true in that era - think of films like Ben Hur - huge money was spent by Hollywood in those days. After launch in Nova Scotia, HMS Bounty was SAILED to Tahiti for location filming. (snip)


All very true. MGM made a "making of" documentary of the 1962 movie, and it included footage of the construction of the ship. As to other poster's claims that materials used in the construction of the original ship are no longer available, that is quite inaccurate. British ships of the period used Oak planking for the hull, and of course Oak is still available. If you view the video posted earlier of the ship on fairly rough seas from 2010, there is a glimpse down the companionway. Note the woodwork framing - scarfed joints in hardwood.

She was sailed to Tahiti (that's pretty literally halfway round the world) and back, and she also crossed the Atlantic at least once, touring the UK a few years ago. The ship was definitely well built, it was anything BUT a prop, in the usual Hollywood sense.


----------



## Minnewaska

While it is true that she has sailed around the world, it is not true that she is a replica of the original, nor that she was just slightly larger. Everyone here knows that one foot of LOA has an exponential impact on ship size.

TallShipBounty.org


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> All very true. MGM made a "making of" documentary of the 1962 movie, and it included footage of the construction of the ship. As to other poster's claims that materials used in the construction of the original ship are no longer available, that is quite inaccurate. British ships of the period used Oak planking for the hull, and of course Oak is still available. If you view the video posted earlier of the ship on fairly rough seas from 2010, there is a glimpse down the companionway. Note the woodwork framing - scarfed joints in hardwood.
> 
> She was sailed to Tahiti (that's pretty literally halfway round the world) and back, and she also crossed the Atlantic at least once, touring the UK a few years ago. The ship was definitely well built, it was anything BUT a prop, in the usual Hollywood sense.


Ok, it is possible. It does not much sense that a boat that was made to be burned some months after was built to the same specifications of a boat to last a normal life simply because it would be a big waste of money, but I admit it was possible and some that built the boat said recently that it was a well built boat.

But there are other factors to take in consideration: That boat largely out lasted the normal life s of a wooden boat, I mean the life span that was expected in the time boats like that were built. The reason because the life span was of about 30 years was because after that it was more expensive to maintain a boat in seaworthiness condition than to build a new one.

Wooden boats can be maintained 3 times more time or even forever if all wood is replaced by new one, but the reason of that maintenance is not an economic one, but a symbolic one and the costs are huge.

I know that the boat has been recently restored but the sums to maintain one of this boats fully operational are really huge.

*"At one point in her life, lack of maintenance caused the vessel to temporarily lose her United States Coast Guard license, but Bounty was restored. The vessel's bottom planking was restored at the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in 2002. ... In April 2006, Bounty again arrived in Boothbay Harbor for further renovation including refurbishing the ship's bow and topside decking. Following this renovation, Bounty was scheduled to repeat the famous voyage of the original Bounty...... a US$3 million restoration ...Bounty's owners had tried, unsuccessfully, to sell the vessel since 2010. The ship was for sale as of 2012 for US$4.6 million. In summer 2012, the ship was stationed in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She took part in OpSail 2012 and, in August 2012, was in Halifax. In September and October, 2012, Bounty was in drydock in Boothbay Harbor for maintenance. She was launched from the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard on 22 October 2012."*

To give you an idea we (the Portuguese) have several sailing ships in sailing condition, but the most famous and older (the only with a wooden hull) is only maintained in museum condition. I mean the boat is on the water, can be towed in fair weather and does not make water but is not in condition to sail a storm. The same happens with many European wooden famous boats, from the Cutty Sark to the Vasa.

The reason was that to make it fully operational it would have costed two or three times morel. The recovery costed about 6 million USD in 1998 (and the costs of doing that in Portugal are certainly a lot lesser than in the US). It is true that the recovery work was bigger, but it is also true that today that would cost probably two times more. After that the Ship received more expensive maintenance work in 2007. This is just to give an idea of the costs of maintaining a wooden sailing ship.

I am just pointing out a problem that is common to many tall ships that are not owned by state or other powerful institution that can afford to spend millions a year to maintain these kind of boats: Simply a foundation will not be able to maintain the ship that is not commercially viable and that represents a huge spending of money. They have the boat for sale for less than what costed the last 10 years of maintenance.

It was said, including by the crew that the engines and generators were not very trustworthy and I doubt the ship was in "as new condition" in what regards structural seaworthiness.

Of course I like old ships but I guess that measures have to be taken to assure they are properly inspected and that those that make this inspections remain accountable in what regards his work and even so taking one of then to a hurricane

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

It's possible that a modern-day wood boat can be made to last a lot longer than those before the days of good bottom paint and preservatives. Toredo worms ate up many of the old boats but they are not a problem now as long as the bottom has a good coat of paint. The old square riggers used copper sheeting sometimes but worms can get past it if there's any opening. 

The surprising thing in those comparative specs is that although nearly twice as long as the original, the new boat had the same draft. This would seem to change the righting moment considerably.


----------



## mistermizu

Survivors speak... (can someone post the link to the video on the GMA website - I don't have sufficient "tweets" yet!) Here's the text...

"Crew members from the HMS Bounty, who were rescued as the tall ship sank of the coast of North Carolina last week, are speaking for the first time about their experience as they weathered Hurricane Sandy and the loss of two of their crew mates.

The dramatic sinking of the Bounty and harrowing rescue of its crew last Monday created some of the most enduring images during Hurricane Sandy. In an ABC News exclusive, the ship's 14 surviving crew members are opening up about their rescue after they tried to weather the storm.

They described the chaos as they abandoned ship and the Bounty was slammed by a giant wave. The 14 survivors, still together a week after the disaster, are still chiefly concerned with honoring those who didn't make it -- their captain, Robin Wallbridge, and deckhand Claudine Christian.

For first mate John Svendsen the call to abandon ship was one of the toughest he'd ever made.

"We determined a safe time when we knew the ship would still be stable and we could get everyone on deck and change our focus from saving the ship to saving every life," said Svendsen, who credits Capt. Wallbridge's endless drills and preparation for the 14 lives that were saved.

But the ship's leadership lost all control once a giant wave broadsided the ship, knocking some of the crew -- already in their survival suits -- into the roiling sea.

"It was [like a] washing machine in an earthquake &#8230; while going down a giant slide," crewmember Laura Groves told ABC News.

The crew says their unexpected adventure began on October 25, as the ship set sail from Connecticut. Captain Wallbridge wrote on Facebook that with Hurricane Sandy on the move, "a ship is safer at sea than in port." But three days into the voyage, the crew found themselves in the middle of the ferocious storm, with heaving waves three stories high.

"The weather was so bad and we had so little control," said Douglas Faunt.

"It took every ounce of my strength to focus through to survive," said first mate Svendsen.

Winds were tearing at the crew at 70 mph, and by the fourth day the ship, which was constructed for the 1962 film "Mutiny on the Bounty" and later featured in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," had been taking on water for 24 hours.

Crew members on the Bounty had trained for rough weather countless times, they said.

"We been through two other hurricanes," Daniel Cleveland said. "We were literally launching the life rafts, and she went over."

The ship was thrown on its side, tossing crew members into the waves. They wore red survival suits designed to help them float.

"At that moment I couldn't be sure who the red suits were around me," Cleveland said.

Hours after being thrown into the water and clambering into the life rafts, they began to hear the beating rotors of Coast Guard helicopters. But they were far from safe, with the weather uncertain and one of the most daring Coast Guard rescues in memory underway.

"When the helicopters showed up, I think everyone in the life raft just started hooting and hollering," Cleveland said.

Suddenly a Coast Guard rescue swimmer launched himself from a chopper and swam toward them -- popping his head into their raft and heaving himself in.

"I was immediately filled with a huge sense of relief, and he asked, 'Who's ready to get out of here?' And we were all about to say 'Yeah,' and then the raft just gets crushed with this wave and knocks him pretty good," said Cleveland.

Svendsen was the only survivor not in a raft. He swam to a floating beacon, which had been devised by Capt. Wallbridge.

"So I give my life to Robin, and to his ingenuity, to his leadership, that I'm here today," Svendsen said.

Those who were pulled out alive had no idea who else had survived.

"When we got up there everybody cheered each time we saw a new face come into that helicopter," Joshua Scornavacchi said.

But not everyone made it home. Claudine Christian was one of the Bounty's newest crew members, and was already part of the ship's family.

"She was having the most fun ever on the best ride ever. She was so happy," Doug Faunt said.

Christian's last text to her mother read, "If I do go down with the ship & the worst happens&#8230; just know that I am truly genuinely happy!!"

The Coast Guard found her body hours later, and couldn't revive her. The body of Capt. Wallbridge has not been recovered. For the 14 who made it survival is bittersweet.

"[I'm} going to miss them the rest of my life," said Faunt, wiping away tears.

Today the entire surviving crew is still mourning and in shock, but grateful.

"After this, I'm never going to have another bad day in my life," said Faunt, and the rest of the 13 survivors nodded.


----------



## JulieMor

smurphny said:


> The old square riggers used copper sheeting sometimes...


Imagine the cost of THAT today! 

The Weather Channel has a special (already) on "Superstorm Sandy". Yes, meteorologists have deemed this to be a superstorm. Anyway, the more I learn about this storm and what they knew and when, the less evidence there is to support the decision for anyone to choose to leave port (Navy excluded), let alone head into the direction of this massive storm (no one excluded).

In the two most recent investigations of sailing tragedies that included loss of life, the findings concluded the captain and/or crew were responsible for failure to avoid. I would imagine their investigation of the Bounty disaster will be looking at the same thing - did the captain take the necessary measures to avoid?


----------



## JulieMor

mistermizu said:


> Survivors speak... (can someone post the link to the video on the GMA website - I don't have sufficient "tweets" yet!)


HMS Bounty Survivors: Crew of Ship Sunk During Hurricane Sandy Speak of Lost Shipmates - ABC News


----------



## chef2sail

The interviews and first hand accounts and sentiments of the crew of the Bounty are finally starting to surface. They seem to have a great deal of respect for their captain, more than a few of the posters on Sailnet.

One doesnt have to look far to see the effect of social media ( I would classify Sailnet as this) or the news media and so called experts to obfuscate and put spin, no matter what direction on events. You have seen it over the last year with the presidential election in the forefront of this. Some of the attack ads we have all seen have left me wondering is this what we have come to. Is civility no longer part of our culture where we feel we ll have the right to judge...and then post out feelings with no regards to the people involved. 

So who do you beleive...someone who was in the incident and sailed with him and knows him...or someone who reads reports from others and then blogs about it to bolster thier conclusion or spin. 

Like I have previously said there is a lot more to surface concerning this incident while I dont understand the Captains actions in sailing into a hurricane, I still will withhold my judgement until there is more information. Less than a week has gone by since this happened. far to soon for me to have an accurate pitcure of the whole event.

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> Like I have previously said there is a lot more to surface concerning this incident while* I dont understand the Captains actions in sailing into a hurricane*, I still will withhold my judgement until there is more information. ..
> 
> Dave


Dave, give me just one possible reason for the Captain to sail to a Hurricane, risking the live of his crew, when if he stayed in Port even if we would have the possibility of having some damage on the boat, would have the crew safe.

Let me point out that the Picton Caste whose captain chose to stay in the same port (and said that did not understand why Bounty's Captain had choose to sail to a hurricane) did not sustain any damage with the storm and even if he had, he would have done the right thing putting the live of his crew above a possible damage on the boat.

*You said that we did not know if the storm had any relevance to the lost of the boat.*

The crew says now:

*"The weather was so bad and we had so little control," said Douglas Faunt.

"It took every ounce of my strength to focus through to survive," said first mate Svendsen....

But the ship's leadership lost all control once a giant wave broadsided the ship, knocking some of the crew -- already in their survival suits -- into the roiling sea. ...The ship was thrown on its side, tossing crew members into the waves. They wore red survival suits designed to help them float.*

*Do you still have any doubt know that the Storm was relevant to the lost of the ship?
*

There is a thing that really I am unable to understand:

Has you all know the boat had been already in bad trouble some years back, in a situation very similar making water in a storm and without the generators out of service ( pumps dead) and the boat was saved only because the coast guard was able to deliver some diesel running portable pumps.

Even if if I find that there is not any possible valid reason for the ship to have sailed out of shelter to a Hurricane, why have not they learned with the last incident and have on board independent, portable or not, diesel pumps?

Compared with the millions of dollars that cost the maintenance of that boat their cost would be insignificant.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

One thing we need to give someone credit for having the survival suits on board. 

I am sure that saved some lives. As far as I know survival suits are not a Coast Gurard requirement for the Bounty, so someone deserves credit for spending the money that saved some crew.


----------



## jameswilson29

That's very sweet of the crew to speak so highly of the captain.

Will they be chipping in to pay the multimillion dollar wrongful death jury award?


----------



## priscilla

"A SHIP IS SAFER AT SEA THEN IN PORT" You gotta be kidding!...A northeaster is coming up the coast in a day or so lets all put out to sea!


----------



## nolatom

I didn't expect morning TV interviews of the crew to be very enlighting about why the sinking happened and how to prevent it, and indeed they weren't. The video was, though.

I will wait for the Coast Guard Marine Board to see what they have to say when asked about the decision-making (to the extent they know without Capt Walbridge) and where the water ingress was from, among other things. The chief mate may/should know almost everything the captain did.

I've been a member of such Boards, and represented mariners in them. They usually get to the bottom of things.

That said, I understand the feelings several of them expressed about coming through it--I've heard it from other survivors who didn't expect to survive, they see the rest of their lives as a gift. It can change you.


----------



## casey1999

jameswilson29 said:


> That's very sweet of the crew to speak so highly of the captain.
> 
> Will they be chipping in to pay the multimillion dollar wrongful death jury award?


Sounds like someone would like to go for HMS Bounty organization:
Hold HMS Bounty Accountable | A site dedicated to the accountability of HMS Bounty owners to the crew of HMS Bounty

If the organization (or boat owner) is telling a Capt to get the boat out of port as a storm is coming, could the owner be held fully or partially accountable, or as Capt are you accountable for all ship movements?


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Sounds like someone would like to go for HMS Bounty organization:
> Hold HMS Bounty Accountable | A site dedicated to the accountability of HMS Bounty owners to the crew of HMS Bounty
> 
> If the organization (or boat owner) is telling a Capt to get the boat out of port as a storm is coming, could the owner be held fully or partially accountable, or as Capt are you accountable for all ship movements?


I don't think so. The owner had no obligation to know the risks the boat and the crew will sustain or if the boat will be safe on doing the passage.

It is the Captain that has to decide what is safe or not even at the cost of his job.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

Just read this quote from "Steamer" on the GCaptain site:

http://gcaptain.com/forum/professional-mariner-forum/10134-hms-bounty-hurricane-sandy-20.html

"This Bounty thing has really stirred up a lot of people all across the board and reading the posts on various forums is enlightening and sometimes amusing but some of the stuff from the recreational crowd sends a chill up your spine. A good result though is that gCaptain is getting some mention as a source of professional insights and comment. Heaven only knows how many of their readers faint away like 19th century school girls when they come across the pointy stick style of seafaring criticism. They don't seem to appreciate facts that are much blunter than a plastic sailboat's bow.

There was a good discussion going on in a "trawler" site (which included a link to gCaptain) where one of the members was being praised for the high quality of his seamanship after putting his family aboard a little plastic "trawler" boat and setting anchor in shallow water someplace on Long Island. He believed that if anything happened the water wasn't deep enough to completely cover the boat and if the anchor dragged and they went ashore they could just walk off. A few people condemned his actions but they were shouted down by the huge majority who went so far as to echo the exact words we have been reading about the late Mr. Walbridge - that the guy was a hero and made the right decision - and for protecting his "crew"/family. Tthe fact that he survived is proof to them that he is a superior seaman. The fact that the guy admits to just hanging on for dear life and did nothing other than be a passenger while the storm raged doesn't seem to enter into it.

If nothing else this whole Bounty affair is showing us that there really is a gulf between the recreational (including the TSC) hobbyist and the professional mariner. These guys are really really scary, a lot scarier than I ever believed they were. I think this storm has opened a few eyes but unfortunately it seems to have driven some of the survivors into a deeper defensive position, from fear or just embarrassment I don't know."

Agree 100%, we yachties have some work to do if we want to gain the respect of the professionals.

Regards


----------



## nolatom

casey1999 said:


> Sounds like someone would like to go for HMS Bounty organization:
> Hold HMS Bounty Accountable | A site dedicated to the accountability of HMS Bounty owners to the crew of HMS Bounty
> 
> If the organization (or boat owner) is telling a Capt to get the boat out of port as a storm is coming, could the owner be held fully or partially accountable, or as Capt are you accountable for all ship movements?


From the aforesaid website:

"The goal of the site is to collect the facts about this senseless tragedy and present them for the world to view in hopes that similar tragedies, loss of life and property can be avoided. We seek the truth and aim to publish the truth in this case without bias.

If you have information that would aid in holding the ship owner's accountable for the losses, we encourage you to contact us ASAP."

One might suggest the words "without bias" in the first para. are undercut by all the words of the second paragraph??


----------



## casey1999

nolatom said:


> From the aforesaid website:
> 
> "The goal of the site is to collect the facts about this senseless tragedy and present them for the world to view in hopes that similar tragedies, loss of life and property can be avoided. We seek the truth and aim to publish the truth in this case without bias.
> 
> If you have information that would aid in holding the ship owner's accountable for the losses, we encourage you to contact us ASAP."
> 
> One might suggest the words "without bias" in the first para. are undercut by all the words of the second paragraph??


Yes, agree, looks like a lawyer has set up the site to recover monies for the crew.


----------



## JulieMor

I think it can be expected that the investigators will be looking at the following (in no particular order):

1. NOAA weather reports - what was known and when?
2. Condition of the ship, from stem to stern
3. Experience of the crew and how many crew a ship like the Bounty required
4. Testimony from the crew, both past and present
5. Minimum safety equipment required - did the ship have it?
6. Life safety equipment required - did the ship have it?
7. Because of the video, any evidence the captain actually chased hurricanes
8. How often the ship was in rough weather and whether any measures were taken to avoid that
9. Did the captain ignore any specific warnings (other than weather warnings) not to go to sea?
10. Were there any actions the captain could have taken to avoid the tragedy?

What did I miss?


----------



## lancelot9898

One of the crew/survivor stated that he had been through 2 hurricanes on the Bounty with the captain. I would like to hear more details on that one which the investigation should cover. To me statements like that should be proof enough that we should all be very careful in thinking that we know it all by our past actions/experiences. Some common sense seems to be lacking.


----------



## lancelot9898

One thing I think is very important to investigate besides what was mentioned is to follow the money. ie. insurance and liability if sunk in harbour, schedules, maintenance, and would the captain lose his job if he took a stand concerning safety that impacted money flow


----------



## nolatom

PCP said:


> I don't think so. The owner had no obligation to know the risks the boat and the crew will sustain or if the boat will be safe on doing the passage.
> 
> It is the Captain that has to decide what is safe or not even at the cost of his job.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


In general (in the US and most maritime nations' law), owners are permitted to leave the decisions of whether to set sail, routing, seeking shelter, navigation, to the sound discretion of a competent captain, and avoid liability, or at least limit it to the value of the vessel post-casualty (ie zero here) provided the ship is (to their reasonable knowledge) seaworthy at the outset.

But if they make, or participate in, any of those decisions, or have "privity or knowledge" of unseaworthiness, then they may be found unable to limit liability, and may share in liability even if the primary misjudgements were the captain's. And claimants will look to the deeper pocket of owners and underwriters who may have to end up paying for the shallow-pocketed captain's negligence (if this is the case), even if their own negligence was much less by comparison.


----------



## casey1999

lancelot9898 said:


> One of the crew/survivor stated that he had been through 2 hurricanes on the Bounty with the captain. I would like to hear more details on that one which the investigation should cover. To me statements like that should be proof enough that we should all be very careful in thinking that we know it all by our past actions/experiences. Some common sense seems to be lacking.


Again from the Gcapatin site from Jemplayer:

"The whole vessel at sea is safer then at port thing just comes off as pure dumb ******* to me. With insurance now a days who should care what happens to a vessel while at the dock? Tie the ****** up and head for the hills. Two people would be alive right now if they used common sense.

Saying "well the U.S. Navy does it" is just another sign of these peoples ignorance. They are in steel hull boats several hundred feet long so yes they can do a lot more damage to the docks and themselves with high water and winds, but they have the sense also to go the complete opposite ******* way of the storm. Coupled with the fact that keeping our navy functioning and that large ships need more water under them in a storm so they do not start to hog and sag to the point that they eventual break their keel do to the wave period decreasing due to the water getting shallower. There is a real purpose and some reasoning to that, but to send people out to potentially save what essentially amounts to a rich mans toy is criminal. How these people in their wooden and plastic toys think they are in the same league as a 500 hundred foot ship is beyond me.

Hell all of us are on vessels that could weather anything worse then these amateur sailors could ever imagine and none of us would have even thought of attempting some of the **** I have seen done by those idiots. Really going out in the middle of a bay to ride a hurricane out just thinking that if worse comes to worse and you sink you can just jump in your dingy or swim to shore?!?!?! May be those guys should take a survival craft class and see the difficulty and dangers in beaching a boat in a storm. Without a doubt these guys don't know that a sea anchor is needed to have any real chance of success. Just ask they crew that died in Japan when they didn't take their vessel offshore far enough that it's back broke. When beaching they didn't use a sea anchor and they might have well been in a washing machine on spin cycle.

But I've never gotten the fascination the hard core amateur crowd has for saving their toys by putting their lives in danger to do it."


----------



## PorFin

lancelot9898 said:


> ... and would the captain lose his job if he took a stand concerning safety that impacted money flow ...


If the master ultimately lost his job for his decision NOT to put to sea, then so be it -- that's called "moral courage" in the military, and it is one of the many factors that differentiate a "profession" from a "vocation."


----------



## chef2sail

> Dave, give me just one possible reason for the Captain to sail to a Hurricane, risking the live of his crew, when if he stayed in Port even if we would have the possibility of having some damage on the boat, would have the crew safe- PCP.


Paulo, Since you address me specifically, and there are many other posters here who have said similiar, I will respond. Like i have said numerous times I dont understand why he set sail. How many times do I have to say that. I AGREE WITH YOU, I have also said that that he erred in judgement for doing that. Can we just get that straight here. I beleive that this was a contributory factor in the sinking. It also has not been demonstarted to me that that was the only factor and that this vessel would not have floundered during tomorrows northeaster. This will come out when the maintainence and build quality are analayzed.

I have also said that there may be other factors involved in the sinking. I dont understand why everyone takes that to mean that I am DEFENDING the Captain here. I am not. What I am saying is that there is more to come in terms of facts. It seems as though a bunch of the posters think that is wrong to say...while there are a fair number of posters who also want to see the other facts also and not rush to judgement that he is the only or even the principal cause.

Also many on this thread have made this HUGE deal about the Captains u tube post. Many have made insinuations of his incompetance from that. When the actual crew memebers on baord with him that fatefull day now say something which either contradicts or gives another angle of the captains personality, you dont want to accept that. An eyewitness account and the interviews of people who really worked with that captain seem to be to be a more valid view of the captains personality, termperment, and abilities than social media posts. Let me ask another quest. I have yet to hear any of you admit that yet. Maybe thats because you have already rushed to judgement.

The real danger in the rush to judgement is that you may neglect to overlook other critical factors in this. e already have said time and time again he should have left in a hurricane looming. So we are done with that. No need to keep repeating it.

Since we want this to be a learning experience and discuss it so that we dont repeat the mistakes...please keep your minds open that there many be other contributory reasons and correctioins from this tragedy. One of the accusations was that he wasnt qualified to be a captain. Another was the builkd quality of the ship. Another was the pressure put on the Captain by the company. Another was the inexperience of the crew. Another was the general maintainence of the ship. On and On there are other things to learn so they are not repeated if we keep an open mind and do not rush to judgement.

Lastly remember you are getting much of your information from posts on the internet, twitter, SN, news etc and other social media sites which we all know are far less than accurate and can be slanted and doctored.

Actual transcripts from interviews do not fall into this category. Please keep level heads here. The posters here who keep saying let the other facts come out are not wrong to say that and should not be attacked, called dumb or ignorant and shouted down.


----------



## chef2sail

> That's very sweet of the crew to speak so highly of the captain. Will they be chipping in to pay the multimillion dollar wrongful death jury award?
> - James wilson29


This comment is unproductive and smacks of sarcasm and will not contributed to us learning more about this so as not to repeat it

It also assumes speculative facts not yet in evidence. Unless I am wrong no multimillion dollar wroingful death injury award has been made. The captains next of kin may very well have a wrong death suit against the company, the builders, and the people who repaired the ship. Lets let the facts play out.

Please do not contribute to the hype as someone may pick up what you said here and assume it is a fact. Also please do not attack me for pointing it out to others..


----------



## steve77

PCP said:


> Let me point out that the Picton Caste whose captain chose to stay in the same port (and said that did not understand why Bounty's Captain had choose to sail to a hurricane) did not sustain any damage with the storm and even if he had, he would have done the right thing putting the live of his crew above a possible damage on the boat.
> 
> ...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I don't think that's correct. For what it's worth, my understanding is that the Picton Castle was in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, not Connecticut. He may have felt he was safer there, being farther away from the storm.


----------



## TakeFive

PorFin said:


> If the master ultimately lost his job for his decision NOT to put to sea, then so be it -- that's called "moral courage" in the military, and it is one of the many factors that differentiate a "profession" from a "vocation."


I agree that in retrospect it seems overwhelming that the captain's decision to leave port was a bad decision. It's possible (though purely speculative) that he was influenced by pressure from the "main office" (perhaps driven by financial interests, especially given a possible desire to have the boat available for viewing by potential buyers in Florida).

However, I need to call you on the "armchair quarterback" aspect of your statement. It's real easy for any of us to sit back and call the captain a coward for not being willing to lose his job. Large organizations like the military and major airlines have organizational infrastructure in place to investigate and protect a captain/pilot's decision to scrub a trip due to safety concerns. One of the things I take away from this whole incident is the comfort of knowing that when I get on a commercial aircraft, the pilot has a powerful union to back him up if he scrubs a flight for safety reasons. I'm not the world's most pro-union guy, but I can see that a union serves a useful purpose in this situation.

Contrast that with a captain working for a small, financially struggling foundation. If he lacks the protection of a union (a bold assumption on my part), all of a sudden the pressure on him may be much greater.

Any good investigation has to look at the culture of the employer. When I say that undisclosed facts can greatly change the interpretation of events, this is part of what I mean. It's possible that the root cause was not the captain's choice to go out in THIS hurricane, but was the decision to go out in his first hurricane ~15 years ago.

When it comes to safety, there is often a tendency to fall into creeping incrementalism, where cutting a corner and getting away with it one time leads to cutting even bigger corners later. Like launching a space shuttle at ever-lower temperatures, and ultimately below the glass transition of the rubber O-ring (think Challenger disaster), or growing complacent over the repeated impacts of hydrogen tank insulation on the ceramic front edge of a wing (Columbia disaster).

In these cases, the root cause was not necessarily a decision made on the day of the launch, but rather resulted from a gradual erosion in the overall quality of judgement starting months or years prior to the actual accident.

So the lack of "moral courage" that you were referring to may not have happened in October 2012, but in earlier decisions that the captain made. It's possible that he should have sacrificed his job 10 or 15 years earlier because of his initial poor decisions to go out in prior hurricanes. But if those earlier hurricanes had changed course and made this captain look like a coward for not going out, how many of those guys on gcaptain would have been defending him? I suspect they would have been stepping up to take his job after he got fired.

The USCG has a lot of expertise in this area, and I expect that their investigation will reach back well before the day the captain decided to go out into the hurricane.


----------



## JulieMor

> _The father of a Blue Island man who survived the sinking of the replica of the HMS Bounty during Hurricane Sandy said it hasn't quite dawned on his son yet that he's lucky to be alive.
> 
> "They're going through an emotional roller coaster right now; there's some grieving and relief, all at the same time," said Jim Salapatek, the father of Drew Salapatek, a 28-year-old deckhand on the Bounty.
> 
> Salapatek said he spoke to his son shortly after the crew was rescued.
> 
> "I talked to him right after they pulled him out of the water, after the Coast Guard debriefed him and obviously the paramedics gave him a going-over, and&#8230; tired. Tired and I think emotionally drained, but fine; in good spirits for all that he's been through."_


So we know the crew was debriefed by the Coast Guard after they were pulled from the water. That, more than anything else, could be why they aren't saying anything about what led to the sinking. Maybe they have been told not to say anything until the CG investigation is done. That would be logical.

That quote BTW, was from an Oct. 30 CBS report.


----------



## chef2sail

> I think it can be expected that the investigators will be looking at the following (in no particular order):
> 
> 1. NOAA weather reports - what was known and when?
> 2. Condition of the ship, from stem to stern
> 3. Experience of the crew and how many crew a ship like the Bounty required
> 4. Testimony from the crew, both past and present
> 5. Minimum safety equipment required - did the ship have it?
> 6. Life safety equipment required - did the ship have it?
> 7. Because of the video, any evidence the captain actually chased hurricanes
> 8. How often the ship was in rough weather and whether any measures were taken to avoid that
> 9. Did the captain ignore any specific warnings (other than weather warnings) not to go to sea?
> 10. Were there any actions the captain could have taken to avoid the tragedy?
> 
> What did I miss?


Thats a great start

1- Training procedures and emergency procedures
2- The timeline of what the captain knew and when he knew it
3- The involvement of the company in the ship setting sail
4- The intended purpose of the ship
5- The actual limitations in terms of seaworthiness of the ship to withstand any and all
types of weather
6- The captains actions once an emergency was called
7- A detailed analysis of any and all maintainence work- were the correct materials
used, was the maintanence finished before they set sail.
8- The Captains credentials and experience
9- Were there any contributing or compelling factors from any other entity other than 
the company for instance the city/ marina where it was docked which compelled
the ship to leave
10- Was a float plan or emergency alternatives discussed when the storm deepened and
turned northward vs veering east
11- What exactly caused the vessel to sink.....scientifically and specifically


----------



## Minnewaska

I watched the interview this morning. I'm not surprised they were fond of their Captain. For sure, they all knew the storm was coming, so they must have trusted him to stay aboard. That is precisely why he is going to be held responsible for this event. That isn't a conclusion based on facts, that is just a fact in and of itself. He was the leader.

What I found most interesting was the noted lack of any information about why the boat was taking on water. It is not uncommon that exclusive media interviews are negotiated in advance, particularly when there are pending legal actions. I find it hard to believe the interviewer would have forgotten to ask how the boat came to take on water and sink.

The ongoing *fact* that this Captain had taken Bounty into a hurricane before are mounting. Now the crew acknowledged it. This is a risk management concept that is well taught. People take on risk, survive it and begin to believe they are able to manage it. In reality, the risk isn't a 100% killer and they won the previous hands. If you keep playing, you eventually come up craps. Call it the preponderance of evidence, if you are offended by a conclusion prior the government report.

Now here is something I find ironic. So far, the only purported facts that I have read that have proven false where those in defense of the Captain: sailed to protect the ship, sailed East of the storm, didn't sink off Hatteras. Maybe I missed some.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Also many on this thread have made this HUGE deal about the Captains u tube post. Many have made insinuations of his incompetance from that. When the actual crew memebers on baord with him that fatefull day now say something which either contradicts or gives another angle of the captains personality, you dont want to accept that. An eyewitness account and the interviews of people who really worked with that captain seem to be to be a more valid view of the captains personality, termperment, and abilities than social media posts. Let me ask another quest. I have yet to hear any of you admit that yet. Maybe thats because you have already rushed to judgement.
> 
> .


I do not think anyone is making a huge deal of the interview with the Capt. We are just taking the Capt for his word. And most people find what the Capt said in the interview shocking, everyone from the media, yachties, professional seamen/women. The interview seems to be serious, with the Capt apparenty giving factual statements. That is what most people find shocking.

How can you accuse people of exploiting facts for there own use when in this case the "facts" are coming directly from the person in question. I agree (and stand-by waiting) that we need more facts, and to compare the facts the CG finds with the "facts" the Capt gave in that interview will be most interesting. But if the facts the CG finds are different than the "facts" the Capt presented in the interview that initself (at least in my opinion) brings question as to the reliabiliy of the Capt. In my opinion, the Capt should speak the truth at all times, and especially when making public statements. To me this is a sign of a true professional.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> I do not think anyone is making a huge deal of the interview with the Capt. We are just taking the Capt for his word. And most people find what the Capt said in the interview shocking, everyone from the media, yachties, professional seamen/women. The interview seems to be serious, with the Capt apparenty giving factual statements. That is what most people find shocking....In my opinion, the Capt should speak the truth at all times, and especially when making public statements. To me this is a sign of a true professional.


I've watched parts of the interview several times, and once the initial shock factor wore off, I started thinking he was speaking partially in hyperbole. The interview was a puff piece, and he was showing off his feathers to impress the non-sailing audience.

I do take him at his word that he has gone out in hurricanes before, and I do suspect that the root cause of his poor judgement this time lies in the fact that he got away with it those other times. I've seen that sort of incremental complacency happen many times before.


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> I've watched parts of the interview several times, and once the initial shock factor wore off, I started thinking he was speaking partially in hyperbole. The interview was a puff piece, and he was showing off his feathers to impress the non-sailing audience.
> 
> I do take him at his word that he has gone out in hurricanes before, and I do suspect that the root cause of his poor judgement this time lies in the fact that he got away with it those other times. I've seen that sort of incremental complacency happen many times before.


Ok maybe we agree on somthing. I also watched the interview several times thinking what the hell is he trying to say. I think he was puffing the feathers but also largely speaking the truth.

That is why early on in this thread I said "the best Captains are probably green Captains" Green Capts do not normally take unecessary risk. They may make mistakes, but they do not take risk. The Bounty Capt took a huge risk and this time, he lost.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> Ok maybe we agree on somthing. I also watched the interview several times thinking what the hell is he trying to say. I think he was puffing the feathers but also largely speaking the truth.
> 
> That is why early on in this thread I said "the best Captains are probably green Captains" Green Capts do not normally take unecessary risk. They may make mistakes, but they do not take risk. The Bounty Capt took a huge risk and this time, he lost.


...which is why I think that even if he sat out this hurricane, he would have likely gone out in this week's Noreaster, or some other severe but sub-hurricane conditions, and ended up with the same result. It was an accident waiting to happen.

When I say that the presence of the hurricane may have been a moot point, this is what I am talking about. It seemed that, given the condition of the boat, inexperience of the crew, etc., something was going to happen eventually to sink the boat and possibly lead to similar fatalities. I'm confident that the USCG will uncover it.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> Also many on this thread have made this HUGE deal about the Captains u tube post. Many have made insinuations of his incompetance from that. When the actual crew memebers on baord with him that fatefull day now say something which either contradicts or gives another angle of the captains personality, you dont want to accept that. An eyewitness account and the interviews of people who really worked with that captain seem to be to be a more valid view of the captains personality, termperment, and abilities than social media posts. Let me ask another quest. I have yet to hear any of you admit that yet. Maybe thats because you have already rushed to judgement.
> ....


Dave,

I have not any doubt the Captain was a hell of a sailor and a very easy going guy with a great personality. it turns out that a good Captain can not have some of those qualities and can even be a less good sailor but has to have an indispensable one: responsibility and a correct evaluation of risks in the sense that he should take none except in a situation where a calculated risk is the lesser risk.

Obviously that was not the case with this Captain and it looks like that story of chasing hurricanes is not only a bad joke since it seems that in fact the Ship had been and survived several hurricanes. A crew has confidence in its Captain, specially if it is a great sailor, a charming guy and assumes that he knows what he is doing. That's why he is the Captain. It turns out that this one did not knew what he was doing. I don't mean in what regards to sail well that boat but in regards to take the unacceptable and stupid risk to take the ship into a Hurricane and it seems not one time but several times.

I agree with Minnewaska when he says:



Minnewaska said:


> ..
> 
> The ongoing *fact* that this Captain had taken Bounty into a hurricane before are mounting. Now the crew acknowledged it. This is a risk management concept that is well taught. People take on risk, survive it and begin to believe they are able to manage it. In reality, the risk isn't a 100% killer and they won the previous hands. If you keep playing, you eventually come up craps. Call it the preponderance of evidence, if you are offended by a conclusion prior the government report.
> 
> Now here is something I find ironic. So far, the only purported facts that I have read that have proven false where those in defense of the Captain: sailed to protect the ship, sailed East of the storm, didn't sink off Hatteras. Maybe I missed some.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## PorFin

You know, this thread is starting to remind me to watch _The Caine Mutiny_ again soon.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> I've watched parts of the interview several times, and once the initial shock factor wore off, I started thinking he was speaking partially in hyperbole. The interview was a puff piece, and he was showing off his feathers to impress the non-sailing audience.
> 
> ...


He was doing precisely what he said he liked to do in the interview regarding hurricanes: Getting a good ride out of them.

In fact he described exactly what he was going to do to his crew before setting sail and that was precisely what he said on the interview regarding chasing hurricanes.

He said to his crew:

*Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."

....

Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.

"He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections.*

Bounty's ill-fated trip in face of hurricane scrutinized | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Regards

Paulo


----------



## preventec47

I'd like to hear from some of the more experienced guys that would likely
know the kind of effort and specific activities undertaken by the
crew in the kind of weather that the Bounty experienced in the
last 3 or 4 days. I wonder if there was nothing for the crew to
do but ride it out inside or are there activities outside on the
deck that are required during a storm. Does anyone think
that sleep of any kind is possible during those kinds of rough
seas? Just trying to see if fatigue or lack of able bodied
personnel to perform required tasks could have contributed
to the outcome. What about the captain? First mate too
I guess. If the captain rests, the first mate has to
keep the ship on course. Any other remifications 
I am missing about the prolonged exposure of the crew
and captain to very rough conditions ?
Also, assuming the Captain knew many hours or days
before that he had really screwed up, were there likely
any other decisions he could have made to improve
the outcome. Such as maybe calling for CG help much
earlier .... perhaps timed before sundown so as to
allow rescue during daylight hours instead of 4:00 am
in the dark. Is that right or was the rescue 4:00 pm
in the afternoon ?
Lastly, is it felt that for the past 4 to 8 hours before
the final abandon of ship, were the weather conditions steadily
getting worse or could the weather conditions actually been
improving even if the ships physical condition was deteriorating?

What I am getting at is the statement made by the captain
to the effect he was going to wait till morning for some kind
of decision making... that leads me to believe weather conditions
may have been improving... maybe because the hurricane
was passing by and getting farther away etc..... 
If he could just hold out till morning .... But unfortunately he 
could not. 

Thanks for the patience for my questions as I have only
been captain in one sea going calamity. 35 knot winds and
5 foot seas blew my 18 ft Hobie over with one passenger
aboard a half mile offshore. Big difference but it doesnt
seem like it when you are gulping sea water while fighting
for air.


----------



## Classic30

Whilst not all that relevant to the topic at hand, just to clean a few things up:



smurphny said:


> .....
> Toredo worms ate up many of the old boats but they are not a problem now as long as the bottom has a good coat of paint. The old square riggers used copper sheeting sometimes but worms can get past it if there's any opening.


Teredo worms are still a problem in many parts of the world today, but with the advent of plastic boats you don't hear about it so much - paint can get chipped by anything striking the hull..

FWIW, copper sheeting was installed primarily for it's *anti-fouling *properties - not worm resistance. Even back then it was prohibitively expensive, so only those who needed it for speed (eg. tea clippers) or could afford it (eg. parts of the navy) used it. Everyone else fixed a thin layer of cheap sacrificial timber to the outside of the hull with hundreds (thousands!) of copper nails. The worms burrow into the outer layer and thus leave the hull alone.



priscilla said:


> "A SHIP IS SAFER AT SEA THEN IN PORT" You gotta be kidding!...A northeaster is coming up the coast in a day or so lets all put out to sea!


Let's get this straight: A *SHIP*, yes; your boat - *NO*. In many ports throughout the world, now and for many years, all shipping is told to LEAVE PORT by the Harbourmaster if a major storm or hurricane is approaching or give a bloomin' good reason why they can't!

Unless it's an extremely well-protected harbour, a ship (modern or old, but especially a timber one!) is far safer at sea in a storm for the following reasons:

1. The sides (and rigging) of a ship presents a serious amount of resistance to the wind which even the largest of anchors or mooring lines may not hold, potentially causing the ship to be run ashore and wrecked.

2. Tied to a dock, a ship presents a large target for small yachts like yours to hit when (not if!) they break their moorings, potentially sinking the ship at the dock and preventing the use of that dock for relief efforts afterwards until the ship is refloated.

3. Tied to a dock, the weight/windage of the ship against the dock could cause the dock to break up - damaging/sinking the ship and, again, rendering the dock unusable for relief efforts afterwards.

So, no, they're not kidding. It's reality... and *exactly* the right thing to do if you're the captain of a fragile timber relic like the HMS Bounty... but how you handle the ship and where you go after you leave port is another matter entirely.


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> ...Let's get this straight: A SHIP, yes; your boat - NO. In many ports throughout the world, now and for many years, all shipping is told to LEAVE PORT by the Harbourmaster if a major storm or hurricane is approaching or give a bloomin' good reason why they can't!
> 
> Unless it's an extremely well-protected harbour, a ship (modern or old, but especially a timber one!) is far safer at sea in a storm
> 
> .....
> 
> So, no, they're not kidding. It's reality... and *exactly* the right thing to do if you're the captain of a fragile timber relic like the HMS Bounty... but how you handle the ship and where you go after you leave port is another matter entirely.


I guess the Captains of those boats, I mean fragile timber relics, also called tall ships, know a lot more than you about that.

At least 4 captains of tall ships come forward saying that they did not understand the Bounty Captain decision to sail away from port to face an Hurricane. One of them had the ship on the same port where Bounty was and the ship did not suffer any damage with the bad weather.

There is not a single tall ship captain, or for that matter any ship captain that, face to all criticism pointed to a dead captain, come forward defending the Bounty Captain. Don't you find this strange? Would you not have wanted to defend a tragically dead colleague from unfair accusations, if that was possible?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> There is not a single tall ship captain, or for that matter any ship captain that, face to all criticism pointed to a dead captain, come forward defending the Bounty Captain. Don't you find this strange? Would you not have wanted to defend a tragically dead colleague from unfair accusations, if that was possible-PCP


?

Maybe their professionalism has taken center stage and they arent rushing to juggement, Are their only 4 tall ship captains in the world....hardly, there are many.

Just a side note the Captain of the Pride of Baltimore interview today says hes witholding jusdgement until more facts come forward and the inquirey by the GC is done.

So PCP and others, we have all established that the Captain has some of the degree of responsibility here. Why do you guys keep railing on about it? Why do you find it necessary to keep pounding on that point like a broken record? We all have learned that sailing into a hurricane isnt a good idea. So what is your purpose to keep bringing this up? You seem fixated on this one point. Other posters here like JulieMor have asked questions concerning other causations and have expanded their views without exhonorating the Captains responsibilities.

Surely there are other lessons you want the newbies and others to learn from this arent there?

Dave


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> He was doing precisely what he said he liked to do in the interview regarding hurricanes: Getting a good ride out of them....


Well no, he was not doing precisely what he said. He said he "chases hurricanes" and likes to get into in the southeast quadrant. But he wasn't actually doing either. By chasing in the southeast quadrant, I believe that he means he follows the hurricane as it moves to the north, staying in the southeast quadrant where the following winds would push him to the north. In this position, I would think that, if conditions get to be more than he can handle, he can reach off further to the east, and allow the hurricane to move further away from him. In the southeast quadrant he would always have a way out from this.

It appears from the path he followed that he did not attempt to get to the east as he stated he would. And I wonder what he was thinking, because such a position would require him to beat close-hauled to make headway toward the south, which was impossible on that boat. And, of course, he wasn't chasing the hurricane - it was chasing him. He left himself no way out.

So one of the mysteries to me is why he said he would say he was going east of the hurricane on a southerly itinerary, since the breezes east of the hurricane would be pushing almost directly against him.

So beyond simply being a stupid decision to go out, it seems to be self-contradictory that he would say he's heading for the southeast quadrant on a southbound itinerary. It just does not make sense, but I suspect the experts at USCG will cover all these questions and more to get to the true root cause.


----------



## JulieMor

I think I can settle who's to blame once and for all. It's the Republicans. They caused the global warming that caused the hurricane that sunk the Bounty. Or was it Obama that caused global warming? I don't know. But I just read in the Chicago Tribune that Dewey won!


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ?
> 
> Maybe their professionalism has taken center stage and they arent rushing to juggement, Are their only 4 tall ship captains in the world....hardly, there are many.
> 
> Just a side note the Captain of the Pride of Baltimore interview today says hes witholding jusdgement until more facts come forward and the inquirey by the GC is done.
> 
> So PCP and others, we have all established that the Captain has some of the degree of responsibility here. Why do you guys keep railing on about it? Why do you find it necessary to keep pounding on that point like a broken record? We all have learned that sailing into a hurricane isnt a good idea. So what is your purpose to keep bringing this up? You seem fixated on this one point. Other posters here like JulieMor have asked questions concerning other causations and have expanded their views without exhonorating the Captains responsibilities.
> 
> *Surely there are other lessons you want the newbies and others to learn from this arent there?*
> 
> Dave


The captain had not some responsibility it has *ALL RESPONSABILITY.*

He was only there because he decided to be there, in a Hurricane leaving a safe port, where a similar tall ship stayed without any problem.

I guess that are you and others like you that keep posting what I consider nonsense regarding his absence of responsibility or possibility of diminished responsibility.

Regarding teaching the newbies I do not consider myself more knowledgeable that a new member or someone that post less than me. There are some that are more knowledgeable I am sure.

The newbies are us regarding these guys that are all professional sailors, mates and captains and what they say about us is this:

"This Bounty thing has really stirred up a lot of people all across the board and reading the posts on various forums is enlightening and sometimes amusing but *some of the stuff from the recreational crowd sends a chill up your spine. A good result though is that gCaptain is getting some mention as a source of professional insights and comment. Heaven only knows how many of their readers faint away like 19th century school girls when they come across the pointy stick style of seafaring criticism. They don't seem to appreciate facts that are much blunter than a plastic sailboat's bow*.

...

*If nothing else this whole Bounty affair is showing us that there really is a gulf between the recreational (including the TSC) hobbyist and the professional mariner. These guys are really really scary, a lot scarier than I ever believed they were. I think this storm has opened a few eyes *but unfortunately it seems to have driven some of the survivors into a deeper defensive position, from fear or just embarrassment I don't know."

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> The captain had not some responsibility it has *ALL RESPONSABILITY.*


I haven't heard anybody deny that the captain bears the burden of responsibility. That goes without saying, and does not need to be repeated ad nauseum.

However, it is WAY premature to declare that nobody else at all has any responsibility. Your suggestion is absurd.

The captain cannot singlehandedly fund the entire maintenance of the ship - he is just an employee, and the financial support of the foundation is needed for maintenance and repairs. Yet if everything must be working perfectly with fully redundant backups for everything, no ship would ever sail. So a calculated decision must be made every time the ship ventures out. The captain does not make those calculated decisions in a vacuum - the safety culture of the overall organization always plays a role in those choices.

This is the kind of stuff that the USCG will probe, and I would be very surprised if the USCG investigation does not reveal other systemic factors that contributed to the root cause, and will thus assign some responsibility to others.


----------



## steve77

PCP said:


> The captain had not some responsibility it has *ALL RESPONSABILITY.*
> 
> He was only there because he decided to be there, in a Hurricane leaving a safe port, where a similar tall ship stayed without any problem.
> 
> ...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, which tall ship was in the same port? As I mentioned in a previous post, Picton Castle was in Nova Scotia, roughly 300 miles from New London, CT where the Bounty was. Here is a link with some pictures of a marina in New London after the storm: Hurricane Sandy Leaves New London Shore Pummeled - New London, CT Patch


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> I guess the Captains of those boats, I mean fragile timber relics, also called tall ships, know a lot more than you about that.
> 
> At least 4 captains of tall ships come forward saying that they did not understand the Bounty Captain decision to sail away from port to face an Hurricane. One of them had the ship on the same port where Bounty was and the ship did not suffer any damage with the bad weather.


Paulo, I was specifically responding to a post regarding "ships leaving port" and why they might be required to do so.

I did write "Unless it's an extremely well-protected harbour.." (and you say the port HMS Bounty left from was such a harbour), and "..how you handle the ship and where you go after you leave port is another matter entirely."

I'm sorry you did not see that. If it is a safe port of course he should stay.

For example: We have a few cyclone-safe ports and many cyclone-unsafe ports along our coastline. AFAIK, the unsafe ports all require ships to leave if a cyclone is forecast to be travelling in the direction of that port. I was in that situation in a modern ship (well, a steel passenger liner) in 1996 that had to leave port in the face of a Typhoon. One container ship that stayed in harbour sank at it's moorings; all that left survived.


----------



## SammyBammy

Its done like dinner


----------



## xymotic

TakeFive said:


> Good example of a moot point. The helicopter rescue was successful. Everyone on the life rafts was rescued. It's possible the outcome would have been the same in other conditions.


They spotted 16 when they got there and lost two, due to weather.


----------



## TakeFive

xymotic said:


> They spotted 16 when they got there and lost two, due to weather.


I've never seen any source say that they "spotted 16." I heard that they were told there were 16 on the boat.

Cite your source for this.


----------



## kjango

I read they were told 17 were aboard when detected 16 heat signatures when on scene


----------



## lancelot9898

One additional item that I'ld like to see included in the investagation is detailed interviews with all the naval personnel that were aboard the Bounty for a tour and/or "sail" prior to its departure from New London. At least I thought I read something that said such personnel were aboard. Besides the obvious questions one important question would be discussions(if any) that the navy personnel had with the captain and crew concerning leaving the "safety" of the harbour.


----------



## TakeFive

kjango said:


> I read they were told 17 were aboard when detected 16 heat signatures when on scene


This agrees with my recollection - my prior statement the they never said they "spotted 16" is misleading. The reports I saw do say that they found 16 heat signatures on the boat during the initial flyover in the evening, before they abandoned ship. The next morning they came back with the chopper to do the rescue, and when they finished emptying the life rafts there were only 14 rescued. I believe that the crew has stated the three fell overboard when the ship capsized as they were boarding the life rafts, and of those three only one was able to swim to the life raft.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> ..
> 
> The captain cannot singlehandedly fund the entire maintenance of the ship - he is just an employee, and the financial support of the foundation is needed for maintenance and repairs. Yet if everything must be working perfectly with fully redundant backups for everything, no ship would ever sail. So a calculated decision must be made every time the ship ventures out. The captain does not make those calculated decisions in a vacuum - the safety culture of the overall organization always plays a role in those choices.
> 
> This is the kind of stuff that the USCG will probe, and I would be very surprised if the USCG investigation does not reveal other systemic factors that contributed to the root cause, and will thus assign some responsibility to others.


Even it the Bounty was a brand new ship in perfect condition it would be always a wrong decision to rake a XVIII years old designed wooden tall ship with auxiliary engines with an hurricane coming and even a worse one sailing in its direction than on the opposite direction.

Regarding the condition of the ship it is a Captain's duty to know the condition of the ship and regarding that condition decide in what conditions the ship would be safely sailed.

In my opinion the Bounty was a fair weather boat, not in a sense that it was not an offshore boat, but in a sense that, like most sailboats, should not be sailed in high latitudes and really bad weather.

Obviously the Captain thought that the Bounty, in the present condition, was a ship able to sail in an hurricane and that's why he chose to sail a hurricane. This is confirmed by what was said by the Captain about the ship: "The Bounty has no boundaries".

This is a ridiculous statement as it was ridiculously dangerous to take that ship to an Hurricane. That was my first conviction but I would not have come forward with this opinion if I didn't see it confirmed by the nautical community, I mean, the professional one.

Going over a natural corporatism defense I had heard several tall ships captains saying he had done very wrong in sailing the boat to an hurricane and dozens of professional sailors practically saying the Captain was crazy and utterly irresponsible. I have not heard a single Captain or professional sailor saying that the captain had done the right thing.

The only one that I saw defending the captain was the owner of the boat, Bounty people and some in this thread, saying that he had done the right thing because it was better in an Hurricane to sail the boat out to sea than staying on the port. Regarding that case the opinion of professional sailor is this one, that seems evident to me, even if I am a newbie compared to them:

It is not because you sail on a 1784 tallship replica that you have to replicate the way they sail in those days and ignore tecnology. Category 2 hurricane Sandy was very well forecasted by the NHC and could not be ignored.

*"a ship is safer at sea than in port."
*

It was not really a matter of laying in port or not. Bounty had amply time to leave and keep Sandy relative position in respect. It was more a question as to which direction to steam after the decision to leave the harbour was taken. At barely six knots ... the only courses that could be recommend are the ones heading to the east and then to the north.










Since Sandy altered its course toward the land instead of out to sea, if Bounty would have kept its original course ... more to the east than to the south ... instead of crossing the hurricane ahead of her path and hoping to fly along a north-eastern gust and against the Gulf Stream, she would have succeeded in her passage.

*I have made some plane sailing calculations ...

On Thursday the 25th, Sandy was at more than a 1,000nm away from the Bounty
On Friday the 26th, Sandy was 800nm away
On Saturday the 27th, Sandy was 600nm away
On Sunday the 28th, Sandy was 200nm away
On Monday the 29th, Sandy was 100nm away on a north by east bearing

From the 26th to the 27th, Sandy runned 60nm a day
From the 27th to the 28th, Sandy runned 260nm a day
From the 28th to the 29th, Sandy runned 250nm a day

When Sandy caught the Gulf Stream, she was accelerating its dangerous roar very rapidly to the north ...*

The whole vessel at sea is safer then at port thing just comes off as pure dumb ****ery to me. With insurance now a days who should care what happens to a vessel while at the dock? Tie the ****** up and head for the hills. Two people would be alive right now if they used common sense.

*Saying "well the U.S. Navy does it" is just another sign of these peoples ignorance. They are in steel hull boats several hundred feet long so yes they can do a lot more damage to the docks and themselves with high water and winds, but they have the sense also to go the complete opposite ******* way of the storm.* ...

*There is a real purpose and some reasoning to that, but to send people out to potentially save what essentially amounts to a rich mans toy is criminal. How these people in their wooden and plastic toys think they are in the same league as a 500 hundred foot ship is beyond me.*

*Hell all of us are on vessels that could weather anything worse then these amateur sailors could ever imagine and none of us would have even thought of attempting some of the **** I have seen done by those idiots. 
But I've never gotten the fascination the hard core amateur crowd has for saving their toys by putting their lives in danger to do it....*

They are sticking like limpets to the idea that the safest place to be in a storm is at sea ... they embrace that dangerous myth and defend their own ignorance based on their short time riding a navy ship before becoming accomplished yachtsmen. I never thought I would ask for the CG to get involved in recreation but the TSC and the toy boat crowd really do need a kick in the ass to move them toward some kind of reality. Bring on the CG dogs and the ambulance chasing lawyers ...

*As sorry as I am that Capt Walbridge lost his life on board the Bounty, as a fellow mariner, it doesn't deviate from the fact that seriously bad decisions were made for the Bounty to leave port in the first place when she should have stayed tied up alongside. *

*No amount of convincing can show me otherwise. *However, that dirty deed was done and it just shows how many balls he had had to stand up against his company and refuse the sailing order, if he indeed had to, given that he may well be the one to suggest sailing in the first place and his boss tagged along with his so called professional decision.

*Irrespective, I see this as a 'rape of nautical intelligence' and one that has sent the marine community in the US on its head and hopefully a review of its regulations governing Tall Ships and bring them in line with the rest of the marine community.*

Clearly there has to be a careful look at how these TS are audited and Classed. For them to sail outside of Near Coastal voyages without all the safety infrastructure that is beneficial to them and what is mandated on other vessels is a sin. ...

If you watch the video interview with the Bounty Captain, and I use that term very loosely, whilst at Belfast, it only clearly shows his level of Nautical competence and professionalism when he comments on the sea conditions and his intentions to get close to the 'eye' of the storm as he tries to ******** his way into the history books.* Well he certainly did that without any help from anyone else. *

Robin Walbridge is No Master Mariner, he might have the license, but not the skills. *He might have the respect from his own crew, but not the professional marine living desire to respect the sea for what it is. And the sea has taken what was not respected.*

...

gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

Dave asked why I keep posting on this thread. Well, in fact it seems to me that there is still some lack of good sense among some that keep posting. I believe that a forum like sailnet should have also an educational character. Many here, including me, want to learn and use this forum for that.

Look at what I have posted as a small contribute and take into consideration that I am not posting mainly my personal opinion but mostly the opinions of professional sailors that based what I think about this unfortunate tragic accident.* I strongly believe they know a lot more than us.*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> ...Going over a natural corporatism defense I had heard several tall ships captains saying he had done very wrong in sailing the boat to an hurricane and dozens of professional sailors practically saying the Captain was crazy and utterly irresponsible....


I guarantee that the USCG investigation will reach conclusions that go deeper than simply saying "the captain was crazy."

What you dismiss as "corporatism" is the essence of root cause analysis.


----------



## smurphny

I agree that the interview should be taken with a big grain of salt. What people say is often not indicative of what they really think. I sensed immediately that there was a large dose of BS in the interview. 

The thing that still does not seem to have been picked up on is the draft discrepancy of this boat as compared to the original ship's specs. Both boats drew 13' although the newer version was twice as long. It seems logical that, since they were never going to film the part of the ship that was underwater that maybe it was constructed with half the depth needed to make it stable. I have read it had lead in the bilge but no amount of lead would make up for the lack of hull in the water. It would pretty much just make it unstable and apt to get knocked down much more easily which is what happened. At the very least, it would make sailing close hauled much less efficient.


----------



## PorFin

lancelot9898 said:


> One additional item that I'ld like to see included in the investagation is detailed interviews with all the naval personnel that were aboard the Bounty for a tour and/or "sail" prior to its departure from New London. At least I thought I read something that said such personnel were aboard. Besides the obvious questions one important question would be discussions(if any) that the navy personnel had with the captain and crew concerning leaving the "safety" of the harbour.


And this would be useful why?

We are talking about two very different systems here. A modern USN warship bears little resemblance to a tall ship, even one that's a replica with some 20th century technological modifications.

Other than general impressions, I seriously doubt that an E-5 signalman is going to be able to add anything significant to the investigation.


----------



## chef2sail

> The only one that I saw defending the captain was the owner of the boat, Bounty people and *some in this thread, saying that he had done the right thing because it was better in an Hurricane to sail the boat out to sea than staying on the port*


Paulo,

Who specifically said that in this thread? Name them I dont recall anyone saying that but maybe I am wrong



> Regarding the condition of the ship it is a Captain's duty to know the condition of the ship and regarding that condition decide in what conditions the ship would be safely sailed.


How many times are you going to say this we already know how you feel.



> When Sandy caught the Gulf Stream, she was accelerating its dangerous roar very rapidly to the north ..PCP.


Wrong again Paulo...the Gulf Stream did not accelerate the storm it doesnt do that. Its the *Jet Stream *which does this/ The steering currents *in the air *did this. The blocking high over the Canadian Maritimes moved off the coast and a Canadian front dove down out of central Canada to below Hatteras setting up the perfect storm scenerio. Counter clockwise flow of the hurricane which was now extra tropical added to the SW flow on the backside of the Canadian maritime high accelerated the storm and sent it crashing back into the coast. This flow was historically highly unusual for *ANY storm to make such a dramatic left turn. Usually these storms eventually get pushed out to sea and would have bisected any easterly course the Bounty would have taken. Not that she should have been out there in the first place.

Sir,* you keep using this gCaptain site as some sort of gospel or definative subject on the matter.
Actually this site by its own admission is a social media site lets see SN is a social media site, Twitter is a social media site, Facebook is a social media site. Social media sites are full of real expertise and people who prentend to have expertise and people with all kinds of opinions.

I have seen you post on Sailnet a social media site in the politics section and rail on and on about the Ameruican govt and make suggestions and comments like you are an expert with no disclaimer? Now I know you are not an expert in American govt, but that doesnt prevent you from posting your opinion and pretending you are one. It also doesnt prevent some who doesnt know any better from using what you say and quoting it to make a point

This from the gCaptain site you posted


> Nowhere on the internet however, has more criticism been raised of this event than the gCaptain Forum. With over 20,000 members from around the world, this forum has essentially grown to become the social media platform for the professional maritime industry.





> Robin Walbridge is No Master Mariner, he might have the license, but not the skillsPCP


Says who....how can you say that... you are qualified to say that because?????????. I think you need to place a disclaimer on your posts like you thought should be put on mine lest some newbie mistake you for an intelligent sailor with experience and follow your lead. I suggest you add something like JulieMor suggested I put which is the following



> I make the decisions I do and offer advice on Sailnet from the information I have available to me and my own personal experience in sailing. These decisions or advice may not be the best solutions for everyone else.


Personally It is really tiring to me and I bet a few others of us of your continuing to say the same thing over and over again and also present information as fact when it is mearly your opinion or conjecture or something you found in a social media site. Were it not for that and distorions should not go unchallenged I know I would have very few posts on this thread.


----------



## smurphny

Hartley18 said:


> Whilst not all that relevant to the topic at hand, just to clean a few things up:
> 
> Teredo worms are still a problem in many parts of the world today, but with the advent of plastic boats you don't hear about it so much - paint can get chipped by anything striking the hull..
> 
> FWIW, copper sheeting was installed primarily for it's *anti-fouling *properties - not worm resistance. Even back then it was prohibitively expensive, so only those who needed it for speed (eg. tea clippers) or could afford it (eg. parts of the navy) used it. Everyone else fixed a thin layer of cheap sacrificial timber to the outside of the hull with hundreds (thousands!) of copper nails. The worms burrow into the outer layer and thus leave the hull alone.


We used to install a shoe on the keels of wood boats to keep the worms out. Toredo worms have never gone away. I guess they just have to find their dinner somewhere else nowadays Copper sheathing also stopped some water ingress as well as keeping the critters out and barnacles off (for a while). One of the methods of keeping a garboard seam from leaking was(is) to run a copper strip from keel/keelson to plank. Makes me remember with fondness what fun wood boats were!


----------



## lancelot9898

An E-5 signalman may or may no be able to add anything of significance to the investigation, but to ignore any souce of potential information is foolish considiering that they were the last non crew people who was aboard the ship. Interviews can be misleading, but a good investigator should be able to seperate speculation from fact. Not only that I would want interviews with people who worked on repairing the ship a few weeks before. People will be defensive not wanting the blame in anyway associated with them, but IMHO useful information is there if people are willing to talk.


----------



## mistermizu

TakeFive said:


> ... it seems to be self-contradictory that he would say he's heading for the southeast quadrant on a southbound itinerary. It just does not make sense...


Correct. The use of compass terms here doesn't help pin point the so-called "navigable" semicircle. The SE quadrant is only the area of more favourable, lighter winds/seas in a system heading from east to west (such as a classic hurricane heading across the North Atlantic from Africa to the Caribbean). Another way to describe it for northern latitudes is the left semicircle, looking downstream (ie. located at the storm's centre and looking in the direction the storm is travelling). The so-called "dangerous" semicircle is thus the right semicircle, looking downstream. (Terms taken from: Weather for the Mariner, by *William J. Kotsch*)

In the case of the Bounty's encounter with Sandy: If the storm was heading north, and the vessel was heading south, the best quadrant to be in would be the SW quadrant. But the problem is how to get there? And is the storm following a consistent track relative to the vessel?

One of the golden rules mentioned by Kotsch is: "Never try to outrun or pass ahead of a hurricane center if there is some other course of action available to you. Chances are you will _not_ make it".

The dilemma facing the ship once they were out there is apparent from looking at the excellent illustration posted by Paulo (PCP) of the converging tracks of Bounty & Sandy [see post #395 above].

On Saturday 27th, the Bounty was northeast of Sandy. But the decision was taken to sail SW, presumably to try to position the vessel in the "navigable" semicircle. This strategy might have succeeded if Sandy had curved further east as it moved north and headed out into the Atlantic, instead of taking a more westerly path. If they were expecting the storm to track out to sea, then by heading further east themselves, they would have been breaking the "don't cross in front of the centre" rule, and would have been heading towards the "dangerous" semicircle. Ironically (and tragically), by heading southwest instead of east they ended up doing what they shouldn't have, and crossed directly in front of the worst of the storm. By Monday 29th they had managed to get into the "navigable" semicircle, but by then the damage had been done and the ship had been mortally wounded.

What knowledge they had of the forecast track of Sandy is as yet unknown. I'm sure it influenced their choice of action on the 27th.

All Kotsch's advice here is directed at a mariner "unavoidably" caught in the path of a storm. This is the crux. "Hopefully, you will have safely moored your craft or evacuated it to a safe haven long before the storm's arrival. Once this is accomplished, do not return to the scene until all danger has past. Remember that weather forecasters are not wizards or magicians. They, too, make mistakes, and allowances should be made for errors in forecasts."


----------



## casey1999

I doubt anyone on SN knows, but it would be interesting to know what the sailing qualities of the Bounty were:

1. Did she normally motor or sail (or motor/sail)?
2. What wind range could she sail effectively?
3. What angle to the wind could she sail (including wind ranges)?
4. What sea state could she effectively handle and what direction?
5. Did she need to use warps, or drouges in a large following sea?
6. What sea state and wind range could she effectively motor upwind?
7. What lee way would she make?

I hope this comes out in the CG report as it seems to have a large bearing on the seaworthness of the ship. 

Also, some have posted she should have gone this way or that to avoid the hurricane. That might be possible in a well designed ship or one with adequate auxillary power, but probably not Bounty. From what I have seen and heard, Bounty's fate was probably sealed due to her limited manuverbility in less than favourable sea conditions.

The Capt in the video said "we normaly sail, we are a sailing ship", also stated "engines are under powered for the ship". But apparently we cannot always take the Capt on his word as he says he "chases hurricanes" and some think we cannot take his word on that (joking maybe?).


----------



## Minnewaska

I guess I'm seeing Paulo get pushback that is as equally stubborn . If one is to criticize others for falsely hiding behind the desire to learn what happened, then criticism is due as well to hiding behind wanting no more accusation until the government tells us what to think about all this. The government investigation will have its limits, they don't have any interest in every nuance. Only those that involved law and regulation, which don't cover common sense. Stupid is not a crime, but is worth discussing.

I am fine with every expression of opinion here, even the repetitive ones and those I disagree with.


----------



## casey1999

Hartley18 said:


> Paulo, I was specifically responding to a post regarding "ships leaving port" and why they might be required to do so.
> 
> I did write "Unless it's an extremely well-protected harbour.." (and you say the port HMS Bounty left from was such a harbour), and "..how you handle the ship and where you go after you leave port is another matter entirely."
> 
> I'm sorry you did not see that. If it is a safe port of course he should stay.
> 
> For example: We have a few cyclone-safe ports and many cyclone-unsafe ports along our coastline. AFAIK, the unsafe ports all require ships to leave if a cyclone is forecast to be travelling in the direction of that port. I was in that situation in a modern ship (well, a steel passenger liner) in 1996 that had to leave port in the face of a Typhoon. One container ship that stayed in harbour sank at it's moorings; all that left survived.


Things may be different here in the United States. I know of no port where you would be forced to leave if a hurricane or Tsunami were forcast.

Here in Hawaii I keep my boat at a state owned harbor. The Coast Guard or harbor master would never order the harbor cleared due to a hurricane or Tsunami.

The Coast Guard does make a recommendation during Tsunami warnings that your boat should go at least 3 miles off shore to prevent damage, however you are not forced out. During the past two years I have taken my boat out in the middle of the night during a Tsunami warning (once during the Japan Tsunami of 2011 and once a couple weeks ago- the first evac saved my boat, and half the boat dock was destroyed). When I am preparing for Tsunami evacuation, I go alone as I do not want to put someone else in harms way. I also weigh the condition of my boat engine, and the sea state and wind strength. I try to minimize the chance of needing a CG rescue, especially in the middle of a potential Tsunami. If I think by boat is not up to the task of an evac, I would leave her tied tight to the pier to ride it out as best she could.


----------



## Minnewaska

I have been at marinas that absolutely required you to leave during tropical events. They were protecting their assets. However, I've never heard of an entire harbor being off limits.

If one thought they were safer at sea on any boat, I have to believe you would be safer yet in finding a spot up the Narragansett than 90 miles off Hatteras. 

Seriously, there is no way they head South because it was the safest choice. If they wanted off the dock, it wasn't a close call on taking other options for safety of the ship, let alone crew.


----------



## smurphny

Some marinas have it in their contracts that you need to get off the dock in the event of a named storm. I don't blame them a bit. Extending this to include a 190' tall ship is really like comparing different fruits. I wondered why, from the beginning, he did not make for New Bedford, within a day sail from New London, behind the surge gates. New Bedford is used to having large commercial fishing vessels in there and in fact played host to many a tall ship during the whaling era (see Herman Melville. Even if he had to drop the hook in the middle of NB harbor, he would have been relatively safe. As far as up in the Narragansett, I can't really think of a spot where he could have had any confidence of finding a good hurricane spot for a vessel that big. Maybe right in Newport Harbor but it was probably jammed with boats looking for shelter.


----------



## chef2sail

> I am fine with every expression of opinion here, even the repetitive ones and those I disagree with-Minniewasks


.

Thats fine. Shouldnt this be doneJuliemor requested and many of you agreed or said you "liked" with some sort of disclaimer so the newbies realize its an opinion not fact. Or was that only for me. What was suggested for me should be good enough for others I would think



> "I make the decisions I do and offer advice on Sailnet from the information I have available to me and my own personal experience in sailing. These decisions or advice may not be the best solutions for everyone else.


I also am not sure some of the posters know the difference between fact and opinion. Statements from an eyewitness can be a fact, statements from someone on a social media site are opinions. When posted theyt should no be stated as fact.

I see a lot of opinions posted here, very few facts as of yet. Constantly saying *exactly* the same thing smacks of someone trying to force their opinion down your throat,


----------



## Classic30

smurphny said:


> We used to install a shoe on the keels of wood boats to keep the worms out. Toredo worms have never gone away. I guess they just have to find their dinner somewhere else nowadays Copper sheathing also stopped some water ingress as well as keeping the critters out and barnacles off (for a while). One of the methods of keeping a garboard seam from leaking was(is) to run a copper strip from keel/keelson to plank. *Makes me remember with fondness what fun wood boats were*!


Sounds like you've forgotten the half of it - whilst I'm still learning!!


----------



## smurphny

I actually tried the copper-strip-over-garboard method on an old 30s vintage Richardson. It actually worked really well. Never lost the garboard caulking again. The problem with it is that during the winter, when blocked up, the copper holds moisture in and rot becomes a problem. For old, oil saturated garboard seams it does work.


----------



## Minnewaska

If anyone takes anything they read on a forum as fact, they must be too far gone to be fixed by a tagline.

I mean really, if I'm sitting next to a guy at a bar that I don't know, I don't need a disclaimer to take anything he says with a grain of salt. Even if he is really passionate about it. I still find myself talking to him.


----------



## Classic30

smurphny said:


> I actually tried the copper-strip-over-garboard method on an old 30s vintage Richardson. It actually worked really well. Never lost the garboard caulking again. The problem with it is that during the winter, when blocked up, the copper holds moisture in and rot becomes a problem. For old, oil saturated garboard seams it does work.


Thanks for posting that, smurphny. It just so happens my garboard seams are leaking a bit - enough to be annoying - but they're not old or oil saturated and the caulking is moving, not falling out.. Since the boat lives in the water all year round, I'll certainly keep that in mind as something to consider next haul-out. 

.. and now, back to the discussion at hand..


----------



## chef2sail

> The whole vessel at sea is safer then at port thing just comes off as pure dumb ****ery to me-PCP





> Saying "well the U.S. Navy does it" is just another sign of these peoples ignorance-PCP





> They are sticking like limpets to the idea that the safest place to be in a storm is at sea -PCP


Unacceptable - has been removed (tdw)


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> If anyone takes anything they read on a forum as fact, they must be too far gone to be fixed by a tagline...


By your definition, you discount all of the supposed "facts" that have been pasted from gcaptain.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> It was not really a matter of laying in port or not. Bounty had amply time to leave and keep Sandy relative position in respect. It was more a question as to which direction to steam after the decision to leave the harbour was taken. At barely six knots ... the only courses that could be recommend are the ones heading to the east and then to the north.


Looking at Paulo's diagram (thanks Paulo!), if they were already in a secure port it makes *absolutely no sense *to me why they would leave..

..unless they had a schedule to meet and, guessing they would be delayed for many days by the storm and the clean-up operations if they waited where they were, the Captain thought he could make it...


----------



## chef2sail

Or they were told to leave...no one really knows yet factually


----------



## chef2sail

> If anyone takes anything they read on a forum as fact, they must be too far gone to be fixed by a tagline.
> 
> I mean really, if I'm sitting next to a guy at a bar that I don't know, I don't need a disclaimer to take anything he says with a grain of salt. Even if he is really passionate about it. I still find myself talking to him- <Minnieska


Good I agree

The disclaimer goes


----------



## chef2sail

*If anyone takes anything they read on a forum as fact, they must be too far gone *

I am practicing to be like Paulo. Using different colors and fonts, boldening entire statements or posts. Maybe it will make it make others read my own opinions and others will assume they are facts like his.

dave


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> (snippage)The fact that he went to sea with a damaged pump system (one Genset out of service) and without a back up system is just unacceptable for them, hurricane or not.
> (more snippage) but we know that the direct cause was that the boat has making water and that the only remaining genset


Paolo, we don't "know" ANY of what you posted. We've read quotes attributing such conditoins IN THE PAST. How do YOU KNOW that those conditioins in FACT existed on her last voyage, which took place a few short weeks from her last hauled-out maintenance work?

It may well turn out that they were, indeed, running with one genset out of service, but we certainly don't KNOW it at this point in time. No more than we know that any of the posts from the "professional captain's site" that you keep quoting here are indeed professional captains.

Just like the dozens of people who "knew" that the Bounty headed East, when it never did.


----------



## chef2sail

I think I will annoint myself the *"fact checker"* like the networks had for the campaign. Just for this thread though as it could become a full time job I fear


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> (snip) Evidently if you have only one generator operational you have no redundance and no back up if that generator gets out of order...and that's exactly what happened. Is this not clear to you


OMG, so sorry Paolo, we had no idea that you were actually ON THE BOUNTY, and are really one of the survinving crew members that said they would not make any statements at this time, so you are posting here under an alias so your mates won't know you're talking when you said you wouldn't.

THAT is how you know "exactly what happened".


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Your hysteria in you posts is self serving and insulting to others with oppoiste opinions.












*I demand an apology!!!!*

You are attributing me opinions and quoting them as if I had said them or were mine and that is false. I never said that.

Those were opinions from professional sailors on a forum for professional that I quoted and I made very clear that I was quoting them. In fact I attribute a lot more weight to the opinion of professionals or opinions of Captains of tall ships than to your opinion but that does not give you the right to attribute me false statements. He live in a state of law and here as in US attributing false declarations to another person is punishable by law not to mention that is very low and very wrong.


----------



## chef2sail

Even it the Bounty was a brand new ship in perfect condition it *would be always *a wrong decision to rake a XVIII years old designed wooden tall ship with auxiliary engines with an hurricane coming and even a worse one sailing in its direction than on the opposite direction.-Opinion

Regarding the condition of the ship it is a Captain's duty to know the condition of the ship and regarding that condition decide in what conditions the ship would be safely sailed.

In my opinion the Bounty was a fair weather boat, not in a sense that it was not an offshore boat, but in a sense that, like most sailboats, should not be sailed in high latitudes and really bad weather.



> Obviously the Captain thought that the Bounty, in the present condition, was a ship able to sail in an hurricane and that's why he chose to sail a hurricane. This is confirmed by what was said by the Captain about the ship: "The Bounty has no boundaries".


- how do you know what he meant- OPINION

This is a ridiculous statement as it was ridiculously dangerous to take that ship to an Hurricane. That was my first conviction but I would not have come forward with this opinion if I didn't see it confirmed by the nautical community, I mean, the professional one.



> Going over a natural corporatism defense I had heard several tall ships captains saying he had done very wrong in sailing the boat to an hurricane and dozens of professional sailors practically saying the Captain was crazy and utterly irresponsible. I have not heard a single Captain or professional sailor saying that the captain had done the right thing.


- Opinion and lie. You got this from a social media site



> The only one that I saw defending the captain was the owner of the boat, Bounty people and some in this thread, saying that he had done the right thing because it was better in an Hurricane to sail the boat out to sea than staying on the port. Regarding that case the opinion of professional sailor is this one, that seems evident to me, even if I am a newbie compared to them


: Lie. You have been asked to suplly who said this

It is not because you sail on a 1784 tallship replica that you have to replicate the way they sail in those days and ignore tecnology. Category 2 hurricane Sandy was very well forecasted by the NHC and could not be ignored
"a ship is safer at sea than in port."

It was not really a matter of laying in port or not. Bounty had amply time to leave and keep Sandy relative position in respect. It was more a question as to which direction to steam after the decision to leave the harbour was taken. At barely six knots ... the only courses that could be recommend are the ones heading to the east and then to the north.



> Since Sandy altered its course toward the land instead of out to sea, if Bounty would have kept its original course ... more to the east than to the south ... instead of crossing the hurricane ahead of her path and hoping to fly along a north-eastern gust and against the Gulf Stream, she would have succeeded in her passage.


 miscalculation you cant predict hurricanesI have made some plane sailing calculations ...

On Thursday the 25th, Sandy was at more than a 1,000nm away from the Bounty
On Friday the 26th, Sandy was 800nm away
On Saturday the 27th, Sandy was 600nm away
On Sunday the 28th, Sandy was 200nm away
On Monday the 29th, Sandy was 100nm away on a north by east bearing

From the 26th to the 27th, Sandy runned 60nm a day
From the 27th to the 28th, Sandy runned 260nm a day
From the 28th to the 29th, Sandy runned 250nm a day



> When Sandy caught the Gulf Stream, she was accelerating its dangerous roar very rapidly to the north ...


 Lie
The whole vessel at sea is safer then at port thing just comes off as pure dumb ****ery to me. With insurance now a days who should care what happens to a vessel while at the dock? Tie the ****** up and head for the hills.


> Two people would be alive right now if they used common sense.


 Opinion


> Saying "well the U.S. Navy does it" is just another sign of these peoples ignorance. They are in steel hull boats several hundred feet long so yes they can do a lot more damage to the docks and themselves with high water and winds, but they have the sense also to go the complete opposite ******* way of the storm. ...


Lie...they went across the front of the storm east out to see....they actually crossed the T when the ssteamed out of Norfolk

There is a real purpose and some reasoning to that, but to send people out to potentially save what essentially amounts to a rich mans toy is criminal. How these people in their wooden and plastic toys think they are in the same league as a 500 hundred foot ship is beyond me.

Hell all of us are on vessels that could weather anything worse then these amateur sailors could ever imagine and none of us would have even thought of attempting some of the **** I have seen done by those idiots. 
But I've never gotten the fascination the hard core amateur crowd has for saving their toys by putting their lives in danger to do it....



> They are sticking like limpets to the idea that the safest place to be in a storm is at sea ... they embrace that dangerous myth and defend their own ignorance based on their short time riding a navy ship before becoming accomplished yachtsmen. I never thought I would ask for the CG to get involved in recreation but the TSC and the toy boat crowd really do need a kick in the ass to move them toward some kind of reality. Bring on the CG dogs and the ambulance chasing lawyers ...


 The CG are dogs?

As sorry as I am that Capt Walbridge lost his life on board the Bounty, as a fellow mariner, it doesn't deviate from the fact that seriously bad decisions were made for the Bounty to leave port in the first place when she should have stayed tied up alongside.

No amount of convincing can show me otherwise. However, that dirty deed was done and it just shows how many balls he had had to stand up against his company and refuse the sailing order, if he indeed had to, given that he may well be the one to suggest sailing in the first place and his boss tagged along with his so called professional decision.



> Irrespective, I see this as a 'rape of nautical intelligence' and one that has sent the marine community in the US on its head and hopefully a review of its regulations governing Tall Ships and bring them in line with the rest of the marine community.


- Opinion

Clearly there has to be a careful look at how these TS are audited and Classed. For them to sail outside of Near Coastal voyages without all the safety infrastructure that is beneficial to them and what is mandated on other vessels is a sin. ...



> If you watch the video interview with the Bounty Captain, and I use that term very loosely, whilst at Belfast, it only clearly shows his level of Nautical competence and professionalism when he comments on the sea conditions and his intentions to get close to the 'eye' of the storm as he tries to ******** his way into the history books.


 Lie
Well he certainly did that without any help from anyone else.



> Robin Walbridge is No Master Mariner, he might have the license, but not the skills. He might have the respect from his own crew, but not the professional marine living desire to respect the sea for what it is. And the sea has taken what was not respected.


 Lie and un concioanable statement

...

gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

Dave asked why I keep posting on this thread. Well, in fact it seems to me that there is still some lack of good sense among some that keep posting. I believe that a forum like sailnet should have also an educational character. Many here, including me, want to learn and use this forum for that.

Look at what I have posted as a small contribute and


> take into consideration that I am not posting mainly my personal opinion but mostly the opinions of professional sailors that based what I think about this unfortunate tragic accident.


 I strongly believe they know a lot more than us. Lie

Regards

Paulo

Fact checking shows this one statement is rife with opinions presented as facts as well as outright lies


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> I think I will annoint myself the *"fact checker"* like the networks had for the campaign. Just for this thread though as it could become a full time job I fear


Some friendly advice..... no one likes the fact checker guy in a conversation. Let it go. People exaggerate.

You can't have it both ways. Wait for the investigation, but I'll investigate whatever you say while we wait?

I still support Paulo's opinion and right to have one. In the end, I think his perspective is going to be much closer to the truth, whether one likes the way it was presented or not. I have no expectation that the USCG is going to even attempt to resolve all the issues we've been discussing or analyzing.

While still incomplete, I've read Bounty's website, seen the facts on the weather, their course, heard the interview of the crew and more. There is a ton of damning evidence and nearly no evidence that offers any mitigating perspective. The mitigating theories, in fact, have been pure speculation without any corroboration so far. Such as suggesting the potential that he might have been forced to go. And, should that become true, there is still a good conversation to be had around whether it should have made any difference.

I only wish this was taking place at a bar.


----------



## Brewgyver

smurphny said:


> This is a pretty damning piece concerning the ship's condition:HMS Bounty sinking to be investigated; victim was 'very concerned' - latimes.com


It's damning if you read into the words of an admittedly mechanically-challenged person who said "ther are always stewing over them (the generators and engines)." I can't tell you the number of times I've been working on a piece of equipment and have somebody come up to me and ask "What's wrong with it?" or "What happened to it?" The average non-mechanically inclined person has no idea what preventive maintenance is. They understand it as applied to their car - and ususall then only to the extent of that mandated by the manufacturer.

If you read the WHOLE article you linked to, you'll see that they reported that the Coast Guard inspected the ship just a few weeks ago, when it underwent maintenance in Maine, and that prior deficiencies (old charts) had been corrected at that time.


----------



## PCP

The statements falsely attributed to me where taken from this post (pag 40, post 395).

I say clearly:

Regarding that case *the opinion of professional sailor is this one*, that seems evident to me, even if I am a newbie compared to them:

then I quote at blue and in the end I have posted the link from where all those quotes were taken:

gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

I only say that I agree with them, obviously not phrase by phrase but globally in regards what they are sayng.



PCP said:


> Even it the Bounty was a brand new ship in perfect condition it would be always a wrong decision to rake a XVIII years old designed wooden tall ship with auxiliary engines with an hurricane coming and even a worse one sailing in its direction than on the opposite direction.
> 
> Regarding the condition of the ship it is a Captain's duty to know the condition of the ship and regarding that condition decide in what conditions the ship would be safely sailed.
> 
> In my opinion the Bounty was a fair weather boat, not in a sense that it was not an offshore boat, but in a sense that, like most sailboats, should not be sailed in high latitudes and really bad weather.
> 
> Obviously the Captain thought that the Bounty, in the present condition, was a ship able to sail in an hurricane and that's why he chose to sail a hurricane. This is confirmed by what was said by the Captain about the ship: "The Bounty has no boundaries".
> 
> This is a ridiculous statement as it was ridiculously dangerous to take that ship to an Hurricane. That was my first conviction but I would not have come forward with this opinion if I didn't see it confirmed by the nautical community, I mean, the professional one.
> 
> Going over a natural corporatism defense I had heard several tall ships captains saying he had done very wrong in sailing the boat to an hurricane and dozens of professional sailors practically saying the Captain was crazy and utterly irresponsible. I have not heard a single Captain or professional sailor saying that the captain had done the right thing.
> 
> The only one that I saw defending the captain was the owner of the boat, Bounty people and some in this thread, saying that he had done the right thing because it was better in an Hurricane to sail the boat out to sea than staying on the port. Regarding that case the opinion of professional sailor is this one, that seems evident to me, even if I am a newbie compared to them:
> 
> It is not because you sail on a 1784 tallship replica that you have to replicate the way they sail in those days and ignore tecnology. Category 2 hurricane Sandy was very well forecasted by the NHC and could not be ignored.
> 
> *"a ship is safer at sea than in port."
> *
> 
> It was not really a matter of laying in port or not. Bounty had amply time to leave and keep Sandy relative position in respect. It was more a question as to which direction to steam after the decision to leave the harbour was taken. At barely six knots ... the only courses that could be recommend are the ones heading to the east and then to the north.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Sandy altered its course toward the land instead of out to sea, if Bounty would have kept its original course ... more to the east than to the south ... instead of crossing the hurricane ahead of her path and hoping to fly along a north-eastern gust and against the Gulf Stream, she would have succeeded in her passage.
> 
> *I have made some plane sailing calculations ...
> 
> On Thursday the 25th, Sandy was at more than a 1,000nm away from the Bounty
> On Friday the 26th, Sandy was 800nm away
> On Saturday the 27th, Sandy was 600nm away
> On Sunday the 28th, Sandy was 200nm away
> On Monday the 29th, Sandy was 100nm away on a north by east bearing
> 
> From the 26th to the 27th, Sandy runned 60nm a day
> From the 27th to the 28th, Sandy runned 260nm a day
> From the 28th to the 29th, Sandy runned 250nm a day
> 
> When Sandy caught the Gulf Stream, she was accelerating its dangerous roar very rapidly to the north ...*
> 
> The whole vessel at sea is safer then at port thing just comes off as pure dumb ****ery to me. With insurance now a days who should care what happens to a vessel while at the dock? Tie the ****** up and head for the hills. Two people would be alive right now if they used common sense.
> 
> *Saying "well the U.S. Navy does it" is just another sign of these peoples ignorance. They are in steel hull boats several hundred feet long so yes they can do a lot more damage to the docks and themselves with high water and winds, but they have the sense also to go the complete opposite ******* way of the storm.* ...
> 
> *There is a real purpose and some reasoning to that, but to send people out to potentially save what essentially amounts to a rich mans toy is criminal. How these people in their wooden and plastic toys think they are in the same league as a 500 hundred foot ship is beyond me.*
> 
> *Hell all of us are on vessels that could weather anything worse then these amateur sailors could ever imagine and none of us would have even thought of attempting some of the **** I have seen done by those idiots.
> But I've never gotten the fascination the hard core amateur crowd has for saving their toys by putting their lives in danger to do it....*
> 
> They are sticking like limpets to the idea that the safest place to be in a storm is at sea ... they embrace that dangerous myth and defend their own ignorance based on their short time riding a navy ship before becoming accomplished yachtsmen. I never thought I would ask for the CG to get involved in recreation but the TSC and the toy boat crowd really do need a kick in the ass to move them toward some kind of reality. Bring on the CG dogs and the ambulance chasing lawyers ...
> 
> *As sorry as I am that Capt Walbridge lost his life on board the Bounty, as a fellow mariner, it doesn't deviate from the fact that seriously bad decisions were made for the Bounty to leave port in the first place when she should have stayed tied up alongside. *
> 
> *No amount of convincing can show me otherwise. *However, that dirty deed was done and it just shows how many balls he had had to stand up against his company and refuse the sailing order, if he indeed had to, given that he may well be the one to suggest sailing in the first place and his boss tagged along with his so called professional decision.
> 
> *Irrespective, I see this as a 'rape of nautical intelligence' and one that has sent the marine community in the US on its head and hopefully a review of its regulations governing Tall Ships and bring them in line with the rest of the marine community.*
> 
> Clearly there has to be a careful look at how these TS are audited and Classed. For them to sail outside of Near Coastal voyages without all the safety infrastructure that is beneficial to them and what is mandated on other vessels is a sin. ...
> 
> If you watch the video interview with the Bounty Captain, and I use that term very loosely, whilst at Belfast, it only clearly shows his level of Nautical competence and professionalism when he comments on the sea conditions and his intentions to get close to the 'eye' of the storm as he tries to ******** his way into the history books.* Well he certainly did that without any help from anyone else. *
> 
> Robin Walbridge is No Master Mariner, he might have the license, but not the skills. *He might have the respect from his own crew, but not the professional marine living desire to respect the sea for what it is. And the sea has taken what was not respected.*
> 
> ...
> 
> gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News
> 
> Dave asked why I keep posting on this thread. Well, in fact it seems to me that there is still some lack of good sense among some that keep posting. I believe that a forum like sailnet should have also an educational character. Many here, including me, want to learn and use this forum for that.
> 
> Look at what I have posted as a small contribute and take into consideration that I am not posting mainly my personal opinion but mostly the opinions of professional sailors that based what I think about this unfortunate tragic accident.* I strongly believe they know a lot more than us.*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> I only wish this was taking place at a bar


.

Me too

He has his right to an opinion. He has his right to post what he wants in an appropriate manner without all the boldened letters and heightened font which etiquette uimplys he is shouting us down. He has the right to not listen to others. I will also fight for his right to post what he wants.

He does not have the right to call opinions facts however. We are all so worried newbies will endanger themselves by following what they see here, it is important they know what are facts...and what are opinions.

Now he demands an apology for someone else posting their opinions

Too funny


----------



## chef2sail

Paulo,

Please post your stuff in normal font.. Once in a while using bold or larger font or colors is normal. Internet etiquette usually is that when someone posts entire posts or whole paragraphs in enlarged fonts its like you were shouting at them in real life.

I say this because it is possible that you dont know this not to incite you. If you continue as you have I will just assume it is because you wish to be disrespectful.

dave


----------



## steve77

Hartley18 said:


> Looking at Paulo's diagram (thanks Paulo!), if they were already in a secure port it makes *absolutely no sense *to me why they would leave..
> 
> ..unless they had a schedule to meet and, guessing they would be delayed for many days by the storm and the clean-up operations if they waited where they were, the Captain thought he could make it...


We have the benefit of hindsight to know what was and what wasn't a secure port. When the Bounty left New London, CT on Thursday 10/25 the storm was near Cuba. There was no way to know where it would make landfall, predictions were anywhere from NC to southern Maine.


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> OMG, so sorry Paolo, we had no idea that you were actually ON THE BOUNTY, and are really one of the survinving crew members that said they would not make any statements at this time, so you are posting here under an alias so your mates won't know you're talking when you said you wouldn't.
> 
> THAT is how you know "exactly what happened".


I never said I knew what happened. only said that in my opinion and in the opinion of professional sailors (that I quoted) and from professional tall ship captains(that I quoted too) the captain should not have leaved port and went to a hurricane pass. Of course this is an opinion but I weight in a completely different weight my opinions or any other from amateur sailors compared with the opinions of tall ship Captains or professional sailors.

I did not certainly attributed false statements to nobody.

Regarding the Bounty having only a generator working that information was given to gCaptain sailor forum (professional sailors) by someone from the Bounty, not necessarily the crew. I posted with good faith but I admit that we don't know if that was true or not, even if I cannot see any reason to lie. The only thing we know is that in the opinion of the dead crew member they were not reliable and the crew were constantly messing around with them.

We now also that the boat sunk because it had the generators out of order and given the absence of diesel powered generators was not able to take out the water that the boat was making.

We know also that the boat had been already in a similar situation in a storm, I mean making water with the generators out of service, without other type of auxiliary pups and did not sunk because the CG was able to deliver some portable diesel water that were able to compensate the water ingress.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

steve77 said:


> We have the benefit of hindsight to know what was and what wasn't a secure port. When the Bounty left New London, CT on Thursday 10/25 the storm was near Cuba. There was no way to know where it would make landfall, predictions were anywhere from NC to southern Maine.


You are right about the forecast, but doesn't that make is all the more dangerous? No way to know you can avoid it.


----------



## chef2sail

OK I give. Pualo Rather than sully my self with this anymore and give you the satisfaction of a reply, I think it is better to ignore you than to continue to subject others to this. Only the second time I felt compelled to put a SN memeber on ignore. Life is good. carry on

dave


----------



## steve77

Minnewaska said:


> You are right about the forecast, but doesn't that make is all the more dangerous? No way to know you can avoid it.


True enough. My intent was just to point out that there was so much uncertainty here that it seems a bit irresponsible to make blanket statements regarding what should or should not have been done.


----------



## casey1999

Is it possible to pull up these inspection reports? Cannot figure out how if there is.

USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page

Regards


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> Some marinas have it in their contracts that you need to get off the dock in the event of a named storm. I don't blame them a bit. Extending this to include a 190' tall ship is really like comparing different fruits. I wondered why, from the beginning, he did not make for New Bedford, within a day sail from New London, behind the surge gates. New Bedford is used to having large commercial fishing vessels in there and in fact played host to many a tall ship during the whaling era (see Herman Melville. Even if he had to drop the hook in the middle of NB harbor, he would have been relatively safe. As far as up in the Narragansett, I can't really think of a spot where he could have had any confidence of finding a good hurricane spot for a vessel that big. Maybe right in Newport Harbor but it was probably jammed with boats looking for shelter.


Smurph, you are talking about Marinas. Bounty was in a natural big port, new London, this one:










To give you an Idea of the scale on the left there are a marina (small in the picture).

Even if the Captain considered safer to be out of the dock he had plenty of space to anchor.

Regarding being forced out of the dock I will point out that the Picton Castle, also a tall ship was there and remained there. His captain was one of the Captains that criticized openly and harshly the choice of Bounty's Captain of not staying in Port and chose to sail a Hurricane.

I will also pointed out that the Picton Castle, that stayed on the same port from where the Bounty leaved, did not sustain any damage with the Hurricane.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

Are you sure that Picton Castle was in New London CT?


----------



## steve77

PCP said:


> Smurph, you are talking about Marinas. Bounty was in a natural big port, new London, this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To give you an Idea of the scale on the left there are a marina (small in the picture).
> 
> Even if the Captain considered safer to be out of the dock he had plenty of space to anchor.
> 
> Regarding being forced out of the dock I will point out that the Picton Castle, also a tall ship was there and remained there. His captain was one of the Captains that criticized openly and harshly the choice of Bounty's Captain of not staying in Port and chose to sail a Hurricane.
> 
> I will also pointed out that the Picton Castle, that stayed on the same port from where the Bounty leaved, did not sustain any damage with the Hurricane.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Wow. This is the third post I've made to you on this specific topic. You are wrong. The Picton Castle was NOT in New London, CT (where Bounty was). It was a few hundred miles away in Canada. Lunenburg, Nova Scotia to be precise. Make your argument if you want, but please use correct information. Here is a quote from their Facebook page from Oct 29:

"We are expecting the tail end of Hurricane Sandy to hit Lunenburg tonight; Picton Castle is snug with extra dock lines, halyards secured and double gaskets on all sails."

http://www.facebook.com/BarquePictonCastle


----------



## steve77

Minnewaska said:


> Are you sure that Picton Castle was in New London CT?


It wasn't. It was in Canada, near Halifax.


----------



## Minnewaska

steve77 said:


> It wasn't. It was in Canada, near Halifax.


I actually knew that. Was only hoping to guide Paolo to see he doesn't need to pound so hard to make a point many of us agree with.


----------



## PCP

steve77 said:


> Wow. This is the third post I've made to you on this specific topic. You are wrong. The Picton Castle was NOT in New London, CT (where Bounty was). It was a few hundred miles away in Canada. Lunenburg, Nova Scotia to be precise. Make your argument if you want, but please use correct information. Here is a quote from their Facebook page from Oct 29:
> 
> "We are expecting the tail end of Hurricane Sandy to hit Lunenburg tonight; Picton Castle is snug with extra dock lines, halyards secured and double gaskets on all sails."
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/BarquePictonCastle


Sorry about that, my mistake.

That take nothing about New London to be a big port.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tdw

Ok peoples let me be quite plain ....

This thread is right on the knifes edge of being simply closed and deleted from view. 

The language and accusations would be a worry in Off Topic. In General Discussion they are way out of line. 

Come on peoples, keep it civil.


----------



## steve77

Minnewaska said:


> I actually knew that. Was only hoping to guide Paolo to see he doesn't need to pound so hard to make a point many of us agree with.


Oh, ok. Sorry about that.


----------



## Classic30

steve77 said:


> We have the benefit of hindsight to know what was and what wasn't a secure port.


S77, please don't misunderstand the use of the term "secure port". Hindsight has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Let me explain: The Harbourmaster of every port used by commercial shipping will have guidelines written down in their Manual. If you've never seen one before, here's a link to one over here chosen simply because it's a small, relatively secure port and the Manual is in one place and easy to read.

In contrast, here are the "Emergency Procedures" for the Port of Townsville - a largish, busy, un-protected shipping port subject to Cyclone activity at various times of the year. Please note the following statement under Condition Yellow: "Ship's crew to full complement and prepare to put to sea".

Does that make sense now?? Good! Let's move on..


----------



## PCP

*Lies*



chef2sail said:


>


Apart the fact that you have attributed to me statements that I had not made, and that is unacceptable in any civilized country or forum, it seems that all disagreement in what regards our opinions are due to what you say above. Well, it is difficult to understand that post because you quote me but then what comes behind is also said be me (and it seems that it is said by you), so to put it clear:



chef2sail said:


> Quote Paulo:
> 
> *take into consideration that I am not posting mainly my personal opinion but mostly the opinions of professional sailors that based what I think about this unfortunate tragic accident.
> Look at what I have posted as a small contribute and I strongly believe they know a lot more than us.*
> 
> chef2sail: *Lie*
> 
> ...


I guess this says all. I have repeatedly said that I do not consider my one personal opinion neither the opinion of any amateur sailor as valid, in what consider this matter, as valid as the ones of Captains of tall ships or professional sailors.

I also have said that my opinions in this thread has as base the opinions expressed by those professionals and that's why I extensively quoted them.

And I mean all opinions because I did not have found any of them saying that the Bounty should not have stayed in Port or that the Bounty's Captain had done the right thing sailing to an hurricane, quite the opposite.

Of course an amateur sailor may value his own opinion above the opinion of Captains of tall ships an professional sailors, that does not mean necessarily that he is wrong, only that he considers himself highly knowledgeable, more than tall ship Captains and professional sailors. It seems to be this the case with Dave. Nothing wrong with that, anyone is entitle to have his opinion.

Anyway it is not a lie. A lie is something that someone knows to be untrue and that is said with the intention of deceiving. Obviously it is not the case and even saying that it is not true is just a matter of opinion, not a fact and never a lie.

...


----------



## steve77

Hartley18 said:


> S77, please don't misunderstand the use of the term "secure port". Hindsight has absolutely nothing to do with it.
> 
> Let me explain: The Harbourmaster of every port used by commercial shipping will have guidelines written down in their Manual. If you've never seen one before, here's a link to one over here chosen simply because it's a small, relatively secure port and the Manual is in one place and easy to read.
> 
> In contrast, here are the "Emergency Procedures" for the Port of Townsville - a largish, busy, un-protected shipping port subject to Cyclone activity at various times of the year. Please note the following statement under Condition yellow: "Ship's crew to full complement and prepare to put to sea".
> 
> Does that make sense now?? Good! Let's move on..


Hartley, thanks and yes, that makes sense. I didn't realize what you meant by the term. Interesting reading, actually.


----------



## Classic30

steve77 said:


> Hartley, thanks and yes, that makes sense. I didn't realize what you meant by the term. Interesting reading, actually.


Good-o.. Homework for tonight is to read the Emergency Procedures for the port the HMS Bounty left from.


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> .. Homework for tonight is to read the Emergency Procedures for the port the HMS Bounty left from.
> 
> In the meantime, let's move on..


I would be very interested in that, if you can find it.

Maybe here is a bit different, a Port (a commercial one) is by definition safe except in what regards entering or going out of Port. When there is really bad weather in our coast sometimes only two or three Ports remain open. That means that Ships or boats cannot come in or out from a closed Port.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> I would be very interested in that, if you can find it.
> 
> Maybe here is a bit different, a Port (a commercial one) is by definition safe except in what regards entering or going out of Port. When there is really bad weather in our coast sometimes only two or three Ports remain open. That means that Ships or boats cannot come in or out from a closed Port.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Here in Hawaii when we have a Tsunami warning, during and after the time of the expected first wave of the Tsunami, the Coast Gurard will close all ports. This means you cannot enter or leave the port. The CG usually waits to first light when they perform port inspections before the port is "opened". What they are looking for is strong tidal currents and elevation changes, and debris in the water that could effect navigation.

Neither the CG nor the harbor master will force people out of a port either before, during, or after a Tsunami. Even a closed port. A closed put is basically a port "lock down".


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> I would be very interested in that, if you can find it.


It'll take some digging, but I'm sure you'll find it on-line somewhere - that's how Port Corporations operate these days - and Emergency Procedures are mandatory. I already knew where to find the examples I posted. 



PCP said:


> Maybe here is a bit different, a Port (a commercial one) is by definition safe except in what regards entering or going out of Port. When there is really bad weather in our coast sometimes only two or three Ports remain open. That means that Ships or boats cannot come in or out from a closed Port.


In areas of the world not likely to be subject to "cyclonic activity", I can understand that - the danger is only the period while entering and leaving.

Ports near where I used to live would get hammered every year or so by cyclones, hence the requirement for all shipping to leave port *before* it's closed is standard safety procedure - for all the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread.


----------



## steve77

Hartley18 said:


> Good-o.. Homework for tonight is to read the Emergency Procedures for the port the HMS Bounty left from.


There's not going to be a quiz, is there?


----------



## Classic30

steve77 said:


> There's not going to be a quiz, is there?


Bwahahahaha!! :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher

I'm just too darn lazy to go look for it myself.. and anyways don't know that part of the world as well as y'all. ..but if you did happen to find it it might shed some light on the "Forced Exit" hypothesis (if it was Port policy) or say nothing much at all (if it wasn't).


----------



## YukonJack

Paulo--- I have been a silent reader for awhile now. I am enjoying all of your conversations. I am a volunteer with the Philadelphia Ship Preservation Guild that now owns the Tall Ship Gazela. I just sailed on her for the first time this past summer from her Home Port in Philadelphia, PA to Newport, RI for a tall ship festival. We do not chase hurricanes and have a very well established sailing guideline. She will NOT sail in certain conditions or if those conditions may be in her path. We will hold at the dock until those conditions are clear even if on a schedule. The mission statement of the guild is to not only pass on the old sailing traditions, but also the old ways of maintaining a wooden ship. We also want to be able to pass her along to future generations, so that they can learn and enjoy her too. She is irreplaceable, as you would know.

I have seen the Bounty, but I was never on her. I only met two crew members once as I was asked to give a below deck tour of Gazela. The gossip is that she had maintence issues. Yes, I did state gossip for all those that may be critical of passing information on unsubtaniated. GOSSIP I SAY !!!!!!!!

I could not post any links because I am new, but I did read an article that contains the following:

The US Navy North Atlantic Sub Base is in New London/Groton, CT.
The five submarines that were in port remained there to ride out the storm. The US Coast Guards Training Ship-- the Barque Eagle was also there and remained in port. She is a steel hulled training ship for the Coast Guard, but she is a fully rigged three masted sailng ship carrying five yards on her main mast.


----------



## Minnewaska

YukonJack,

You're a voice of reason that well articulates what many of us think was very wrong with Bounty's decision making. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that Bounty had a culture of risk taking, evidenced by both the Capt and the crew's statements, even if exaggerated. Most professional skippers that I know, including a couple of Admirals, are more likely to brag about how squared away they are than their exploits.


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> Smurph, you are talking about Marinas. Bounty was in a natural big port, new London, this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To give you an Idea of the scale on the left there are a marina (small in the picture).
> 
> Even if the Captain considered safer to be out of the dock he had plenty of space to anchor.
> 
> Regarding being forced out of the dock I will point out that the Picton Castle, also a tall ship was there and remained there. His captain was one of the Captains that criticized openly and harshly the choice of Bounty's Captain of not staying in Port and chose to sail a Hurricane.
> 
> I will also pointed out that the Picton Castle, that stayed on the same port from where the Bounty leaved, did not sustain any damage with the Hurricane.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yes, I've been in New London plenty of times. I was suggesting that if he could not stay there for some reason, that there was actually a place close by with a flood gate. It just makes it a real mystery as to why he sailed out into the storm. New London is a nuclear sub port and is loaded with pleasure boats--very crowded. I am thinking maybe he was asked to leave. New Bedford is more of a commercial spot.


----------



## PCP

YukonJack said:


> Paulo--- I have been a silent reader for awhile now. I am enjoying all of your conversations. I am a volunteer with the Philadelphia Ship Preservation Guild that now owns the Tall Ship Gazela. I just sailed on her for the first time this past summer from her Home Port in Philadelphia, PA to Newport, RI for a tall ship festival. We do not chase hurricanes and have a very well established sailing guideline. She will NOT sail in certain conditions or if those conditions may be in her path. We will hold at the dock until those conditions are clear even if on a schedule. The mission statement of the guild is to not only pass on the old sailing traditions, but also the old ways of maintaining a wooden ship. We also want to be able to pass her along to future generations, so that they can learn and enjoy her too. She is irreplaceable, as you would know.
> 
> I have seen the Bounty, but I was never on her. I only met two crew members once as I was asked to give a below deck tour of Gazela. The gossip is that she had maintence issues. Yes, I did state gossip for all those that may be critical of passing information on unsubtaniated. GOSSIP I SAY !!!!!!!!
> 
> I could not post any links because I am new, but I did read an article that contains the following:
> 
> The US Navy North Atlantic Sub Base is in New London/Groton, CT.
> The five submarines that were in port remained there to ride out the storm. The US Coast Guards Training Ship-- the Barque Eagle was also there and remained in port. She is a steel hulled training ship for the Coast Guard, but she is a fully rigged three masted sailng ship carrying five yards on her main mast.


Thanks for posting. I love traditional boats and I have owned and recovered a small one. Take good care of Gazela, that's a very nice ship.

When I was a kid I, as many Lisbon inhabitants, went every year to the river banks to say goodbye to the white fleet and Gazela was one of the ships sailing out with the fleet.

"The barquentine Gazela Primeiro (meaning Gazelle the First in Portuguese) was built in the shipyard of J. M. Mendes in Setúbal, Portugal in 1901. At that time the Portuguese fisheries authorities had a regulation prohibiting the construction of new vessels for the Grand Banks cod fishery.

Gazela was built to carry fishermen to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Every spring she would leave Lisbon, laden with as many as 35 dories stacked on deck like drinking cups, a crew of 40 men (35 fishermen/sailors, two cooks, two mates and the captain), and a couple of apprentices. Her cargo hold would be full of salt as ballast. The salt would be used for the fish that were caught (cod, flounder, halibut, haddock and perch), preserving them for the long trip home. The Gazela could stow upwards of 350 tons of salted fish in her holds.

Gazela was engine-less until 1938, when a Mannheim-Benz diesel engine was installed. With the depletion of cod on the Grand Banks, vessels were being forced to fish the Davis Strait, between Greenland and Newfoundland. The contrary winds and frequent icebergs in this area made life difficult for ships without engines. To accommodate the propeller, a new rudder post was installed and her counter was extended approximately 10-12 feet, giving her a long overhanging transom.

After a remarkably long commercial career, Gazela's last voyage to the Banks as a commercial fishing ship was made in 1969."


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> Yes, I've been in New London plenty of times. I was suggesting that if he could not stay there for some reason, that there was actually a place close by with a flood gate. It just makes it a real mystery as to why he sailed out into the storm. New London is a nuclear sub port and is loaded with pleasure boats--very crowded. I am thinking maybe he was asked to leave. New Bedford is more of a commercial spot.


If he was asked to leave, we (and all the others) wound be talking about the port authorities responsibilities (there is a Port Captain in US?) and not about Bounty's Captain. That would have bean an huge scandal and I if that had happened, Bounty owner and their organization would have come forward saying not that it was safer to face an hurricane than to stay in port, but saying that they were forced to leave port and had to face an hurricane. That is an huge, huge difference.

We would wait for Hartley investigation about that but I think that the chances for that to have happened are very near 0.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> Originally Posted by steve77
> We have the benefit of hindsight to know what was and what wasn't a secure port. When the Bounty left New London, CT on Thursday 10/25 the storm was near Cuba. There was no way to know where it would make landfall, predictions were anywhere from NC to southern Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about the forecast, but doesn't that make is all the more dangerous? No way to know you can avoid it.
Click to expand...

Precisely, that is what makes the decision to sail south even harder to fathom, especially in such a slow vessel incapable of the ability to "dodge" such a vast system...

On Thrusday, the one thing that all forecast models appeared to be in agreement, was that Sandy would track just east of Hatteras... The European model had the hard left turn north of Hatteras nailed at that point, but some models still showed a turn to the NE and staying offshore... But, even if he were banking on those being the right ones, he was STILL gonna encounter Sandy roughly abeam of Hatteras, no matter which forecast model he was banking on...

The Port of Albany sure would have been a good spot to head for during this one, putting a mountain range in between you and the likely path of a hurricane is generally a pretty good idea... And if he was determined to vacate New London on thursday, he still would have had time to put such a plan into effect...


----------



## steve77

Hartley18 said:


> Bwahahahaha!! :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher
> 
> I'm just too darn lazy to go look for it myself.. and anyways don't know that part of the world as well as y'all. ..but if you did happen to find it it might shed some light on the "Forced Exit" hypothesis (if it was Port policy) or say nothing much at all (if it wasn't).


I poked around here: CHMA Current News of Interest

but didn't find anything regarding emergency conditions. As others have mentioned, there is a lot going on around New London/Groton. The submarine base, USCG Academy, USCG station. I couldn't find any link for the New London Harbormaster though, other than contact information.


----------



## chef2sail

This was posted in another thread here on SN by a naval design archetect of tall ships

Interesting reading

Pride and Stability


----------



## casey1999

Looks like we could be in this for a while, but looks like the CG will do a thorough investigation:

Coast Guard to investigate sinking of HMS Bounty replica - Yahoo! News


----------



## casey1999

Does not sound like Dock Master forced him out:
Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald

"He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections.

Also from article:
"Walbridge's friends and former crew members described him as a skilled captain who had a good plan that didn't work because of mechanical problems. The ship lost power, which meant it had no propulsion and could not pump out water, according to the vessel's website. The surviving crew members have not publicly detailed what happened."


----------



## casey1999

Another read from:

HMS Bounty captain Robin Walbridge remembered as quiet, humble - Tampa Bay Times

"The decision to set sail rather than remain at port is now being second-guessed.

But Bredeson, who wanted to sail on that trip but was told to join the crew in St. Petersburg instead, said Mr. Walbridge would have weighed the storm against the dangers of staying docked.

In port, a 412-ton ship or its spars could easily have been tossed into other ships or onto land, endangering other lives.

Besides, Bredeson said, "All of those conditions the Bounty has been through before."

His wife said she received an email from her husband during the storm. In the blur of events, she does not remember exactly when it arrived.

"He said they were taking on water and they might have to abandon ship," she said.

She said her husband probably died trying to help Christian, a distant granddaughter of original Bounty mutineer Fletcher Christian and a new sailor.

That would be just like Mr. Walbridge, she believes - the most experienced sailor on board risking his life to save a rookie."


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Does not sound like Dock Master forced him out:
> Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> "He said *he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff*. No one raised objections.
> 
> ....


Yes, it seems clear and in fact if it was otherwise we would have heard already about that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> I thought this was interesting (Blog from LA article). Definitely a case where life is stranger than fiction:
> 
> From:
> HMS Bounty sinking to be investigated; victim was 'very concerned' - latimes.com
> 
> Bonnie Ember at 3:19 PM November 03, 2012
> (snippage)


Casey, was the rest of that post yours, or quoted from Bonnie Ember (whoever that is)? It has several rather glaring historical errors.

"A minor point at such a moment" (anybody get the connection?)


----------



## JulieMor

From my understanding, the ship was supposed to be in St. Petersburg, along with the Picton Castle. Right?

The captain said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant of hurricane Sandy.

Where would the ship have to be to make the southeast quadrant of hurricane Sandy? The storm was huge. So to get to that point, wouldn't Walbridge have to take the ship considerably out of the way, on his trip to St. Petersburg, to reach the southeast quadrant of the storm? Once you've squeezed past the western edge, why would you circle around the southern edge, then head east, to get to the southeast quadrant if your destination was St. Petersburg?

Am I missing something here?


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Casey, was the rest of that post yours, or quoted from Bonnie Ember (whoever that is)? It has several rather glaring historical errors.
> 
> "A minor point at such a moment" (anybody get the connection?)


No, honestly. Can you explain?

regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

JulieMor said:


> From my understanding, the ship was supposed to be in St. Petersburg, along with the Picton Castle. Right?
> 
> The captain said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant of hurricane Sandy.
> 
> Where would the ship have to be to make the southeast quadrant of hurricane Sandy? The storm was huge. So to get to that point, wouldn't Walbridge have to take the ship considerably out of the way, on his trip to St. Petersburg, to reach the southeast quadrant of the storm? Once you've squeezed past the western edge, why would you circle around the southern edge, then head east, to get to the southeast quadrant if your destination was St. Petersburg?
> 
> Am I missing something here?


I was thinking another similar article said he was trying to get to the southwest of the eye of the huricane, which makes more sense- I am trying to find that article now. Perhaps news reporters get their directions mixed up.


----------



## casey1999

JulieMor said:


> From my understanding, the ship was supposed to be in St. Petersburg, along with the Picton Castle. Right?
> 
> The captain said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant of hurricane Sandy.
> 
> Where would the ship have to be to make the southeast quadrant of hurricane Sandy? The storm was huge. So to get to that point, wouldn't Walbridge have to take the ship considerably out of the way, on his trip to St. Petersburg, to reach the southeast quadrant of the storm? Once you've squeezed past the western edge, why would you circle around the southern edge, then head east, to get to the southeast quadrant if your destination was St. Petersburg?
> 
> Am I missing something here?


I cannot find anything that says southwest, which seems to be the place you would want to be right? Southwest you would have aft winds and following seas, Southeast you would have head winds and beating into the seas, something I doubt the Bounty could go into.

Comments, I am confused also.


----------



## Minnewaska

I think the Southeast v Southwest thing was just someone's misstatement, maybe even the Captains.

I do believe he meant to say he would sail into a hurricane. His crew confirmed he had done it before in their GMA interview.


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> I guess the Captains of those boats, I mean fragile timber relics, also called tall ships, know a lot more than you about that.
> 
> At least 4 captains of tall ships come forward saying that they did not understand the Bounty Captain decision to sail away from port to face an Hurricane. One of them had the ship on the same port where Bounty was and the ship did not suffer any damage with the bad weather.


Please name the ship you're talking about, the tall ship that was in New London at the time. I have been reading this thread (and the linked news media articles) carefully, hence just catching up. I have not seen any such report. The Picton Castle captain, who you have quoted about 37 times (exageration intentional), was in NOT in the same port. He wasn't even in the same country.


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> Casey, was the rest of that post yours, or quoted from Bonnie Ember (whoever that is)? It has several rather glaring historical errors.
> 
> "A minor point at such a moment" (anybody get the connection?)


The post I quoted was all from Bonnie Ember. 
Could you elaborate?


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> I think the Southeast v Southwest thing was just someone's misstatement, maybe even the Captains.
> 
> I do believe he meant to say he would sail into a hurricane. His crew confirmed he had done it before in their GMA interview.


Fully agree he was trying to sail at least towards the hurricane. But which quadrant was he trying to make it to? He says (or at leasted reporters quoted), he was trying to make the southeast quad, but would that not mean head winds and head seas in the direction he was trying to go? Would not southwest have been better with following seas and aft winds?


----------



## Minnewaska

Southwest was clearly the one he was going for, based on the satellite tracking of the ship's position. I do believe that would be to get the wind behind him on that trip. 

Which he actually said seems unclear.


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> I never said I knew what happened.(snip)


This is what you said:


> Originally Posted by PCP
> (snippage)The fact that he went to sea with a damaged pump system (one Genset out of service)


You plainly labeled it as a fact, so how is that NOT saying you knew what happened?



> information was given to gCaptain sailor forum (professional sailors) by someone from the Bounty, not necessarily the crew. I posted with good faith but I admit that we don't know if that was true or not


You keep touting gCaptain, and keep repeating the "professional sailors" claim. But the FACT is that anybody can join it and post there, not just "professional sailors." Case in point, you're on there.



> We know also that the boat had been already in a similar situation in a storm, I mean making water with the generators out of service, without other type of auxiliary pups


You have re-posted rumors to that effect, with no source cited.

If you don't want people attributing things to you that you didn't actually say, then make your posts a little more readable. All of this color changing, bold, font size change, etc, makes it difficult to differentiate between what you are saying and what you are re-posting (without the use of any quotation notation).


----------



## Minnewaska

Okay. There are some facts already. Broadcast crew interview, satellite tracking, hurricane forecast, etc, etc.

I've read all sorts of examples of things that might mitigate the bad decision to set sail on this voyage, but are there any facts yet that suggest any mitigant?

Suggestions I've heard that have not been supported by evidence I've seen:

Captain may have been forced to go by employer 
Ship may have failed despite the storm
Harbor may have made them leave
They were trying to save the boat 

It's been over a week and this story has received national media coverage. If there was another side to this story, it seems we would have begun to hear something.

There are 14 survivors and, unless they have been gagged, the 6 degrees of separation seems it would have brought something less damning to light by now.


----------



## casey1999

Looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck, probably is a duck.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> We would wait for Hartley investigation about that but I think that the chances for that to have happened are very near 0.


*OI!* Be nice! Impatient Portagee... 



steve77 said:


> I poked around here: CHMA Current News of Interest
> 
> but didn't find anything regarding emergency conditions. As others have mentioned, there is a lot going on around New London/Groton. The submarine base, USCG Academy, USCG station. I couldn't find any link for the New London Harbormaster though, other than contact information.


Very close  ..I don't think that's the right link - but thanks for trying. It seems you'd need to know exactly which part of the Port he was berthed at. Maybe the Harbormaster's Office has a separate (government) web site somewhere, but...



casey1999 said:


> Does not sound like Dock Master forced him out:
> Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections.


Well spotted!! Looks like The Chronicle Herald is on the case - and got a straight answer out of the Harbormaster already.

Bit lame of them not to suggest he re-consider leaving in the face of the storm - but, he IS the Captain of the ship and, as such, bears the responsibility for what happens afterward - so it's not all that surprising... really.



Minnewaska said:


> Harbor may have made them leave


So.. we now know the Harbor didn't *make* them leave. That's one off the list.


----------



## chef2sail

> Suggestions I've heard that have not been supported by evidence I've seen:Minnewaska





> It's been over a week and this story has received national media coverage. If there was another side to this story, it* seems *we would have begun to hear something-Minnewaska


So the assumption here is that all facts should be discovered by the media and out by a week....hmmmmmm. Interesting standard both time wise and who discovers and uncovers facts


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> So the assumption here is that all facts should be discovered by the media and out by a week....hmmmmmm. Interesting standard both time wise and who discovers and uncovers facts


Chef, do you know for a fact that Bounty has sunk? Were you there, on your boat along side the Bounty as she slipped below the water? Or are you basing your information on media reports and what the CG reported?


----------



## chef2sail

> If you don't want people attributing things to you that you didn't actually say, then make your posts a little more readable. All of this color changing, bold, font size change, etc, makes it difficult to differentiate between what you are saying and what you are re-posting (without the use of any quotation notation). -Brewgyver


Dont waste your time hear. He doesnt understand all the bold is poor internet etiquette and means shouting even though he has been told this repeatedly. In addition the posts are full of conjecture, inuendo, and suspect validity he passes off as facts. gCaptain is a *social media site *like Sailnet, Twitter and Facebook

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

Casey 1999

Pictures and a first hand interview with a survivor I saw. I trust the Coast gaurd officers statement before I trust PCPs g captain report


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Casey 1999
> 
> Pictures and a first hand interview with a survivor I saw. I trust the Coast gaurd officers statement before I trust PCPs g captain report


Well when the coast guard left the scene the ships mast were still above the water, so the ship had not completely sunk. For all we know the ship could still be floating, unless you want to assume it did sink after the CG left the scene.


----------



## chef2sail

Remember while you attack me I am not saying the the Captain isnt responsible. I am saying there are many facts not discovered as of yet. The investigation will take a long time, but I am confident that ALL the facts will come out. This doesnt mean I beleive the Captains responsibility will be absolved. IMHO I beleive other contributing factors will be found and other will also be held responsible. Note: I am identifying that statement as my opinion only, not as fact... a humble sailor


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Remember while you attack me I am not saying the the Captain isnt responsible. I am saying there are many facts not discovered as of yet. The investigation will take a long time, but I am confident that ALL the facts will come out. This doesnt mean I beleive the Captains responsibility will be absolved. IMHO I beleive other contributing factors will be found and other will also be held responsible. Note: I am identifying that statement as my opinion only, not as fact... a humble sailor


No one is attacking you. Just pointing out the fact that we as humans make assumptions. Even the CG report will make assumptions based on evidence and experience of the examiner.

I too egerly wait for the CG report. That report may find some amazing evidence that shows the Capt made a remarkable and correct decision to take the ship to sea.

I also hope the CG report will examine the sailing qualities of the Bounty. Was she a motor/sail? What type weather could she handle and how close to windward could she sail? Was her ballasting correct (notice in records some major changes had been made to the ballast type and location)?


----------



## chef2sail

Casey1999

have you read the forward report from Roger Long...intersting reading

The WoodenBoat Forum

Stability of Boats and Ships


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> So the assumption here is that all facts should be discovered by the media and out by a week....hmmmmmm. Interesting standard both time wise and who discovers and uncovers facts


Wow, man. Is that even remotely what I said?

Did I say "all the facts should be discovered"?

I asked if there were *any* facts that contradicted the damning ones we have. Are there?


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Casey1999
> 
> have you read the forward report from Roger Long...intersting reading
> 
> The WoodenBoat Forum
> 
> Stability of Boats and Ships


Yes, I read those about a year ago. A lot of it would take me some time to fully understand (and I am a licensed Mechanical Engineer). I did sail on the original Pride of Baltimore so I found the articles very interesting.


----------



## chef2sail

> I asked if there were any facts that contradicted the damning ones we have. Are there?


The only damning facts appear to be about the captain. All others may come out in time. May actually take longer than 7 days and may take professionals to root them out/
Proably why the have professionals not media or bloggers on investigative boards

My answer is that all the facts may not be in evidence yet, they may not be discovered in 7 days or by the media


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> .....My answer is that all the facts may not be in evidence yet, they may not be discovered in 7 days or by the media


I'm sure all the facts are not in evidence yet. But, conversationally, with 14 survivors, I would expect to have heard at least one fact by now to suggest there should be anything other than the damning opinions drawn by most. Just one, not all.

By the way, the famous "six degrees of separation" has been scientifically proven to be only about 2 degrees now, because of the internet. That suggests to me that it is statistically impossible to think we haven't heard of one mitigating fact out there by now from 14 people.

Time will tell.


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> I'm sure all the facts are not in evidence yet. But, conversationally, with 14 survivors, I would expect to have heard at least one fact by now to suggest there should be anything other than the damning opinions drawn by most. Just one, not all.
> 
> By the way, the famous "six degrees of separation" has been scientifically proven to be only about 2 degrees now, because of the internet. That suggests to me that it is statistically impossible to think we haven't heard of one mitigating fact out there by now from 14 people.
> 
> Time will tell.


Premature disclosure of evidence to the media or the blogosphere can taint the testimony of others. And USCG knows to keep all the facts in confidence until all the evidence is in, and conclusions can be drawn.

Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I would expect that the people who have the information care enough about a fair and untainted investigation to keep their mouths shut. And I expect that the USCG reminded them of this after their debriefings.


----------



## mistermizu

Minnewaska said:


> Southwest was clearly the one he was going for, based on the satellite tracking of the ship's position. I do believe that would be to get the wind behind him on that trip.


Agreed. SW. Trying to make sense of this course in the context of the weather forecasts available (once they were already committed and out at sea), the first time that the Advisories made any mention that the track for the storm might eventually turn west of north was in the "48 hr Outlook" section of the 5pm advisory on Sat. 27th. at which time the actual movement of the storm was still NE:

500 PM EDT SAT OCT 27 2012

SUMMARY OF 500 PM EDT...2100 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...30.2N 75.2W
ABOUT 335 MI...540 KM ESE OF CHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA
ABOUT 345 MI...555 KM S OF CAPE HATTERAS NORTH CAROLINA
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...75 MPH...120 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT..*.NE OR 35 DEGREES AT 13 MPH*...20 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...961 MB...28.38 INCHES...

SANDY IS MOVING
TOWARD THE *NORTHEAST* NEAR 13 MPH...20 KM/H...AND THIS GENERAL MOTION
IS FORECAST TO CONTINUE THROUGH SUNDAY. A TURN TOWARD THE *NORTH* IS
FORECAST SUNDAY NIGHT...FOLLOWED BY A TURN TOWARD THE *NORTH-
NORTHWEST* ON MONDAY. ON THE FORECAST TRACK THE CENTER OF SANDY
WILL MOVE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHEAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES
THROUGH THE WEEKEND...AND APPROACH THE COAST OF THE MID-ATLANTIC
STATES LATE MONDAY.

If the Bounty's forecasts while offshore were limited to these text advisories, that would be the first time they would have had a definitive prediction that the storm would track anywhere other than NE and later N. By then the decision to head SW to try to dodge AHEAD of the storm and make the SW quadrant had already been made, and they were committed to that course of action.

The first Advisory to mention that the actual movement of the storm had changed from NE to North was released at 02:00am on Monday 29th, by which time the storm had already wreaked its havoc on the vessel, and spat it out in its south western quadrant.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> Does not sound like Dock Master forced him out:
> Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections.


Yes, I had read that elsewhere. The only problem with that quote is that the reporter asked the wrong person. The Port of New London is run by the State of Connecticut, and the Harbormaster is a man named David Crocker. Barbara Neff has a 6 month position with the City of New London, basically marketing some city-owned moorings, compensation $1,500/month.

Not making an arguement, I just wanted to point out how misleading even mainstream media quotes can be.


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> Yes, I had read that elsewhere. The only problem with that quote is that the reporter asked the wrong person. The Port of New London is run by the State of Connecticut, and the Harbormaster is a man named David Crocker. Barbara Neff has a 6 month position with the City of New London, basically marketing some city-owned moorings, compensation $1,500/month.
> 
> Not making an arguement, I just wanted to point out how misleading even mainstream media quotes can be.


I agree, media is probably wrong at least 25% of the time. The fact (I'll use that term losely) is that it does not seem anyone was asking, telling, ordering, or sugesting that the Bounty go to sea and to leave the harbor or dock.


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> If you don't want people attributing things to you that you didn't actually say, then make your posts a little more readable. All of this color changing, bold, font size change, etc, makes it difficult to differentiate between what you are saying and what you are re-posting (without the use of any quotation notation).


Jesus you could have asked!!!! What a mess and that is so simple: When I quote somebody from this forum I generally use the quote system, when I quote somebody out of this forum, from other forum or from an article I use color. If on an article there are several people talking, to make clearer each opinion, I use different colors. Besides using color to differentiate clearly what is quoted I always put the sources on the bottom.

When it is *my opinion I use always black* and only what is in black are my opinions or statements. I have more than 5000 posts on this forum and I always have used this system that is clear and helps to differentiate what I say from what I quote.



Brewgyver said:


> *Quoted PCP by Brewgyver*]"We know also that the boat had been already in a similar situation in a storm, I mean making water with the generators out of service, without other type of auxiliary pumps"
> 
> You have re-posted rumors to that effect, with no source cited.


You could and should be more careful before saying nonsense about me. Here is the post were I originally quoted the source that said that, of course in color, as usual ( pg 34, post 335):



PCP said:


> Some more information:&#8230;&#8230;..
> 
> And the saddest and oddest thing is that this was not a first time for the Bounty (with the same Captain). Some years ago almost sunk exactly by the same reasons it sank now:
> 
> *This was not the first time the Bounty was in peril. In 1998, several newspapers reported the ship almost sank after three of its bilge pumps failed.
> 
> Investigators said the ship started taking on water when a storm banged the ship around, loosening the caulking between the planks and allowing water to seep in. The Coast Guard responded and delivered pumps to the troubled vessel.*
> 
> 2nd day of searching for ship's captain is unsuccessful | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com





Brewgyver said:


> This is what you said:
> You plainly labeled it as a fact, so how is that NOT saying you knew what happened?


I have already said to you what we know:



PCP said:


> I never said I knew what happened. only said that in my opinion and in the opinion of professional sailors (that I quoted) and from professional tall ship captains(that I quoted too) the captain should not have leaved port and went to a hurricane pass. Of course this is an opinion but I weight in a completely different weight my opinions or any other from amateur sailors compared with the opinions of tall ship Captains or professional sailors.
> 
> I did not certainly attributed false statements to nobody.
> 
> Regarding the Bounty having only a generator working that information was given to gCaptain sailor forum (professional sailors) by someone from the Bounty, not necessarily the crew. I posted with good faith but I admit that we don't know if that was true or not, even if I cannot see any reason to lie. The only thing we know is that in the opinion of the dead crew member they were not reliable and the crew were constantly messing around with them.
> 
> We now also that the boat sunk because it had the generators out of order and given the absence of diesel powered generators was not able to take out the water that the boat was making.
> 
> We know also that the boat had been already in a similar situation in a storm, I mean making water with the generators out of service, without other type of auxiliary pups and did not sunk because the CG was able to deliver some portable diesel water that were able to compensate the water ingress.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

Brewgyver said:


> Yes, I had read that elsewhere. The only problem with that quote is that the reporter asked the wrong person. The Port of New London is run by the State of Connecticut, and the Harbormaster is a man named David Crocker. Barbara Neff has a 6 month position with the City of New London, basically marketing some city-owned moorings, compensation $1,500/month.
> 
> Not making an arguement, I just wanted to point out how misleading even mainstream media quotes can be.


Hmm.. If the media snoops can't get it right, that's one horribly-bureaucratic port you have there! Sounds like we all best wait for the outcome of the official investigation.

I imagine it make for very interesting reading.


----------



## mistermizu

Sal,

I guess I'm just trying to find some explanation how they came to the decision on the 27th to change course from their most easterly position since sailing south, to head SW across the eventual path of the storm.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> The post I quoted was all from Bonnie Ember.
> Could you elaborate?


Sorry, I was in part asking who Bonnie Ember is, and her connection with this. If it was mentioned earlier, I apologize, I forgot it, been several days catching as catch can on this thread.


----------



## steve77

casey1999 said:


> Well when the coast guard left the scene the ships mast were still above the water, so the ship had not completely sunk. For all we know the ship could still be floating, unless you want to assume it did sink after the CG left the scene.


Casey, I don't have the link at hand but I did read today that the CG had returned to look for the ship but couldn't find it. The report indicated that she sunk. For whatever that's worth.

Edit: here is the link-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-storm-sandy-bounty-idUSBRE8A11ET20121102


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> Sorry, I was in part asking who Bonnie Ember is, and her connection with this. If it was mentioned earlier, I apologize, I forgot it, been several days catching as catch can on this thread.


Bonnie Ember posted a note in the forum under the news paper article, I have no idea what, if any connection she may have to Bounty. I just thought her opinion was interesting, even if some information may not be completely correct. It is kind of mysterious how the Bounty goes down with a direct decendent of the leader of the mutiny on the original ship.


----------



## casey1999

steve77 said:


> Casey, I don't have the link at hand but I did read today that the CG had returned to look for the ship but couldn't find it. The report indicated that she sunk. For whatever that's worth.


Probably has sunk, but the Capt (as far as I know) was wearing a survial suit, should still be floating (I'll try not to get too morbid here), and CG cannot find him. It is a big ocean out there.


----------



## Minnewaska

mistermizu said:


> Sal,
> 
> I guess I'm just trying to find some explanation how they came to the decision on the 27th to change course from their most easterly position since sailing south, to head SW across the eventual path of the storm.


That would be something the crew would know for sure.

Anyway, this is an issue that I think got very confused due to the SW/SE confusion. Its clear from their path that they weren't making any serious effort to get East of the storm, but some initially said they were. It seems most likely that they were just heading south until they got a better idea of where they needed to be to catch the Western side. As it turned out, the storm headed West, so they needed to make the most dramatic adjustment. That's my theory.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> I agree, media is probably wrong at least 25% of the time. The fact (I'll use that term losely) is that it does not seem anyone was asking, telling, ordering, or sugesting that the Bounty go to sea and to leave the harbor or dock.


The only thing we know about that issue is that we don't know. Nobody responsible for the Port of New London has made any public statements that I'm aware of, and the quote from Barbara Neff does nothing to change that.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> Bonnie Ember posted a note in the forum under the news paper article, I have no idea what, if any connection she may have to Bounty. I just thought her opinion was interesting, even if some information may not be completely correct. It is kind of mysterious how the Bounty goes down with a direct decendent of the leader of the mutiny on the original ship.


Oh, OK, thanks for the explanation.


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> The only thing we know about that issue is that we don't know. Nobody responsible for the Port of New London has made any public statements that I'm aware of, and the quote from Barbara Neff does nothing to change that.


Well if they were trying to evacuate the port, you would think Barbara Neff would be knowledgable to that information. It does not seem she knew anything about a "port evacuation" which leads me to think there was none. And by the tone of the article, it seems the setting of sail of Bounty was the Capt decision and 100% voluntary.

You could be right, maybe the Port of New London ordered him out.


----------



## Ninefingers

So many coloured and different sized fonts... I am so stoend right now and i just wan t paalou top jkeep porsting


----------



## steve77

casey1999 said:


> Probably has sunk, but the Capt (as far as I know) was wearing a survial suit, should still be floating (I'll try not to get too morbid here), and CG cannot find him. It is a big ocean out there.


Here is the story I saw.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-storm-sandy-bounty-idUSBRE8A11ET20121102


----------



## mistermizu

Minnewaska said:


> As it turned out, the storm headed East,


I think you mean WEST !


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> Jesus you could have asked!!!! What a mess and that is so simple:


I really don't think I'm the only one who doesn't think it's "simple". It's confusing, at best, not to mention annoying. Without any notation what your different colors, font styels, etc, mean, how could anybody know?



PCP said:


> You could and should be more careful before saying nonsense about me. Here is the post were I originally quoted the source that said that, of course in color, as usual ( pg 34, post 335):


Paolo, I'm not trying to push your buttons, but it's not nonsense. Saying "several newspapers reported" is NOT citing a source.

Example: The Captain of the Picton Castle REMAINED in Lunenberg, Nova Scotia, due to Sandy. Source: Chronicle Herald, October 29, Halifax, NS, CanadaPicton Castle captain questions Bounty being at sea during storm | The Chronicle Herald

THAT is citing a source.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> You could be right, maybe the Port of New London ordered him out.


Casey, I was never really suggesting that they did. I was only pointing out the unreliability of the mainstream media to even ask the right person, and even when they do, they often don't ask the right questions. I've never been to New London, but it took less than a minute to find out who the Harbormaster is.

I personally don't think the Bounty was asked or ordered to leave port, but it was a question raised that hasn't been answered, AFAIK.


----------



## Classic30

steve77 said:


> Here is the story I saw.
> 
> Coast Guard to investigate sinking of HMS Bounty replica | Reuters


Here's an interesting statement in that article:
_"The Bounty's three masts were visible for some time above the waves *but from Tuesday night, the Coast Guard has been unable to locate the ship*, Patterson said. The water depth where Bounty sank is around 13,000 feet, he said."_ (my emphasis)

So, technically, yes, it's possible she's still floating around out there somewhere.. like a shipping container... As I see it, that she has sunk is not, technically, a known fact at this time. 

I remember reading stories of old English naval timber hulks (old warships without masts) being disposed of at sea initially refusing to sink after losing their ballast.


----------



## smurphny

If he were asked, not ordered, to leave by port officials it would not be surprising that it would be kept quiet, indeed even covered up by politicians. There still could have been a whole host of reasons prompting him to leave that would not easily come to light. I'll wait to see what mitigating information emerges. Of course he should have resisted any coercion and has the ultimate responsibility but we may hear things that make us less ready to hang him by the yardarm in effigy.


----------



## casey1999

Hartley18 said:


> Here's an interesting statement in that article:
> _"The Bounty's three masts were visible for some time above the waves *but from Tuesday night, the Coast Guard has been unable to locate the ship*, Patterson said. The water depth where Bounty sank is around 13,000 feet, he said."_ (my emphasis)
> 
> So, technically, yes, it's possible she's still floating around out there somewhere.. like a shipping container... As I see it, that she has sunk is not, technically, a known fact at this time.
> 
> I remember reading stories of old English naval timber hulks (old warships without masts) being disposed of at sea initially refusing to sink after losing their ballast.


I am no ship designer, but does not it seem strange the Bounty stayed afloat for so long? If the ship was properly ballasted would not she sink quickly once flooded (maybe there was a large air pocket). But the ship had been rebalasted and the CG had a diffciency noted on one of the inspections that the ships records on the reballast was not correct. The records were later corrected. Seems somthings up with the ballasting.


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> ...
> 
> Paolo, I'm not trying to push your buttons, but it's not nonsense. Saying "several newspapers reported" is NOT citing a source.
> 
> ...


There you go again:

I posted this:

"This was not the first time the Bounty was in peril. In 1998, several newspapers reported the ship almost sank after three of its bilge pumps failed.

Investigators said the ship started taking on water when a storm banged the ship around, loosening the caulking between the planks and allowing water to seep in. The Coast Guard responded and delivered pumps to the troubled vessel."

and the source is this:

2nd day of searching for ship's captain is unsuccessful | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

But if you want more we can get back to 1998:

"The HMS Bounty, which has helped keep tourism afloat in St. Petersburg for more than 20 years, almost sank this weekend near Charleston, S.C., *after three of its bilge pumps failed*.

The 169-foot wooden ship was on its way from Massachusetts to Florida when the ship began to take water around 9:30 p.m. Saturday, said Coast Guard Lt.j.g. Simone Brisco.

A helicopter, two cutters, two Navy ships and a tug boat responded to the call, delivering five portable pumps to the crew of 22. No one was injured. There were no passengers on the 1960 replica of the original 18th century English ship used in the movie Mutiny on the Bounty.

A Navy damage control team boarded the ship to help remove water from the hull and stabilize the ship, which was then safe enough for the crew to steer to port.
......
*Investigators say the ship began taking on water after it ran into a storm and caulking between the planks was loosened.*

"It was not a phenomenal storm," said Lt. Jeff Carter, a senior investigating officer with the Coast Guard. But the weather was rough enough to bang it around, he said. After the caulking loosened, water began to seep inside.

The main dewatering pump, which operates on diesel fuel and had evidence of wear, failed first, Carter said.

*The two backup pumps, which operate on electricity, failed after the wires got wet.*"

...

*SOURCE:*

http://www.sptimes.com/SouthPinellas/100698/_Bounty__nearly_sinks.html

Well, and we learned something more. The guys of the gCaptain forum posted recent photos of the bilge of Bounty and they said that the boat had only two electric pumps and an odd hydraulic pump connected to the engines.

It seemed that in 1998 the electrical pumps were not the main ones but that existed a main diesel one, in bad shape. I believe that the Bounty organization reported that the boat was in danger because it had lost the engines and the generators were not working preventing the pumps to work. What happened to the diesel main pump? It was not replaced?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

Brewgyver said:


> Casey, I was never really suggesting that they did. I was only pointing out the unreliability of the mainstream media to even ask the right person, and even when they do, they often don't ask the right questions. I've never been to New London, but it took less than a minute to find out who the Harbormaster is.
> 
> I personally don't think the Bounty was asked or ordered to leave port, but it was a question raised that hasn't been answered, AFAIK.


I agree that it's unlikely. But if in the unlikely event that it's true, the port has a HUGE incentive to keep it hush-hush, since it would expose them to huge liability for the accident. So the fact that this has not been disclosed has absolutely no bearing on whether it's true or not.


----------



## smurphny

Hartley18 said:


> Here's an interesting statement in that article:
> _"The Bounty's three masts were visible for some time above the waves *but from Tuesday night, the Coast Guard has been unable to locate the ship*, Patterson said. The water depth where Bounty sank is around 13,000 feet, he said."_ (my emphasis)
> 
> So, technically, yes, it's possible she's still floating around out there somewhere.. like a shipping container... As I see it, that she has sunk is not, technically, a known fact at this time.
> 
> I remember reading stories of old English naval timber hulks (old warships without masts) being disposed of at sea initially refusing to sink after losing their ballast.


I would not be surprised at all if she was floating. Wood boats, even with a lot of engine weight will float. She had a LOT of wood. If she rolled, she may have expelled any lead ballast. In the pictures, it looks like she is floating quite nicely. If there were enough ballast to overcome the buoyancy of the wood, she would have gone down in minutes or at least have become partially submerged, bow or stern sticking up. The CG said they had lost track of her but they are not in the business of keeping track of hazards to navigation offshore.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> Originally Posted by Brewgyver
> Casey, I was never really suggesting that they did. I was only pointing out the unreliability of the mainstream media to even ask the right person, and even when they do, they often don't ask the right questions. I've never been to New London, but it took less than a minute to find out who the Harbormaster is.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't think the Bounty was asked or ordered to leave port, but it was a question raised that hasn't been answered, AFAIK.
> I agree that it's unlikely. But if in the unlikely event that it's true, the port has a HUGE incentive to keep it hush-hush, since it would expose them to huge liability for the accident. So the fact that this has not been disclosed has absolutely no bearing on whether it's true or not.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but if I could find a Las Vegas bookie willing to take a bet on whether BOUNTY was ordered to leave port or not, I'd be willing to place a heavy bet against it... (grin)

Wouldn't you think that with all the real-time BOUNTY Facebook/website postings and whatnot around the time of their departure, that if they had indeed been ordered to vacate New London, such a fact might have rated at least ONE mention, from someone concerned/involved, somewhere?


----------



## Minnewaska

mistermizu said:


> I think you mean WEST !


Ha! You're right.


----------



## ArmchairsailR

:hotheadOwners page is all hog wash, there is something not right about what's going on, they hired a person to try and salvage the boat but the lady kills family posted they haven't got a call or even a coffee. Bounty corp Facebook page deleting anyone who as questions and insults the family.. Pretty insane read. Groups called hms bounty in retrospect.


----------



## Classic30

smurphny said:


> I would not be surprised at all if she was floating. Wood boats, even with a lot of engine weight will float. She had a LOT of wood. If she rolled, she may have expelled any lead ballast. In the pictures, it looks like she is floating quite nicely. If there were enough ballast to overcome the buoyancy of the wood, she would have gone down in minutes or at least have become partially submerged, bow or stern sticking up. The CG said they had lost track of her but they are not in the business of keeping track of hazards to navigation offshore.


I should have said that eventually the timber (that is, the timber normally above the water line) gets water-logged and any remaining air trapped in compartments seeps out and down she goes... but it can take hours or days, not minutes.

Unless the sea has been amazingly calm (keeping the ship still) she'll have sunk by now for sure. 

I wonder if any wreckage/oil slick will come ashore anywhere?

(EDIT: It was also not unknown for sunken timber ships, like HMS Bounty, to surface again - particularly at night - after being submerged long enough to lose their ballast out the bottom, scaring the stuffing out of anyone passing by.

We had one instance of that right here: A plastic Adams 10 day racing yacht sank out on the bay after a port/stbd collision with another boat tore a chunk out of the bow below the waterline. For a month or two afterward, the boat drifted around on the currents occasionally rising briefly from the depths at night and scaring the ****e out of local fishermen: "there's a sea-monster out there!", "must be a huge whale!", before sinking again without a trace. She was eventually found many miles from where she sank, raised, repaired and is now racing again, and winning.

...but I digress...  )


----------



## cb32863




----------



## JulieMor

Minnewaska said:


> Anyway, this is an issue that I think got very confused due to the SW/SE confusion. Its clear from their path that they weren't making any serious effort to get East of the storm, but some initially said they were. It seems most likely that they were just heading south until they got a better idea of where they needed to be to catch the Western side. As it turned out, the storm headed West, so they needed to make the most dramatic adjustment. That's my theory.


I'm not sure how far north the storm had progressed when the ship sank, but I was thinking they were either northwest of the eye or directly west of it. If the captain wanted to get to the southeast quadrant, wouldn't it make sense he would have sailed along the western edge, then turned east after he had reached the southern edge of the storm? With the rotation of the storm and the apparent fact the ship sailed very poorly into the wind, that would seem the most logical route. So if he really was heading for the southeast quadrant, he couldn't have made that easterly heading until after the eye had passed to the north.

Of course, the extreme adrenaline junkie would have sailed right into the eye and popped back out the other side. 

But really, if he wanted to get a "good ride" out of the storm AND reach his destination ASAP, he would have stayed to the west of the storm and hit that southwest quadrant.


----------



## chef2sail

A lot of this depends on the sea state in that area off of Hatterass. Not only the shoals, but the Gulf Stream wind direction relative to it may have forced his hand as to direction he could sail. It was interesting to read about the righting moment and angle of heel which the boat could not recover from with relation to the angle of the sails and thie settings. Managing these ships and I am no expert at all so I post that disclaimer is somehwat different from sailing our sloops, Ketches. 

Close hauled isnt a term they apparently can use.

I dont know enough to comment on this and am willing to admit it and dont hink it wise to speculate. which angle he should have attacked this storm because I dont know how to sail this type of ship, I dont know the specific conditions he was encountering other than lots of wind and large seas ( I dont know the sea state) and the other factors which would casuse him to sail a particular course ( water in the boat etc.)

As the facts come out it will present more and more of a picture as to the actual events which happened from the Bountys perspective. This will be helpful and maybe an educational moment for us and others when this is found out.

This does not abbrogate his responsibility for leaving knowing there was the oncomming storm.



Dave


----------



## mistermizu

Some data which might explain the vessels abrupt change of course from S to SW on the 27th: this shows that they only changed course towards the SW after they were clear of the Gulf Stream. It looks likely that they actually encountered the worst of the storm while out of the stream.


----------



## PCP

One of the crew members said that they have little control. This was a sailboat with auxiliary engines and I don't think they were sailing. I guess that when things got really bad they had no choice except to do what the sea allowed them to do and they took the easiest course regarding the sea.


----------



## chef2sail

> One of the crew members said that they have little control. This was a sailboat with auxiliary engines and I don't think they were sailing.


How do you know they weren't sailing?



> I guess that when things got really bad they had no choice except to do what the sea allowed them to do and they took the easiest course regarding the sea.P


Assumption based without facts are dangerous


----------



## mdbee

chef2sail said:


> Assumption based without facts are dangerous


HEY! This is the Internet!


----------



## smurphny

chef2sail said:


> A lot of this depends on the sea state in that area off of Hatterass. Not only the shoals, but the Gulf Stream wind direction relative to it may have forced his hand as to direction he could sail. It was interesting to read about the righting moment and angle of heel which the boat could not recover from with relation to the angle of the sails and thie settings. Managing these ships and I am no expert at all so I post that disclaimer is somehwat different from sailing our sloops, Ketches.
> 
> Close hauled isnt a term they apparently can use.
> 
> I dont know enough to comment on this and am willing to admit it and dont hink it wise to speculate. which angle he should have attacked this storm because I dont know how to sail this type of ship, I dont know the specific conditions he was encountering other than lots of wind and large seas ( I dont know the sea state) and the other factors which would casuse him to sail a particular course ( water in the boat etc.)
> 
> As the facts come out it will present more and more of a picture as to the actual events which happened from the Bountys perspective. This will be helpful and maybe an educational moment for us and others when this is found out.
> 
> This does not abbrogate his responsibility for leaving knowing there was the oncomming storm.
> 
> Dave


From what I have read, the square riggers are only able to point up about 20 degrees, not 20 degrees off the wind, 20 degrees off a beam reach. They also make a tremendous amount of leeway. This would drastically limit his options for setting a course under sail only.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> How do you know they weren't sailing?
> ...
> Assumption based without facts are dangerous


Jesus Dave, * educated* guesses is what we can do. I said "probably they were not sailing". No one refereed to that specifically, but we knew they had a very reduced crew for the needs of the boat, namely sailing and we knew they had considered the loss of engines as one of the determinant causes of the loss of the boat. If they were sailing that would not be a big deal since the energy for pumps come from generators.

One of the science instruments are educated assumptions (hypothesis) that later are tested to see if they prove right or wrong.

I am not saying that it was like that I am saying that a possible cause for a changing of course, based on what we know, namely that they had said they had very little control over the boat, would be a necessity to sail to where they can and was less dangerous, given the sea conditions.

Ir seems an educated hypothesis to me and possible, don't you think so

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

I was going to ask if anyone had wind and sea data from the Bounty's last day and then realized, whether they were sailing or motoring won't change my opinion. The fatal flaw was made when they set to sea and put the crew and Coast Guard at undue risk of accomplishing their mission. Even if it is proven that a freak failure happened to the ship, that must be a consideration as well, unless you have no intention of calling on others to risk their lives to save yours.


----------



## kjango

I heard from a reliable source that boat had a hole in it the size of Buick Electra !!!!!!!! I also heard that boat was just a facade like those towns in western movies.....didn't even have a port side. I heard.....................hhahhahahahhahahaha


----------



## PCP

kjango said:


> I heard from a reliable source that boat had a hole in it the size of Buick Electra !!!!!!!! I also heard that boat was just a facade like those towns in western movies.....didn't even have a port side. I heard.....................hhahhahahahhahahaha


Maybe you want to tell us were you have heard those rather strange and odd things.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

PCP said:


> Maybe you want to tell us were you have heard those rather strange and odd things.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Clearly he/she didn't


----------



## kjango

It get worse. I heard the Bounty actually was burned after a mutiny like over a hundred years ago. Now that's a story!


----------



## svHyLyte

Minnewaska said:


> I was going to ask if anyone had wind and sea data from the Bounty's last day ....


From Post #25:



> They abandoned ship 90 miles southeast of Hatteras. The NDBC buoy in the vicinity (34.561 N 72.631 W) was reporting 30.5' waves and NNE winds gusting at 64 knots.


Also, the CG Pilots reported that seas were in excess of 30' when they were extracting the crew from their life-boat making extraction very difficult.

Putting to sea was a very foolish move. Having gotten to where they were, they would have been forced to sail west with the storm southeast of them and then turn southwesterly into the "Navigable Quadrant" but, finally southeast once the storm passed them as they could only scud before the winds which would have become westerly once the storm was well north of them. That would have placed the seas on their beam and it would have been rolling its guts out. The hull would have torqued up and I'm sure that would have sprung one or more seams. Fortunately only one innocent was lost. The Captain, basically, wrote her and his own death warrant.


----------



## Minnewaska

I knew the wind speed and wave heights. It was direction I as getting curious about. NNE wind makes sense. I do wonder wave direction and suspect on their beam. Imagine that ride? 60 kts on your stern and 30 ft waves on your beam. Wow.

But, you're right, these make no difference. It was foolish, period.


----------



## PCP

svHyLyte said:


> From Post #25:
> 
> Also, the CG Pilots reported that seas were in excess of 30' when they were extracting the crew from their life-boat making extraction very difficult.
> 
> Putting to sea was a very foolish move. Having gotten to where they were, they would have been forced to sail west with the storm southeast of them and then turn southwesterly into the "Navigable Quadrant" but, finally southeast once the storm passed them as they could only scud before the winds which would have become westerly once the storm was well north of them. *That would have placed the seas on their beam and it would have been rolling its guts out. The hull would have torqued up and I'm sure that would have sprung one or more seams. * Fortunately only one innocent was lost. The Captain, basically, wrote her and his own death warrant.


That was almost exactly what one professional sailor had said on a professional forum. It seems quite plausible. They said also that the electrical installation was so bad that any significant amount of water sloshing around would short-circuit everything and the generators would stop working. That means pumps out of service. Something like that had occurred with the Bounty in 1998. That time the Captain was lucky.

Southpinellas: 'Bounty' nearly sinks while headed to St. Petersburg

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Some interesting information:

Rear Admiral Steven Ratti, commander of the Coast Guard's 5th District, ordered the formal investigation on Thursday after the Coast Guard suspended its search for the Bounty's missing captain, 63-year-old Robin Walbridge....

"This has been classified as a major marine casualty due to the loss of life and the gross tonnage of the vessel," *Coast Guard spokesman Lieutenant Michael Patterson *said....

"*This was an unprecedented storm," he said. "What were their sailing intentions? Was their intent to ride it out in what they thought was the safest place to be? Professional mariners know how to take avoidance measures," he added....*

Coast Guard officials have debriefed the 14 surviving members of the crew, who were taken to the Coast Guard's Elizabeth City Air Station and turned over to the Red Cross. "We were able to get those initial narratives first-hand from the survivors rescued," he said.

The investigation could take months and involve hearings, *which will likely be open to the public*, Patterson said.

Coast Guard to investigate sinking of HMS Bounty replica | Reuters


----------



## jameswilson29

PCP said:


> *This was an unprecedented storm," he said. "What were their sailing intentions? Was their intent to ride it out in what they thought was the safest place to be? Professional mariners know how to take avoidance measures," he added....*[/url]


Uh oh, someone from the Bounty defense team better move to have him disqualified on the grounds of possessing an excess of common sense...


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> I found this on sailing anarchy , identified as the last known picture of The Bounty before she was abandoned. From FB
> I can't vouch, but no one challenged it. Looks bad. To my untrained eye it looks like the wave is off to starboard and I would NOT want to be at the wheel.


If she was heading south with the storm to port, one would think the waves were coming from port as well.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> If she was heading south with the storm to port, one would think the waves were coming from port as well.


She was in northerlies. (Remember it had been strong northerlies for days!)
Heading south.
90 nms SE of Cape Hatteras.
Have a look at where the Gulf Stream is off Cape Hatteras... you can see it on Passage weather.

She was slap bang wallop in the gulf stream. So those waves were going against the 2knot current of the Gulf Stream. That makes them pile up and fall over like waves breaking on a beach.

The "grave yard of the Atlantic" is because of the Gulf Stream. Go in wind against it, and like off South Africa you are in trouble. Deep, deep, do-do.


----------



## mistermizu

Sal Paradise said:


> I found this on sailing anarchy , identified as the last known picture of The Bounty before she was abandoned. From FB
> I can't vouch, but no one challenged it. Looks bad. To my untrained eye it looks like the wave is off to starboard and I would NOT want to be at the wheel.


On Facebook it clearly states: "Bounty in high seas sailing from Maine to Puerto Riico in 2010". Just posted to demonstrate Bounty coping with high seas.

The photo shows the ship on port tack, with wind and waves on the port quarter.


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> She was in northerlies. (Remember it had been strong northerlies for days!)
> Heading south.
> 90 nms SE of Cape Hatteras.
> Have a look at where the Gulf Stream is off Cape Hatteras... you can see it on Passage weather.
> 
> She was slap bang wallop in the gulf stream. So those waves were going against the 2knot current of the Gulf Stream. That makes them pile up and fall over like waves breaking on a beach.


I know about the northerlies, but I'm not sure the storm being to the East wouldn't gen waves from that direction.

However, the gulf stream is not that far off NC where there were. I think they were East of it.


----------



## smurphny

None of those pictures nor the CG video shows particularly nasty, steep breaking seas. That's one of the things that makes me think something besides sea conditions made her go down.


----------



## mistermizu

MarkofSeaLife said:


> She was slap bang wallop in the gulf stream. So those waves were going against the 2knot current of the Gulf Stream. That makes them pile up and fall over like waves breaking on a beach.


I posted this earlier:









I'm thinking she wasn't in the stream during the worst of it. She sailed south to cross the stream, and then headed headed SW. She got walloped by the storm, but not while she was in the stream. She might even have got herself into a "back eddy" or favourable current running SW (the small black arrows on the diagram). According to the satellite positions for the 28th Click for position and scroll down the ship covered 58nm in three hours, which puts her speed at an average of 19 kts. This could only be achieved by surfing down large waves in a favourable current ( and even then its scarcely imaginable).


----------



## smurphny

mistermizu said:


> I posted this earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking she wasn't in the stream during the worst of it. She sailed south to cross the stream, and then headed headed SW. She got walloped by the storm, but not while she was in the stream. She might even have got herself into a "back eddy" or favourable current running SW (the small black arrows on the diagram). According to the satellite positions for the 28th Click for position and scroll down the ship covered 58nm in three hours, which puts her speed at an average of 19 kts. This could only be achieved by surfing down large waves in a favourable current ( and even then its scarcely imaginable).


I think you're right. The positioning relative to the center of the storm put her in the dangerous quadrant well outside the center of the storm and also well outside the line of the Gulf Stream. He may well have been in an eddy. Wasn't he reporting waves of 18'? I watched the wave heights of the storm and 30' waves were very close to the center. There were 42' waves near the center but very close. This was a big storm but was not that intense. Making 19 knots is not inconceivable if both diesels were cranking and getting help from the wind and current. Wind direction in this storm was not typical.


----------



## mistermizu

smurphny said:


> I think you're right. The positioning relative to the center of the storm put her in the dangerous quadrant well outside the center of the storm .


I think they got pretty much run over by the worst of Sandy. If you look at the plots, the track lines intersect sometime between Sunday & Monday. Without a more exact plot of positions & times, it hard to say exactly how close they got to the eye, but they were certainly in the dangerous quadrant, and then got spat out the other side.


----------



## Minnewaska

The 19 kts would be speed over ground, not through the water.

Still, surfing down the front of a fast moving wave to begin with and it adds up fast.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

The last big red marker is the location the ship was last seen by the Coast Guard later after the rescue.
the last small red dot appears to be a point of difficulty... for its then they the course change is radical. And that mark is 90 nms se of CH where the other mark is 120 nms.

I think it shows they tried to head across the Gulf Stream and were hit on the eastern edge of it.


























They got themselves between the hurricane and the Gulf Stream...


----------



## smurphny

That's interesting. I've been trying to find weatherfax wind/wave charts for those days but have had no luck. It looks like they made it well into the navigable quadrant of the storm when something drastic happened. Wish I had saved those wfax charts from those days. Apparently there is no archive.


----------



## smurphny

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/uploads/image/Bounty.png

So, after the fact that it would, in hindsight, have been wiser to stay in port, the HMS Bounty did make it well around to the back side of the storm successfully when she had some sort of catastrophic trouble. Unfortunately, with the hull being lost, it may never be clear why she took on water and sunk. Going 19 knots and hitting a shipping container/ dead head? Hitting a whale? Losing a plank? Loosened seams and engine/pump failure?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> Going 19 knots and hitting a shipping container/ dead head? Hitting a whale? Losing a plank? Loosened seams and engine/pump failure?


Hmmm hitting the Gulf Stream 40 knots wind against current wouldn't do it, you think?

Guess where this photo is taken. Notice the wave is breaking onto, from above, a full size ship. Not a 130 foot Wooden sailboat. Remember 3 were washed overboard in one wave. Only one got to the liferaft. Must have been a good wave.


----------



## smurphny

The picture you posted has little to do with the sea conditions that were actually pictured in the Bounty sinking. That's exactly what I am getting at. That picture looks like something from a North Sea storm and I can't see the slightest significance in posting it. What's the point? The pictures of the Bounty adrift or the pictures looking down from the chopper just don't show those kinds of conditions. Not only that but where they ran into trouble was well southwest and away from the center of the storm. They were in TS force winds. The reported wind was 40 knots or so, due east, not NE, indicating it was not opposing the GS and heaping up the seas. Getting into a lifeboat is difficult to impossible for many folks in *calm* conditions, something not publicized enough. Getting from a sinking ship up into a liferaft in moderate seas is not easy, especially with a thermal suit on. From what I've been able to learn, IMO, it will be determined that she went down primarily because the pumps stopped working and she flooded, not because she was overwhelmed by high seas and breaking waves. And again, she should not have been there to begin with.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sal Paradise said:


> Again , I am no expert, but is 19 knots even feasible considering the hull and rudder design not to mention conditions? These ships are designed for 5-10 knots, and I cannot imagine what high speed would be like......on giant waves.
> 
> This is beyond my knowledge but seems questionable.


No, it is not feasible, anyone who thinks a pig like the BOUNTY could have _averaged_ a speed of 19 knots over a period of 3 hours in that position is dreaming... There simply has to be something skewed about those reported positions/times...

The great Donald Mackay's clipper ship LIGHTNING held the record for the longest day's run, 436 miles for an average of 18 knots...










To suggest that the BOUNTY, with a hodgepodge crew of 16, could have exceeded such an average even for a portion of a day, is absurd...

Just my opinion, of course... (grin)


----------



## mistermizu

JonEisberg said:


> No, it is not feasible, anyone who thinks a pig like the BOUNTY could have _averaged_ a speed of 19 knots over a period of 3 hours in that position is dreaming... There simply has to be something skewed about those reported positions/times...


I totally agree it sounds incredible, and is only being discussed because the available data gives us that 3 hr figure of 19 kts:
2012-Oct-28 13:33 N 34°38' W 073°21'	58[nm]	19.1[kts]

On the "for" side we are dealing with a ship in a hurricane, not on a regular clipper run, and it is only for three hours. With following winds blowing that massive stern and freeboard down surfable waves it might just be possible for a 180ft vessel to cover that much ground (if the SOG calculation included significant favourable current, such as a gulf stream back eddy). But I have no experience of the sailing characteristics of a tall ship such as the Bounty.

On the "against" side, if you scroll down the data log for the reported positions on the 26th you get a 9 min log of distance run of 8nm at an average speed of *54 knots*!!!
2012-Oct-26 13:33	N 39°37' W 071°15'	8	54.0
So that data *must *be incorrect (unless someone took the beacon for a short helicopter ride). Does anyone have experience of the sailwx.info Ship tracker, and its reliability (or otherwise)? Is the fact that both entries show a time of 13:33 in anyway significant? 
The ship's log or a crew member could shed some light...


----------



## chef2sail

> Rear Admiral Steven Ratti, commander of the Coast Guard's 5th District, ordered the formal investigation on Thursday after the Coast Guard suspended its search for the Bounty's missing captain, 63-year-old Robin Walbridge....
> 
> "This has been classified as a major marine casualty due to the loss of life and the gross tonnage of the vessel," Coast Guard spokesman Lieutenant Michael Patterson said....
> 
> "This was an unprecedented storm," he said. "What were their sailing intentions? Was their intent to ride it out in what they thought was the safest place to be? Professional mariners know how to take avoidance measures," he added....
> 
> Coast Guard officials have debriefed the 14 surviving members of the crew, who were taken to the Coast Guard's Elizabeth City Air Station and turned over to the Red Cross. "We were able to get those initial narratives first-hand from the survivors rescued," he said.
> 
> The investigation could take months and involve hearings, which will likely be open to the public, Patterson said.


Imagine that.


----------



## chef2sail

I heard from a reported professional member of gcaptain who we know is not really a professional member, but you can always lie about you qualifications on the internet that the Bounty was trying to sail to Portugal with contraband. 

Unless yoiu have a verifiable name with verifiable crdentials it is just speculation as usual. The point that it is posted on gCaptain doesnt ensure that the posters are anymore than internet posters,

The inquiry will utilize professional testimony as well as expert witness. Who wants to bet me that NONE of the gCaptain internet bloggers will be called as professional witnesses.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> The picture you posted has little to do with the sea conditions that were actually pictured in the Bounty sinking. That's exactly what I am getting at. That picture looks like something from a North Sea storm and I can't see the slightest significance in posting it. What's the point? The pictures of the Bounty adrift or the pictures looking down from the chopper just don't show those kinds of conditions. Not only that but where they ran into trouble was well southwest and away from the center of the storm. They were in TS force winds. The reported wind was 40 knots or so, due east, not NE, indicating it was not opposing the GS and heaping up the seas. Getting into a lifeboat is difficult to impossible for many folks in *calm* conditions, something not publicized enough. Getting from a sinking ship up into a liferaft in moderate seas is not easy, especially with a thermal suit on. From what I've been able to learn, IMO, it will be determined that she went down primarily because the pumps stopped working and she flooded, not because she was overwhelmed by high seas and breaking waves. And again, she should not have been there to begin with.


Actually the conditions were described by the rescue team and by members of the crew:

*Quote:*
"We determined a safe time when we knew the ship would still be stable and we could get everyone on deck and change our focus from saving the ship to saving every life," said..first mate... Svendsen,...

But the ship's leadership lost all control once a giant wave broadsided the ship, knocking some of the crew -- already in their survival suits -- into the roiling sea....

But three days into the voyage, the crew found themselves in the middle of the ferocious storm, with heaving waves three stories high.

"The weather was so bad and we had so little control," said Douglas Faunt.

"It took every ounce of my strength to focus through to survive," said first mate Svendsen.

Winds were tearing at the crew at 70 mph, and by the fourth day the ship, which .. had been taking on water for 24 hours.

HMS Bounty Survivors: Crew of Ship Sunk During Hurricane Sandy Speak of Lost Shipmates - ABC News

*Quote:*
WITN-TV reporter Alize Proisy, who was at the Air Station were the survivors were brought in, reported that Coast Guard rescue swimmer Randy Haba helped remove crewmembers from a lifeboat and also helped save one crew member floating alone in the water.

Haba told WITN that that wind-driven ocean at the scene was some of the biggest seas he has ever been in.
1 dead, captain missing after 14 saved as Bounty sinks

Yes, you are right in saying that " it will be determined that she went down primarily because the pumps stopped working and she flooded" but probably the sea conditions had to do with the ingress of water that probably shorted the generators that powered the pumps:

*Quote:*
On Sunday evening, the Bounty's crew sent word that there was an electrical problem on board. Walbridge said the situation was under control and could wait until morning. The Coast Guard was notified and stayed in contact with the ship through the night.

But by early Monday, the Bounty was taking on water and its engines had failed.

HMS Bounty: 'We will bring our captain home' :: WRAL.com

*Quote:*
We received a distress call for Bounty at 1830 Sunday evening October 28th that the Ship lost power and the pumps were unable to keep up with the dewatering.
1 dead, captain missing after 14 saved as Bounty sinks

I think that there is a strong possibility that what happen and that sealed the fate of the ship was something very similar to what happened in 1998 under the command of the same Captain. This time he run out of luck.

*Quote:*
"The HMS Bounty, which has helped keep tourism afloat in St. Petersburg for more than 20 years, almost sank this weekend near Charleston, S.C., after three of its bilge pumps failed....

the ship began to take water around 9:30 p.m. Saturday, said Coast Guard Lt.j.g. Simone Brisco....

Investigators say the ship began taking on water after it ran into a storm and caulking between the planks was loosened.

"It was not a phenomenal storm," said Lt. Jeff Carter, a senior investigating officer with the Coast Guard. But the weather was rough enough to bang it around, he said. After the caulking loosened, water began to seep inside.

The main dewatering pump, which operates on diesel fuel and had evidence of wear, failed first, Carter said.
The two backup pumps, which operate on electricity, failed after the wires got wet."

Southpinellas: 'Bounty' nearly sinks while headed to St. Petersburg

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> Hmm... I am sorry about that. Right you are. The title says " Riding out the Storm Day2 "
> 
> Then there is this one labeled " Riding Out the Storm Day3"
> 150 miles East of Cape Hatteras- SalParadise


Ha a member of the the Bounty Prosceution team trying to pass off evidence that is not true. Imagine that. Well at least he had a picture instead of just trying to quote a gCaptain phantoms expert wintness

Just remeber " if it does not fit.........you MUST aquit."


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> "It was not a phenomenal storm," said Lt. Jeff Carter, a senior investigating officer with the Coast Guard. But the weather was rough enough to bang it around, he said. After the caulking loosened, water began to seep inside.
> 
> The main dewatering pump, which operates on diesel fuel and had evidence of wear, failed first, Carter said.
> 
> The two backup pumps, which operate on electricity, failed after the wires got wet."


It's a shame they didn't stick closer to the original design.. and install big manual lift pumps like they used to use on these ships back in the good old days: "Man the pumps!!".. Sure the old-style pumps had blockage issues similar to modern ones, but at least they don't rely on diesel fuel and electrics to work. 

Joking aside, safety requirements for most modern yachts dictate a manual bilge pump be fitted - to avoid exactly the scenario quoted above. Is this not the case for something like the HMS Bounty?


----------



## chef2sail

19 knots in a wooden box made of logs....full of water....desisels which barely move the ship...30 ft waves...no 19 ft waves..... heading south....no heading east...do you know how ridiculous this speculation sounds. Why do it 

Lets hear what the EYEWITNESSES say. The photo of the scene which was the CG rescue doent look like 30 ft waves.

We already have damned him for sailing away from port....now are we to critique his sailing angle.

I think there will be multiple causations. MULTIPLE


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> It's a shame they didn't stick closer to the original design.. and install big manual lift pumps like they used to use on these ships back in the good old days: "Man the pumps!!".. Sure the old-style pumps had blockage issues similar to modern ones, but at least they don't rely on diesel fuel and electrics to work.
> 
> Joking aside, safety requirements for most modern yachts dictate a manual bilge pump be fitted - to avoid exactly the scenario quoted above. Is this not the case for something like the HMS Bounty?


Well, I would liked to have a question answered and I am sure it will be answered on the investigation:

In 1998 the main pump was a diesel one and they had two auxiliary electric ones.

Now, for what I understood (by photos taken recently, by a sailor that had visited the boat and even by what was said by Bounty organization) they had the two electrical pumps as main, powered by two generator and some kind of hydraulic pump powered by the engine.

Why was not the main Diesel pump replaced? It was replaced by an hydraulic pump run by the engine? That does not make much sense since a main pup should not be dependent from the ship engine to be powered.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> That picture looks like something from a North Sea storm and I can't see the slightest significance in posting it. What's the point? .


Because the photo is from the Gulf Stream.
Wind against the current produces that and if you look at the bountys position before it "turned" east it was in the Gulf Stream in a ne where the GS goes NE. The plots are there in my earlier post to have a look at.

The later, last, photo of the bounty the ship had mover 30 nms and was then out of the GS. Photos of waves from above don't look big. We all know what it's like to be on deck and see a few wrapper, pull the camera out, but the pics look like we were in a millpond. Only the waves AT THE TIME OF THE DAMMAGE need to have been big.

Further, the strong norther lies (ne's if you like) were going on for days. And you don't need more that 30 knots against the Gulf Stream to pick up waves that will toss a boat like the bounty.

Remember the Bounty was NOT 180 foot long. It was only 120 to 130 feet on deck... Depending on whose stats you read(weird they could be 10 foot different!)

All my points I want to make are that we should not ever get into the Gulf Stream in wind against current.... And that's what I think has happened here.

It's just too inconceivable to see the ship going so close to the GS and not expect it to have felt the wind directly and opposite the current. Ne winds, ne set.

There's no way I want to test my hypothesis. My idea of heavy weather sailing is sitting at the bar! Why test the H in Hurricane? Why test the GraveYard of the Atlantic?

Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Hartley18 said:


> "Man the pumps!!"..


The ship reported gaining 2 feet per hour on a 120 foot hull, 30 feet wide x2 feet...... That's 50,000 gallons per hour.

That's a vast amount of h2o


----------



## mistermizu

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Remember the Bounty was NOT 180 foot long. It was only 120 to 130 feet on deck... Depending on whose stats you read(weird they could be 10 foot different!) Mark


More conflicting data!? The *ULS* Universal Licensing System data states the ship was *55 metres* (or 180 ft). ULS License - Ship Compulsory Equipped License - WDD9114 - HMS BOUNTY ORGANIZATION LLC Whereas the *USCG* states it was *Length (ft.): 108.4 * Vessel Documentation Query

Something wrong somewhere?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Obviously the shorter measurement is for paying marinas.... And the larger for bragging at the bar!

General characteristics
Tonnage:	409 GT
181 NT
Length:	180 ft (54.9 m) sparred
120 ft (37 m) on deck
Beam:	31.6 ft (9.6 m)
Height:	111 ft (33.8 m)
Draft:	13 ft (4.0 m)
Depth:	21.3 ft (6.5 m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_(1960_ship)

Tonnage is up to... From 260 to 409 gt. does that mean anything?


----------



## Classic30

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The ship reported gaining 2 feet per hour on a 120 foot hull, 30 feet wide x2 feet...... That's 50,000 gallons per hour.
> 
> That's a vast amount of h2o


..and you can shift a vast amount of water with a 2-man mechanical lift pump. Sure, it's hard work and you'd only want to do it in an emergency, but that seems to be the situation they found themselves in.

I'm sure you've heard that "the best bilge pump in the world is a frightened crewman with a bucket". Think of this as the mechanical equivalent.


----------



## chef2sail

> The ship reported gaining 2 feet per hour on a 120 foot hull, 30 feet wide x2 feet...... That's 50,000 gallons per hour.
> Markofsealief


Mark,

Where did you get this information?


----------



## chef2sail

> The ship reported gaining 2 feet per hour on a 120 foot hull, 30 feet wide x2 feet...... That's 50,000 gallons per hour.
> Markofsealife


Mark,

Where did you get this information?


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Mark,
> 
> Where did you get this information?


*Quote:*

Coast Guard Vice Adm. Robert Parker, Operational Commander for the Atlantic Area, told ABC's "Good Morning America" that at the time of the distress call *the ship was taking on two feet of water an hour*.

source: Body recovered after 14 crewmembers rescued from sunken HMS Bounty | Fox News

I found out also a better description of the sea conditions at the time of the rescue:

*quote:*

...The scariest moment during the rescue occurred when a 30-foot wave crashed on top of one of the lifeboats with people still inside...."There were times I thought I was going to do body surfing and slide down the face of a 25-foot wave," Todd said. "There were other times I had my head down, where I felt my feet get lifted over the top my head."

Source:
Body recovered after 14 crewmembers rescued from sunken HMS Bounty | Fox News

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

Hartley18 said:


> It's a shame they didn't stick closer to the original design.. and install big manual lift pumps like they used to use on these ships back in the good old days: "Man the pumps!!".. Sure the old-style pumps had blockage issues similar to modern ones, but at least they don't rely on diesel fuel and electrics to work.
> 
> Joking aside, safety requirements for most modern yachts dictate a manual bilge pump be fitted - to avoid exactly the scenario quoted above. Is this not the case for something like the HMS Bounty?


Absolutely. I looked for a picture to show manual pumps but could not find either a picture or a description of any manual pumps. With a small crew, it is doubtful if they could have manned them for long but at least it may have delayed the sinking. As the old saying goes, the best bilge pump is a scared sailor with a bucket

As far as the crew's description of the sea condition, "three stories high"=24'--just about what has been documented. A 180/120' ship (she was even shorter on the wl) can handle a 24' sea but not with a bilge full of water. Equate it to a 60 footer in a 12' sea, uncomfortable but not dangerous. The ship becoming uncontrollable is a given with the bilge full of water. A "huge" wave, with the deck almost at sea level already was likely just one of the larger waves in a set that broke over them. Those sea conditions should not have sunk this vessel if she had not filled up with water.


----------



## smurphny

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Because the photo is from the Gulf Stream.
> Wind against the current produces that and if you look at the bountys position before it "turned" east it was in the Gulf Stream in a ne where the GS goes NE. The plots are there in my earlier post to have a look at.
> 
> The later, last, photo of the bounty the ship had mover 30 nms and was then out of the GS. Photos of waves from above don't look big. We all know what it's like to be on deck and see a few wrapper, pull the camera out, but the pics look like we were in a millpond. Only the waves AT THE TIME OF THE DAMMAGE need to have been big.
> 
> Further, the strong norther lies (ne's if you like) were going on for days. And you don't need more that 30 knots against the Gulf Stream to pick up waves that will toss a boat like the bounty.
> 
> Remember the Bounty was NOT 180 foot long. It was only 120 to 130 feet on deck... Depending on whose stats you read(weird they could be 10 foot different!)
> 
> All my points I want to make are that we should not ever get into the Gulf Stream in wind against current.... And that's what I think has happened here.
> 
> It's just too inconceivable to see the ship going so close to the GS and not expect it to have felt the wind directly and opposite the current. Ne winds, ne set.
> 
> There's no way I want to test my hypothesis. My idea of heavy weather sailing is sitting at the bar! Why test the H in Hurricane? Why test the GraveYard of the Atlantic?
> 
> Mark


 Surely true. It was a stupid move to be there in the first place and it will be interesting to hear more about the incomprehensible decision to set sail into a hurricane. Getting into the Gulf Stream with wind and current opposed is a well known situation to avoid. The buoy stats above: 25' sea/12 sec period is not particularly life threatening to a 100' boat.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> It was a stupid move to be there in the first place and it will be interesting to hear more about the incomprehensible decision to set sail into a hurricane. Getting into the Gulf Stream with wind and current opposed is a well known situation to avoid. The buoy stats above: 25' sea/12 sec period is not particularly life threatening to a 100' boat.


I found a bit from the captain of the Picton Castle, dunno if its already been posted here...



> . Dan Moreland, the captain of another tall ship, the Picton Castle, described Walbridge as an experienced seaman, but told The Chronicle Herald of Halifax, Nova Scotia, that he couldn't understand the decision to put out to sea on Thursday with a crew of 11 men and five women, ranging in age from 20 to 66.
> 
> Picton Castle and the Bounty were both heading to the same public appearance featuring the traditional sailing vessels in St. Petersburg, which was scheduled for the weekend of Nov. 10-11. There was plenty of time to reach Florida and Moreland said it was an "easy decision" for him to stay in port for an extra week or more because of Sandy.
> 
> "It's black and white, there are no nuances with this," he told The Chronicle. "It's a huge system and that made the decision very simple."
> 
> Moreland said he had plenty of weather information that was raising red flags and when he first heard the Bounty was at sea, "I thought, 'You've got to be kidding.' "


Seems simple to me, heading south and a hurricane heading north... Stay at home.

Your point is good that 25 foot seas on a 12 second period is not life threatening. But when those waves stand up and fall over in wind against current it is threatening to stove in a plank or 2..... But it doesn't even need to do that, just flex the caulking out of a few at the bow.

Below is the only photo I can find to show the effect of current made waves, though we've all seen them in tide races etc.
Here the water is dead flat calm except in the tide race where the waves are standing up.
So 25 foot waves in 12 sec period will be completely different to 25 foot waves with 2 knots against them. They only needed to hit the edge of the Gulf Stream to get some extraordinary waves which could have stopped the engines through water ingress / electrical wetting etc.









Photo of rom NOAA Ocean Prediction Center


----------



## smurphny

One incredible aspect of this disaster is that they knew she would open up when pounded and had done so in the past. It's a given that any carvel construction is going to leak when it gets into heavy seas. Having owned many wood boats, including Wheeler, Egg Harbor, and Richardson, I can attest to the fact that leaking is inherent. Many times, after pounding across Gardiner's Bay or Block Island Sound, bilge pumps would work to keep up with seams opening up. It's part of what makes this mystifying. There were all kinds of things to inform them ahead of time to stay put. It should have been an obvious decision.


----------



## Minnewaska

If find it quite curious that no member of the crew has even intimated that this was due to a freak occurrence, such as hitting something or a repair letting go. Why wouldn't they, if any were the case? Let's face it, as the terror subsides, they are all going to feel some degree of foolish for having set out on this passage. It must not have been as obvious to them beforehand, but its painfully so now. That alone might motivate one to suggest they couldn't see this coming, if it were true.

Perhaps they've been gagged by the USCG, but why? But defense counsel may have.


----------



## smurphny

They've probably been advised to avoid any public disclosure of their opinions until the facts have been determined from testimony under oath.


----------



## Minnewaska

smurphny said:


> They've probably been advised to avoid any public disclosure of their opinions until the facts have been determined from testimony under oath.


Unless you are the defendant, why would a witness be advised against disclosure of what they witnessed?

Also, unless required by law, it remains hard to believe that 14 people would all agree to voluntarily abide by the request. You can't get 14 people here to agree to anything.......


----------



## smurphny

Minnewaska said:


> Unless you are the defendant, why would a witness be advised against disclosure of what they witnessed?
> 
> Also, unless required by law, it remains hard to believe that 14 people would all agree to voluntarily abide by the request. You can't get 14 people here to agree to anything.......


If one of them went public saying derogatory things about the company, or the captain, wouldn't they be opening themselves up to lawsuits if the inquiry found differently? They also could conceivably affect any prosecution of those at the front office of this company and may have been asked in no uncertain terms to keep their opinions to themselves.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Some lawyer last week defending some rap star, when the rap star tries to talk in court: Shut up. I don't dance, you don't talk in court.

I reckon the lawyers are probably right into it, and not to find out what happened, but to look for damages for their clients.

"Forced to go to sea on a death ship into the Graveyard of the Atlantic during a Hurricane" that's gotta be worth bucks if the crew listens to lawyers....

Sorry, that's not meant to be cynical.


----------



## Minnewaska

smurphny said:


> If one of them went public saying derogatory things about the company, or the captain, wouldn't they be opening themselves up to lawsuits if the inquiry found differently? They also could conceivably affect any prosecution of those at the front office of this company and may have been asked in no uncertain terms to keep their opinions to themselves.


I get your point, but it suggests there is something derogatory to say, which I suspect there is.

However, my point was, if there is something that would explain the lack of guilt, one would have expected to hear it and it seems unlikely to be quashed.


----------



## smurphny

I know it's difficult but if you think of lawyers as scavenging seagulls this thing has got to be like a ship throwing a bucket of rotten bait over the side.


----------



## Minnewaska

smurphny said:


> I know it's difficult but if you think of lawyers as scavenging seagulls this thing has got to be like a ship throwing a bucket of rotten bait over the side.


No doubt, you are right.


----------



## chef2sail

> Forced to go to sea on a death ship into the Graveyard of the Atlantic during a Hurricane" that's gotta be worth bucks if the crew listens to lawyers...MarkSealife.


More speculative conclusions based on speculative evidence leading to unfounded emotion laden words leading to grandious ending.

How about we let the facts come out. Conclusions based on hypothesis by ametuers without a grasp on what is fact, what is rumor, what is contrived fact leads to nowhere really. Let the professionsals figure it out.

Ever notice the TRUE professioals are not predisopsing themselves to conclusions here?

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> Ever notice the TRUE professioals are not predisopsing themselves to conclusions here?
> 
> Dave


You mean like Coast Guard spokesman Lieutenant Michael Patterson that says:

"Professional mariners know how to take avoidance measures"

Coast Guard to investigate sinking of HMS Bounty replica | Reuters

or the several Tall ship Captains that said that Bounty's Captain should never had sailed out of Port with an hurricane out there?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> or the several Tall ship Captains that said that Bounty's Captain should never had sailed out of Port with an hurricane out there-PCP?


I am not disputing this. How many times do I have to reiterate that. In fact why do you keep beating this dead horse?

There are many many more facts yet to be discovered here. The Captain has alreadt been found guility in the srena of public opion. The speculation of other so called facts are not facts and just wild speculation. Doesnt make any difference if they are obn gCaptain or and other blog sites that ANYONE can join.

In order for their to be lessons learned so this doesnt happene again, which if I rememeber you stated is your CHIEF concern ( sic) the investigation needs to be carried out.


----------



## chef2sail

> There is a "chef" on every forum. Sometimes more than one. Sal Paridise


Would you be one Sal?


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> In order for their to be lessons learned so this doesnt happene again, which if I rememeber you stated is your CHIEF concern ( sic) the investigation needs to be carried out.


Yes, I absolutely agree with that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> How about we let the facts come out. Conclusions based on hypothesis by ametuers without a grasp on what is fact, what is rumor, what is contrived fact leads to nowhere really. Let the professionsals figure it out.
> 
> Ever notice the TRUE professioals are not predisopsing themselves to conclusions here?
> 
> Dave


Sorry, but seems to me if one is determined to avoid ANY speculation about this incident whatsoever, seems the only way to do that is to refrain from discussing it at all...

Much of what you presumably would consider 'speculation' has been, in fact, based upon reported 'facts' that have subsequently been proven to be erroneous... I was chided earlier in this thread for "rushing to judgement", for example, by another poster who had initially passed on the information that the BOUNTY was on passage from Nova Scotia, and had attempted to sail east of the storm...

I've tried to refrain from pure speculation here, but some of the information that has come to light as "fact" positively reeks of incredulity... Waldbridge's claim of "having sailed the B0UNTY in 70-foot seas", for example... If by that he means a significant wave height of 70', do you all comprehend how extraordinarily rare in reality such conditions are?



> Generally, the statistical distribution of the individual wave heights is well approximated by a Rayleigh distribution.[4] For example, given that Hs is 70 feet, statistically:
> 
> 1 in 10 will be larger than 75 ft
> 1 in 100 will be larger than 105 ft
> 1 in 1000 will be larger than 125 ft


Seriously??? I know a retired ship captain from Oz, sailed the Bass Strait for 18 years... He has NEVER seen conditions remotely close to what could legitimately be described as "70-foot seas"... So, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable 'speculating' that Waldbridge is full of sh_t with that particular claim - much less, that standing on deck in such conditions was not much different from standing on her deck at dockside... I don't think one has to be a "credentialed expert" to realize such posturing is pure BS...

If anything, seems to me that most of the 'speculation' engaged in during the course of this thread has come from those who appear to be loosely "in defense of" of the captain. I have seen nothing to support the notion advanced that the BOUNTY might have been ordered to leave New London, for example - and yet, some hear have tossed that out as a potential mitigating factor... Aside from appearing purely speculative, it's a moot point, in any event. Even if the BOUNTY _had_ been ordered to depart, Waldbridge still had many options to consider. He might have tried to get inside the hurricane barrier at New Bedford, or run up Narragannsett Bay... Or, put into a place like Pt Jefferson on the north shore of LI... Or, up the Hudson, or Delaware, or into Norfolk/Hampton Roads, or up the York or James Rivers... Any of which, he had time to do... No freakin' way would he have not only been ordered to leave New London, but to attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, as well...

Finally, I see plenty of pretty informed opinion and knowledge being passed here, no shortage of posters here and elsewhere who have a pretty fair idea what they're talking about. I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss some out of hand simply because they might technically be coming from "amateurs", instead of credentialed professionals... Frankly, one of the stupidest opinions I've seen offered anywhere regarding this tragedy came from an ostensible ship captain in defense of Waldbridge in one of the earlier articles cited - something to the effect of "he actually had A VERY GOOD PLAN, he just didn't count on the complete loss/failure of his pumps and generators..."

I don't care what that guy's credentials are, IMHO such is the opinion of a fool, and certainly not any captain I'd ever care to go to sea with...

btw, it's also been reported as _fact_ that the BOUNTY had sailed "through" at least 2 hurricanes previously... Has anyone found cites or confirmations that would be more specific?

Again, perhaps it's just me... But it seems as if those who believe that some mitigating factors might eventually emerge, that will justify or make the captain's decisions and actions appear reasonable, prudent, or seamanlike, are the ones who are REALLY engaging in "speculation", here... (grin) Seems rather unlikely, when it appears no one here so far can even _IMAGINE_ a scenario in which this voyage made any real sense...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> More speculative conclusions based on speculative evidence leading to unfounded emotion laden words leading to grandious ending.
> 
> How about we let the facts come out. Conclusions based on hypothesis by ametuers without a grasp on what is fact, what is rumor, what is contrived fact leads to nowhere really. Let the professionsals figure it out.
> 
> Ever notice the TRUE professioals are not predisopsing themselves to conclusions here?
> 
> Dave


Oi! Dave,
You've taken that in totally the wrong context! And you know it!
I was talking about what lawyers will be trying to say to get damages payouts for the crew.

Now be good and don't misquote posts that are in plain English.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska

Our buddy, Chef, has taken on the mission to preserve the Captain's dignity until all the facts are known. He's as entitled to that mission as most of us are entitled to point out how stupid the Capt was. 

There is a saying in flying. You're only as good as your last landing. And it's true. I've never had a passenger that felt otherwise. Bird stike, get us on the ground alive. Engine failure, get us on the ground alive. etc. etc. That's your job as Captain and why we don't aim the pointy end at a thunderstorm, let alone a hurricane, even if we've survived a pop up storm before.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

What I care about is NOTHING to do with the Bountys ship, captain or crew. What I care about is the myriad of cruisers and potential cruisers out there who, each year, sail around Cape Hatteras, through, across or against the Gulf Stream either in winter, Novermber and December, or in the Hurricane season June, and October.

It's those people who cannot wait till some enquiry is complete in two years time. They need reminding NOW that they should sail in the correct season, watch the weather, do not go through the Gulf Stream in more than 20 knots from the North, Or North East, and do not play with Northers, Hurricanes, Rages or the like.

Those are the points that can be gleaned from this disaster now and need to be disseminated now!



The Caribbean 1500 starts in 8 days and remember two years ago a woman was killed when a boat tried to enter a cut in the Bahamas in a Norther in Rage conditions.
We have 8 days to ensure these folks know the responsibility is on themselves to set off in this race, not the organizers. If a Northerly comes up they must not go into the Gulf Stream, nor try the Bahamas cuts. Nor leave port at all if the weather is that bad.



I don't need a ticket from a Kornflake packet to tell me that.


Mark


----------



## mistermizu

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The Caribbean 1500 starts in 8 days ...
> Mark


Actually Mark it's happening now, and many boats have already arrived in Tortola:
http://www.facebook.com/carib1500


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

mistermizu said:


> Actually Mark it's happening now, and many boats have already arrived in Tortola:
> http://www.facebook.com/carib1500


Oh!
Oh?
What? They started without me?

What day is it?



Mark


----------



## chef2sail

> All this righteous pomposity from an anonymous troll who just wrote ( when someone handed him his ass) - Sal Paradise


Sal Paradise,

This is a rude remark, uncalled for and does not belong on the posting. It shows and inability to control your anger and discuss topics in a rational grownup way. In addition it does not add to the topic or help fellow sailors in general and is clearly a personal attack oriented comment. If you wish to be taken seriously future posting should not be personal in nature. Finally posts of a personal attack nature are against ther terms of service of this site.

Because you a relatively new with 60 posts you should understand that many us on on this site have learned to play fair with each other and can disagree strongly with each other from time to time or even freaquently and do it in a civil respectfully nature. Even with Paulo, whom I have had strong difference of opinion on this particular thread, I value his contributions to SN in many other threads and agree with him most of the time. Do not get caught up in your emotions here as it only the internet, but at the same time do not use that it is the internet to make personal characterizions of people. If that is YOUR agenda...try the off-topic threads where less emphasis is placed on political correctness.

You may not like I have to say... and you can disagree in an adult civil manner like all others...but what you cannot do is what you have done above. In the future keep your posts on the subject not on the subjects or your posts will be reported.

Respectfully,

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

> What I care about is NOTHING to do with the Bountys ship, captain or crew. What I care about is the myriad of cruisers and potential cruisers out there who, each year, sail around Cape Hatteras, through, across or against the Gulf Stream either in winter, Novermber and December, or in the Hurricane season June, and October.
> 
> It's those people who cannot wait till some enquiry is complete in two years time. They need reminding NOW that they should sail in the correct season, watch the weather, do not go through the Gulf Stream in more than 20 knots from the North, Or North East, and do not play with Northers, Hurricanes, Rages or the like.
> 
> Those are the points that can be gleaned from this disaster now and need to be disseminated now!
> 
> The Caribbean 1500 starts in 8 days and remember two years ago a woman was killed when a boat tried to enter a cut in the Bahamas in a Norther in Rage conditions.
> We have 8 days to ensure these folks know the responsibility is on themselves to set off in this race, not the organizers. If a Northerly comes up they must not go into the Gulf Stream, nor try the Bahamas cuts. Nor leave port at all if the weather is that bad.
> 
> I don't need a ticket from a Kornflake packet to tell me that.
> 
> Mark
> SeaofLife


Mark,

You missed the boat literally...the 1500 has already started. Maybe you do need that tuicket from the Kornflake packet

Having done the Carribean 1500 3 times I can tell you if you need to learn this lesson from a Sailnet Blog on a social media site you dont have enough experience to be in the 1500 in the first place.

To beleive it is possible to avoid any northerners when traveling this route in Novem/ Dec when fronts cross the eastern seaboard every three to four days is not possible. In the past the organizers have started the race wheb they CROSS THE GULF STREAM on a day when the wind direction/ GS current are minimal.

So tell me since you brought it up....what were the lessons of Rule 62?

Dave
So let me ask since you mentioned it


----------



## chef2sail

> If anything, seems to me that most of the 'speculation' engaged in during the course of this thread has come from those who appear to be loosely "in defense of" of the captain. I have seen nothing to support the notion advanced that the BOUNTY might have been ordered to leave New London, for example - and yet, some hear have tossed that out as a potential mitigating factor... Aside from appearing purely speculative, it's a moot point, in any event. Even if the BOUNTY had been ordered to depart, Waldbridge still had many options to consider. He might have tried to get inside the hurricane barrier at New Bedford, or run up Narragannsett Bay... Or, put into a place like Pt Jefferson on the north shore of LI... Or, up the Hudson, or Delaware, or into Norfolk/Hampton Roads, or up the York or James Rivers... Any of which, he had time to do... No freakin' way would he have not only been ordered to leave New London, but to attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, as well...-JonEisberg





> Our buddy, Chef, has taken on the mission to preserve the Captain's dignity until all the facts are known. He's as entitled to that mission as most of us are entitled to point out how stupid the Capt was.- Minniewaska


Respectfully JOn and Minnie and I do respect you both, I am NOT defending the Captains actions. From the beginning of this post I have said I beleived leaving with the knowledge of a brewing storm was not the correct thing to do and that he is ultimately responsible for that. Once we move away from that point that there is no need to keep coming back to to lay credence to the myriad of misinformation in a post, and the posts are examined for factual vs speculative information, it is my opinion that there is so much assumptions and misinformation that it is hard to see the contributing factors.

Why is that imnportant? If we just close the case here and say the Captain caused this and move on the only lesson learned....not like any of had to learn this lesson, is that he left in a storm. The constant barage of this in almost every post is the classic man needs a scapegoat and a person ton blame this on.

Those of you fixated by this continued blaring that the Captain shouldnt have left ( duh)
potentially are blinding yourselves and other readers to other factors here to learn from. Trying to learn from this is like trying to lkearn from a soap opera.

I have contended since my first post here not to rush to judgement on the causation of the actual sinking so that we may truly learn from this. Rush to judgement including posting erroneouos information, opinions from sources less thatn experienced, wild speculation does not in fact get at the causes of this accident and serves to confuse the issue as to what to beleive. I will not defebd the captains leaving as I beleive it was wrong. I will defend the need to keep an open mind and not rush to judgement on the other causitive agents.

Keeping an open mind in the midst of people calling you a troll is disconcerting, but still necessary. Keeping an open mind is important because there are other issues it appears here which may need attention to prevent a similar disaster from occuring where the Captain encounter heavy weather as a course of normal sailing schedule in one of these tall ship. I have already learned a great deal reading some of the "technical information" posted from REAL experts concerning sailing these vessels. I have a list of possible things which may be learned from this tradgedy, but have held off and will continue to until I really have more facts.

Continued posting about the Captains decision to leave is redundant. Its like getting a constant drum pounding sound which prevents you from hearing some of the other sounds. Those who do that and continue to prevent themselves from hearing some of the other sounds which we need to hear in order to learn more from this.

In addition those who challenge others facts on here are not doing it to be trolls, contrary in nature, picking a fight, defending the captain. Some people like myself do not like to be presented with suppostion and opinion cloaked as fact. If these half truths, conjecture and assumptions are allowed to stand they can be utilized to build other conclusions which are erroneous from them.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Mark,
> 
> So tell me since you brought it up....what were the lessons of Rule 62?
> 
> Dave
> So let me ask since you mentioned it


Well, since there remains a great deal of factual information that apparently will forever be unknown to us regarding the RULE 62 tragedy, and we are still awaiting the final determination of an "official investigation" which appears likely never to occur...

Wouldn't any attempt to answer your question involve, by your definition, little more than _"speculation"_ on our part? (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Respectfully JOn and Minnie and I do respect you both, I am NOT defending the Captains actions. From the beginning of this post I have said I beleived leaving with the knowledge of a brewing storm was not the correct thing to do and that he is ultimately responsible for that. Once we move away from that point that there is no need to keep coming back to to lay credence to the myriad of misinformation in a post, and the posts are examined for factual vs speculative information, it is my opinion that there is so much assumptions and misinformation that it is hard to see the contributing factors.


Fair enough, I understand your position, and I stated myself poorly if I've implied that anyone here is essentially "defending" the actions of Walbridge...

What I've simply tried to make clear from the outset, is my doubt that there will come to light any mitigating factors or evidence that will make his decision to depart New London when he did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, appear to be anything short of "unfathomable", or impossible to justify in terms of any reasonable Risk/Reward analysis...


----------



## chef2sail

> What I've simply tried to make clear from the outset, is my doubt that there will come to light any mitigating factors or evidence that will make his decision to depart New London when he did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, appear to be anything short of "unfathomable", or impossible to justify in terms of any reasonable Risk/Reward analysis..JojnEisberg .


Agreed


----------



## chef2sail

> Well, since there remains a great deal of factual information that apparently will forever be unknown to us regarding the RULE 62 tragedy, and we are still awaiting the final determination of an "official investigation" which appears likely never to occur...
> 
> Wouldn't any attempt to answer your question involve, by your definition, little more than "speculation" on our part? (grin)JOnEisberg


In the case of Rule 62 we have a few similar notes to this incident
The Captain made a poor decision and brought his vessel into an area where a "rage" was occuring and it contributed to the sinking of the boat.

Are you willing to state that the Captain of the Rulke 62 and his actions led to their deaths. He in charge made a decision which ultimately cost the life of people, therefore he was ultimately responsible, correct?

In the case of the Farlones...the CG found they "cut to close" Are you willing to state the Captain caused the death of the others on the boat?

Not meant to be argumentative...just want to see the thinking with these incidents also.

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I...
> 
> In the case of the Farlones...the CG found they "cut to close" Are you willing to state the Captain caused the death of the others on the boat?
> 
> ....
> 
> Dave


The captain is the responsible for the safety of its crew and should avoid taking any risks that can put it at risk. On the Farlones incident obviously the captain was responsible. it was my opinion at the time and it is the opinion of the CG when they say he "cut to close". He could have avoided that risk.

As a mitigating factor the Captain on the Farlone incident was a non professional captain with a racing crew participating in a race. I would say that will racing some risks are acceptable but not any that put on jeopardy the lives of the crew or the boat safety.

The hugely different factor between the two accidents is that one happened with an amateur captain the other one with a professional Captain.

For what I understood in the US and in some countries like UK any person can be a Captain of a private sailing boat without any qualifications to do that. That is not the case with a professional Captain that is a highly qualified professional and certified in that quality by a licence.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> As a mitigating factor the Captain on the Farlone incident was a non professional captain with a racing crew participating in a race. I would say that will racing some risks are acceptable but not any that put on jeopardy the lives of the crew or the boat safety.-PCP


Not sure I draw the distinction about the mitigating factor here for the Farlone or Rule 62 Captains. He was the captain...he had many years experience...just because he didnt have or didnt apply for a Commercial captains liscence didnt mean that his responsibility to his crew and others was any different. I agree you would think that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training.

I dont think the Captain of the Bounty, Captain of the Farlones, Captain of Rule 62 have any less responsibility to their crews than each other, nor do I think that mitigates their culpability or blame when it comes to contributing to the cause of the loss of life.

One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean that a mistake in judgement will not occur or is even less likely to occur. The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes, buut as we have seen humans are fallible and make mistakes even if they have best of intentions.

One of the reasons it is important to me to try and find out why he left is that that thought process which countered the obvious danger the storm presented should be examined and brought out. That is what we all can learn to recognize in ourself and others...the danger signs when the thought process goes against conventional wisdom is occuring so it can be headed off. Some of this was mentioned in the Rule 62 incident where the Captain allegedly gave in to the cries of his crew iwth seasickness and rough conditions to attempt and insanely diffeicult passage in shallow water when a "rage" was occuring. The lesson for us was that apparently the Captain gave in to pressures he should have stood fast to and that at all times as the Captain that you must make the best decison for the keeping of life vs the cries of the the crew.

It isnt enough for me to know that the Bounty Captain is responsible. In line with this I have tried to cut away the obvious statements attributed to him before in interviews as they could be taken out of context or been a bit of "puffery" and exageration. The reason I think this is the eyewitness statements of many who have come in contact with, sailed with, or worked with this particular captain. Most of not all of them speak to his professionalism, teaching ability and investment to his crew as opposed to an ego maniac Ahab who wanted to tie himself to the mast before the storm like Ahab or Forrest Gump.

I like wingnwing and others on here had met the man if only briefly. The snap judgement in the short time I was around him was not that of an extreme risk taker, but of a gentleman who was professional and loved his vessels as well as tall ship sailing. So what is pertinent in my mind is why would a captain credentialled, experienced and stable like him make such an egerious error. Hopefully some of the eyewitness accounts will open this window so we can see.

Again I state in NO WAY am I asking for, inferring or even thinking this abbrogates his responsibility to make safe decisions and mitigates his actions of pushing away from the dock into the storm.

Dave


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> Are you willing to state that the Captain of the Rulke 62 and his actions led to their deaths. He in charge made a decision which ultimately cost the life of people, therefore he was ultimately responsible, correct?
> 
> Dave


You are weird. You won't make a strong opinion yourself as to what YOU would do, but you deride others who will. Then you directly ask someone to do something you will not do yourself.

So you may feel you scare people into your opinion but you don't scare me.

Rule 62s captain caused the death of one person but not taking the prudent measure of continuing on for 30nms to flat water, behind the Abacos, instead risking a narrow, shallow cut in a rage. Whether it was sea sickness, everyone on board was sick, or the pestering of other crew who were sick he did the wrong thing and killed someone.

I go back to a previous statement that you felt you needed to deride. Don't play in Northers or rages, hurricanes, wind against current, Cape a hatteras or the Gulf Stream

I will keep saying it till its driven through the skulls of all cruisers.


----------



## chef2sail

> So you may feel you scare people into your opinion but you don't scare me.-MarkseaofLife


Now you attributing motives to me...how weird when you dont know me. Hahah..I am trying to scare you?????. No I am not



> I go back to a previous statement that you felt you needed to deride. Don't play in Northers or rages, hurricanes, wind against current, Cape a hatteras or the Gulf StreamMarkseaoflife


If you carefully read you will see I agree with this. On many other of my posts over the years I have warned of the same consequences around Hatteras. I have been extremely cautious personally and have taken the ICW route around Hatteras execopt for the 3 Carribean 1500 ( outside the GS) and a couple of deliveries I have made south to Florida/ Georgia. As the crew on the deleiveies I would have bailed off the trip had I felt there was not enough of a weather window to make it around through Diamond Shoals safely.

It is common sense what you have said about sailing into hurricanes, northern winds agains the north moving Gulf Stream, blah blah blah..we get your drift.

Most experienced blue water sailors know that entering an inlet where tide or current against wind will create exaggerated conditions. Sailing in the Plum Gut/ Race/ Watch Hill Passage from the LI Sound for instance for 12 hours a day puts you in a wind against cureent situation and will lead to steeper waves, So will inlets, Delaware Bays as just a few examples....so what. It doesnt mean they are not traversable. People wait for a weather window to cross to the Bahamias again common knowledge as they are waiting for no northern component to the wind. So what you state sir is the obvious...we know it so why would anyone including me dispute that.

And sailing in a hurricane is a ridiculous unecessary risk of life whether he was in, near or a million miles away from the Gulf Stream.



> I will keep saying it till its driven through the skulls of all cruiser-sMarkofsealife


.
Mission accomplished,Maybe time to find another mantra.


----------



## nolatom

Trying to stick to the message rather than who the messenger is, here's yet another opinion, from an industry newsletter, for what it's worth.

OP-ED: Loss of HMS Bounty: The Sea Wins Again | Maritime News | Maritime Executive Magazine

And as the author states at the end, let's wait for the investigation before we declare ourselves "really sure", and openminded (within reason, relating to what isn't--yet--certain) til then?


----------



## Minnewaska

The lesson to be learned from Bounty is most likely to be this and I believe there is a preponderance of actual evidence to suggest its odds are very high.

Being a nice, passionate and knowledgeable Captain accrues no benefit against continually taking on serious risks and having survived them in the past. We should all keep in mind, just because we've successfully lived through a past mistake, we shouldn't keep making it.

And, yes, the Rule 62 Captain is also presumably at fault. Understanding how or why they made a decision, doesn't change that. Although, we hope to learn from it. The best connection to that tragedy is how long it has been with no answers from authorities. The authorities are not invested in helping us learn anything, that's an optional side affect. They are only invested in whether their rules were broken and whether they may want to suggest new ones. Very different perspectives.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> .. He was the captain...he had many years experience...just because he didnt have or didnt apply for a Commercial captains liscence didnt mean that his responsibility to his crew and others was any different. I agree *you would think *that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training.
> 
> ....
> 
> One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean that a mistake in judgement ...* is even less likely to occur*. The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes, buut as we have seen humans are fallible and make mistakes even if they have best of intentions.
> 
> ....
> Dave


Dave,it seems to me that there are a contradiction in what you say :

You say "One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean .... a mistake in judgement ... is ... less likely to occur".

and then you say:

"The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes..."

Unless you think that formal training, the one that separates a licensed Captain able to operate commercial ships from an amateur captain (of his own boat) without any licence, will not contribute to a better and more informed judgement and therefore a lesser probability of mistakes, what you say is contradictory.

In fact you say:

" I agree *you would think *that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training. "

and yes, in fact I think like that but the question here is : and you think also like that?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## nolatom

Minnewaska said:


> The lesson to be learned from Bounty is most likely to be this and I believe there is a preponderance of actual evidence to suggest its odds are very high.
> 
> Being a nice, passionate and knowledgeable Captain accrues no benefit against continually taking on serious risks and having survived them in the past. We should all keep in mind, just because we've successfully lived through a past mistake, we shouldn't keep making it.
> 
> And, yes, the Rule 62 Captain is also presumably at fault. Understanding how or why they made a decision, doesn't change that. Although, we hope to learn from it. The best connection to that tragedy is how long it has been with no answers from authorities. The authorities are not invested in helping us learn anything, that's an optional side affect. They are only invested in whether their rules were broken and whether they may want to suggest new ones. Very different perspectives.


Disagree with your last three sentences. I've been on such a Board and we were indeed interested in educating the maritime public. That's why the reports typically posit proximate cause, contributing causes, findings of fact, and recommendations for the future. Why don't we wait and see on this Board too.


----------



## Minnewaska

nolatom said:


> Disagree with your last three sentences. I've been on such a Board and we were indeed interested in educating the maritime public. That's why the reports typically posit proximate cause, contributing causes, findings of fact, and recommendations for the future. Why don't we wait and see on this Board too.


I didn't say the authorities weren't interested and acknowledged the side affect.

However, is educating the public a mandatory outcome of the investigation?


----------



## PCP

nolatom said:


> Trying to stick to the message rather than who the messenger is, here's yet another opinion, from an industry newsletter, for what it's worth.
> 
> OP-ED: Loss of HMS Bounty: The Sea Wins Again | Maritime News | Maritime Executive Magazine
> 
> And as the author states at the end, let's wait for the investigation before we declare ourselves "really sure", and openminded (within reason, relating to what isn't--yet--certain) til then?


Yes but he rises some questions and I wonder why these:

"What is the condition of my vessel and its equipment .. Is there that piece of equipment notorious for failing you at the worst time? Are the hull, deck, and hatches tight? Are the seams weeping? Are the engines and generators on a "wing and a prayer"? Where is that weakness, and every vessel has at least one, that the ocean will find its way into, claiming your ship? One must presume the longtime Master of the Bounty knew his vessel"

It is not normal for a Captain having a boat with seams weeping or with engine and generators on a wing and a prayer and if some equipment is notorious to fail, it should have been replaced or substituted.

So why he says specifically this? I guess that like us he had heard people saying that it was the case. Of course the ones that had said that could be wrong and therefore a proper investigation is needed but it just raises the odds that in fact the boat was not in the better condition, not to say in deficient conditions.

and here:

"Today we have satellites. There's little excuse to take the risk of sailing into bad weather. Good or bad, assume the weather will get worse. It will. It always does. For Bounty, add a hurricane along the way. If you think you can outrun it or avoid it you are betting your ship, your crew's and your own life on it. Did the Bounty make that bet?"

He is practically answering it's own question.

So yes, an investigation is needed to complete all the picture but fact is that we already know somethings, have strong evidence about others and with the things we know it is safe to assume that Bounty's Captains should have not sailed to face an hurricane in an old wooden ship.

There is a difference between an error and a mistake. This one is no mistake, it is a gross error that costed lives and an investigation is not needed to determine that. It is self-evident with what we know now. An investigation is needed to get all the picture that allowed this to happen and to recommend measures to never happen again or at least diminish the odds.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> You say "One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean .... a mistake in judgement ... is ... less likely to occur".
> 
> and then you say:
> 
> "The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes..."
> 
> Unless you think that formal training, the one that separates a licensed Captain able to operate commercial ships from an amateur captain (of his own boat) without any licence, will not contribute to a better and more informed judgement and therefore a lesser probability of mistakes, what you say is contradictory.
> 
> In fact you say:
> 
> " I agree you would think that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training. "
> 
> and yes, in fact I think like that but the question here is : and you think also like that?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo
> Like


OK no confusion in me. Lets put the words together



> "The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes..."


and then we MAY learn



> "One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean .... a mistake in judgement ... is ... less likely to occur".


What it means maybe our assumption is wrong that formal liscecing does not mean less mistakes in judgement....*( maybe what we are requiring in the formal lisceincing has no bearing on judgement decisions).

For instance one part of the liscencing requirement is the number of hours required. As Minnie has said ( and I agree), if that prior experience has risking the vessel and surviving in two other hurricanes led him to feel no vulnerability and risk it again because he had success before. In this case his experience would work against him, leading to a fasle sense in scurity mistake in judgement . There fore even though you would think the formal liscence would be better, in this case it would not be.


----------



## chef2sail

> That's why the reports typically posit proximate cause, contributing causes, findings of fact, and recommendations for the future. -Nolatom


That says it in a nutshell I beleive. And that from a previous board investigative board member if his credentials are correct.

I submit aside from the fact that he sailed into a hurricane, there is no concrete evidence about the condition of the ship that day which has been verfied, the captains and the crews sailing profile of the day, how they handled the emergency, etc. just speculatuion from past pictures etc.

First hand testimony is needed.

One question I still have which I am suprised has not been brought up. Why did they not have the CG come get them when the first emergency call went out. They were well past the storm center at that point and in the SW quadrant. Were the conditions at that point not warrenting an evacuation or should it have been done then.

dave


----------



## nolatom

Minnewaska said:


> I didn't say the authorities weren't interested and acknowledged the side affect.
> 
> However, is educating the public a mandatory outcome of the investigation?


Okay, then it's difficult for me to discern what "invested" means as you use it.

And no, we didn't go out and lecture. But the reports are on-line, and if read, they do educate, and, I believe, are intended to do so. Otherwise we'd do check lists and not write reports. They're used by industry publications and by academic writers in maritime law journals and also make their way into license prep courses and curricula of the maritime schools.

Whether that's a "byproduct" or a direct result Is, I think, semantic.


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> The captain is the responsible for the safety of its crew and should avoid taking any risks that can put it at risk. On the Farlones incident obviously the captain was responsible. it was my opinion at the time and it is the opinion of the CG when they say he "cut to close". He could have avoided that risk.
> 
> As a mitigating factor the Captain on the Farlone incident was a non professional captain with a racing crew participating in a race. I would say that will racing some risks are acceptable but not any that put on jeopardy the lives of the crew or the boat safety.
> 
> The hugely different factor between the two accidents is that one happened with an amateur captain the other one with a professional Captain.
> 
> For what I understood in the US and in some countries like UK any person can be a Captain of a private sailing boat without any qualifications to do that. That is not the case with a professional Captain that is a highly qualified professional and certified in that quality by a licence.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence. People get pieces of paper by taking tests, jumping through hoops, and by kissing the right arses. Unfortunately many of the pieces of paper hung on walls and submitted in resume's are quite meaningless. The thing NONE of these credentialing processes measure is common sense and the ability to use knowledge when it counts.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence. .... Unfortunately many of the pieces of paper hung on walls and submitted in resume's are quite meaningless. The thing NONE of these credentialing processes measure is common sense and the ability to use knowledge when it counts.


Come on what are you saying? That a highly qualified Captain is no more competent than an amateur sailor in what regards taking decisions in what regards the safety of a ship? I am not talking about miraculous exceptions, I am talking about reality.

Our civilization and culture has as base qualifications and specializations for everything that we do that requires knowledge.

Do you have as much confidence on the advise of a guy that has an interest in medicine than on the one that is of formal trained doctor?

Do you think that we should not qualify formally professionals because "Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence"?

Would you fell safe in knowing that the guy that is flying the commercial airplane where you are flying in is just an amateur with some experience?

Or that the stability calculations for the house where you live in (on a 20 store building) where not done by a professional engineer but by an amateur that has some experience?

Come on

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> Do you think that we should not qualify formally professionals because "Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence"?
> 
> Paulo


Absolutely.

The armies of the world have one very difficult thing to asses of their officers during training: will he be brave and lead his troops on into battle? Or will he get scared and run away?

It's the same in captains license exams. How can they tell who is full of bravado and no common sense? Who is competent but panics? Who is dumb as a bum but in a stress situation comes out better than his exam marks suggest?

Oh, yes, the ticket means little. That's why forum people who call themselves Captain when they only have a basic ticket make me laugh. I know the USA is a different culture, but really, "Captain" because they have done a friggin night course behind a desk to let them hire a 30 foot beneteau at Moorings?


----------



## casey1999

turban10 said:


> How sad for those two missing. I hope they are found. I can't imagine bobing up and down in such seas wondering if you are going to be rescued.
> 
> Replica or not, the HMS Bounty was a amazing looking ship. It is a real shame to lose something so beautiful.


The "beauty" of HMS Bounty was apparently only skin deep. Rember this next time your dreaming about that really "hot" chick.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

casey1999 said:


> The "beauty" of HMS Bounty was apparently only skin deep. Rember this next time your dreaming about that really "hot" chick.


Or the next time you are buying a boat and some old twit says to look at the boats "lines". Well you can't see the lines from on board and a storm don't give a sh$&@!

A boat is a conveyance to get from here to there safely. In 1787 when the real bounty was built they didn't give a dam about how she looked, it was just about how many oceans she could cross and how many guns she could carry. Just like a modern cargo ship....except for the guns!


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> The armies of the world have one very difficult thing to asses of their officers during training: will he be brave and lead his troops on into battle? Or will he get scared and run away?
> 
> It's the same in captains license exams. How can they tell who is full of bravado and no common sense? Who is competent but panics? Who is dumb as a bum but in a stress situation comes out better than his exam marks suggest?
> 
> Oh, yes, the ticket means little. That's why forum people who call themselves Captain when they only have a basic ticket make me laugh. I know the USA is a different culture, but really, "Captain" because they have done a friggin night course behind a desk to let them hire a 30 foot beneteau at Moorings?


I confess I did not understand if you are kidding or if you are for real: You mean let's stop qualifying professionals because they are no better than unqualified ones? You mean only sea captains or all, doctors, engineers, architects and the lot... That is plain crazy.

Regarding the ticket as you call it, what I was talking about was this:

"That a highly qualified Captain is no more competent than an amateur sailor in what regards taking decisions in what regards the safety of a ship? I am not talking about miraculous exceptions, I am talking about reality."

A ticket for a Ship professional sea captain is not a night course, at least here

Do you really think what you have said about this or are you just kidding?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Southwest was clearly the one he was going for, based on the satellite tracking of the ship's position. I do believe that would be to get the wind behind him on that trip.
> 
> Which he actually said seems unclear.


I was thinking about that interview with the Capt before departure. In the interview the Capt made a circle with his thumbs and forefinger stating he wanted to take the ship into the position of his right thumb (SE part of Sandy), article said no crew questioned him. Interesting he was telling the crew he was going to take the ship into head winds and seas (while trying to go south) and no one said "hey Capt, don't you mean your left thumb" (SW part of sandy), where apparently he actually went with stern winds and waves not off the bow.

Seems no one questioned the Capt.- ever.


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Or the next time you are buying a boat and some old twit says to look at the boats "lines". Well you can't see the lines from on board and a storm don't give a sh$&@!
> 
> A boat is a conveyance to get from here to there safely. In 1787 when the real bounty was built they didn't give a dam about how she looked, it was just about how many oceans she could cross and how many guns she could carry. Just like a modern cargo ship....except for the guns!


Agree, and now days off Somalia, the guns are even useful...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> Do you really think what you have said about this or are you just kidding?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


That's fine that you may think I am kidding. It is a weird concept. No I am not joking. One of the most difficult things to asses is how a person will perform under real life and death situations.

Because the military are confronted with it, with their leaders, the military have studied it and use methods to asses it that don't get done in other industries.

The only way you can determine if an officer will run or fight is to shoot at him. You can't do that in a class room situation. Nor can you with a ships captains course, or an amature skippers course.

The Army understands that the emotion fear is very important in a battle. It's not something that can be easily controlled. Isn't it weird that the place of " heros" understand about fear and teach it? Not so weird when you think about it.

The Army go to great lengths to asses how new officers will go under battle conditions... Sleep depravation on maneuvers, confronting the fear of death by parachuting, the Russians send officers off to some convenient "training" war.

But what do we do? Neither amature nor professional can or are assessed till they are already in command and at sea. Being second in command isn't the same.

So any amount of study, or qualifications, will not show what assessed time in command in extreme situations shows.

In this case, the Bounty, the interview showed a certain bravado: "we chase hurricanes"..... How does one know if its just bravado and when the first "real" one comes along all that bravado falls and deficiencies are shown.

I am not suggesting that is reality in this case. All I am pointing out is that training and qualifications do not show how a person will react in the moments or hours they have a mortal fear of their own death.


----------



## Capt.aaron

One must have 360 logged day's at sea to qualify for the OUPV ( six pack) test. Not an easy test what with the rules of the road and the plotting. A week long prep course helps with the coast guard exam but isn't necassary if you can pass. Next after more sea time opperating as captain of uninspected vessel's, you may test for the master ticket, depending on the tonnage of the vessel you'll get a 50 or 100 ton liscence of inspected vessels, the exam is mostly plotting, a prep course helps. Then you get the smallest of the commercial liscence, the 200 ton master/ mate. You must run as 200 ton mate for about a year, training under a captain in real life situations before the 200 ton master is issued, tough test. This test is 1/2 stability, and 1/2 plotting. They don't hand these things out as easy as you might think, the six pack and 100 ton are easier, but getting the time on tonage vessels for the 200 takes a lot of time and training, add the master of tow TOAR, to the lisence and your talking years of training and school, plus the endorsement's that you need like STCW, RADAR CERT, radio opperator, rfpnw, etc. It's months of prep-classes to prepare for the test, coupled with years of on the job training before you are elegable. I've worked long and hard to get to 200 ton and it only get's more difficult from here. I don't know what tonnage the Bounty Captain had, but he made a bad and complacent decsision none the less.


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> That's fine that you may think I am kidding. It is a weird concept. No I am not joking. One of the most difficult things to asses is how a person will perform under real life and death situations.
> 
> ....
> I am not suggesting that is reality in this case. All I am pointing out is that training and qualifications do not show how a person will react in the moments or hours they have a mortal fear of their own death.


I do not disagree, but a Captain job is to stay out of danger. We are not talking about the navy but about a civilian officer. As Coast Guard spokesman Lieutenant Michael Patterson says: "Professional mariners know how to take avoidance measures" not necessarily amateur ones, I will add.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> Come on what are you saying? That a highly qualified Captain is no more competent than an amateur sailor in what regards taking decisions in what regards the safety of a ship? I am not talking about miraculous exceptions, I am talking about reality.
> 
> Our civilization and culture has as base qualifications and specializations for everything that we do that requires knowledge.
> 
> Do you have as much confidence on the advise of a guy that has an interest in medicine than on the one that is of formal trained doctor?
> 
> Do you think that we should not qualify formally professionals because "Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence"?
> 
> Would you fell safe in knowing that the guy that is flying the commercial airplane where you are flying in is just an amateur with some experience?
> 
> Or that the stability calculations for the house where you live in (on a 20 store building) where not done by a professional engineer but by an amateur that has some experience?
> 
> Come on
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


No one is saying that there shouldn't be training for different professions. It is just that the training does not at all guarantee that a person is competent. You can see it in every profession: engineering, teaching, emergency services, legal, etc. Some people are just not cut out to do certain jobs but they put the time in to get that "certificate." It fools other people into thinking they actually can do a certain job.

In some cases, such as teaching, ridiculous amounts of red tape, designed to support a HUGE bureaucracy keeps very competent people from entering the profession.


----------



## Capt.aaron

There are a sh!t laod of dip sh!t's running boats out there. All the way up to unlimited tonnage dudes. It's amazing they can go through all the motions and come out incompitant on the other side. But they do.... in all professions, look at that Costa a$$ hole. It's usually the Acadamy Brat's that prove useless and the Hause pipe guy's that you can count on.


----------



## Geoff54

Capt.aaron said:


> There are sh!t laod of dip sh!t's running boats out there. All the way up to unlimited tonnage dudes. It's amazing they can go through all the motions and come out incompitant on the other side. But they do.... in all professions, look at that Costa a$$ hole. It's usually the Acadamy Brat's that prove useless and the Hause pipe guy's that you can count on.


Stop sugar coating it - tell us what you really think.


----------



## YukonJack

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but seems to me if one is determined to avoid ANY speculation about this incident whatsoever, seems the only way to do that is to refrain from discussing it at all...
> 
> Much of what you presumably would consider 'speculation' has been, in fact, based upon reported 'facts' that have subsequently been proven to be erroneous... I was chided earlier in this thread for "rushing to judgement", for example, by another poster who had initially passed on the information that the BOUNTY was on passage from Nova Scotia, and had attempted to sail east of the storm...
> 
> I've tried to refrain from pure speculation here, but some of the information that has come to light as "fact" positively reeks of incredulity... Waldbridge's claim of "having sailed the B0UNTY in 70-foot seas", for example... If by that he means a significant wave height of 70', do you all comprehend how extraordinarily rare in reality such conditions are?
> 
> Seriously??? I know a retired ship captain from Oz, sailed the Bass Strait for 18 years... He has NEVER seen conditions remotely close to what could legitimately be described as "70-foot seas"... So, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable 'speculating' that Waldbridge is full of sh_t with that particular claim - much less, that standing on deck in such conditions was not much different from standing on her deck at dockside... I don't think one has to be a "credentialed expert" to realize such posturing is pure BS...
> 
> If anything, seems to me that most of the 'speculation' engaged in during the course of this thread has come from those who appear to be loosely "in defense of" of the captain. I have seen nothing to support the notion advanced that the BOUNTY might have been ordered to leave New London, for example - and yet, some hear have tossed that out as a potential mitigating factor... Aside from appearing purely speculative, it's a moot point, in any event. Even if the BOUNTY _had_ been ordered to depart, Waldbridge still had many options to consider. He might have tried to get inside the hurricane barrier at New Bedford, or run up Narragannsett Bay... Or, put into a place like Pt Jefferson on the north shore of LI... Or, up the Hudson, or Delaware, or into Norfolk/Hampton Roads, or up the York or James Rivers... Any of which, he had time to do... No freakin' way would he have not only been ordered to leave New London, but to attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, as well...
> 
> Finally, I see plenty of pretty informed opinion and knowledge being passed here, no shortage of posters here and elsewhere who have a pretty fair idea what they're talking about. I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss some out of hand simply because they might technically be coming from "amateurs", instead of credentialed professionals... Frankly, one of the stupidest opinions I've seen offered anywhere regarding this tragedy came from an ostensible ship captain in defense of Waldbridge in one of the earlier articles cited - something to the effect of "he actually had A VERY GOOD PLAN, he just didn't count on the complete loss/failure of his pumps and generators..."
> 
> I don't care what that guy's credentials are, IMHO such is the opinion of a fool, and certainly not any captain I'd ever care to go to sea with...
> 
> btw, it's also been reported as _fact_ that the BOUNTY had sailed "through" at least 2 hurricanes previously... Has anyone found cites or confirmations that would be more specific?
> 
> Again, perhaps it's just me... But it seems as if those who believe that some mitigating factors might eventually emerge, that will justify or make the captain's decisions and actions appear reasonable, prudent, or seamanlike, are the ones who are REALLY engaging in "speculation", here... (grin) Seems rather unlikely, when it appears no one here so far can even _IMAGINE_ a scenario in which this voyage made any real sense...


I believe his quote was the following: " If it was not for the fact that he was dead, he had a good plan ". A rather unique way of putting it, but you would have to know the source.

I have sailed ( one time ) with the captain you referenced and we both quoted. He is a character, but he is also not reckless. He would never endanger his ship or crew. I would think that in many professions there are those that will stick their necks out for one of their own and those that will not.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> No one is saying that there shouldn't be training for different professions. It is just that the training does not at all guarantee that a person is competent. You can see it in every profession: engineering, teaching, emergency services, legal, etc. Some people are just not cut out to do certain jobs but they put the time in to get that "certificate." It fools other people into thinking they actually can do a certain job.
> 
> In some cases, such as teaching, ridiculous amounts of red tape, designed to support a HUGE bureaucracy keeps very competent people from entering the profession.


That is not the point. The point is that a highly qualified professional for a job is normally much more capable at that job then an unqualified one, in what regards sailing captains or in other any activity. If it was not like that governments would not invest huge amounts of money in qualification and education of professionals for all kinds of jobs.

It is so obvious to me that I cannot see what you guys are trying to say. Of course there are incompetents in all qualified professions but certainly much more incompetents on unqualified ones. That's one of the reasons why they did not manage to qualify themselves to do anything except basic stuff that anybody can do without a need to learn a lot. That is also the reason qualified professions are better paid.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent.

In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence.


smurphny said:


> Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence...


It is absurd to suggest that licenses and training have little correlation with competence. It is simply not true. The correlation is not 100% perfect, but it is a very strong correlation.


----------



## smurphny

TakeFive said:


> Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent.
> 
> In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence.
> 
> It is absurd to suggest that licenses and training have little correlation with competence. It is simply not true. The correlation is not 100% perfect, but it is a very strong correlation.


Apparently you did not read/see the word "often" in my statement and yes, this occurs frequently, often, more than occasionally and quite frequently in some professions.

What typically happens is that people come out of educational institutions with book knowledge and perhaps some canned practical experience of varying effectiveness. The real education happens on the job. This real education OFTEN has little to do with much of what was required to get the entry certification. It's too bad we've largely given up on apprentice learning and now leave teaching to academics who often have NO actual experience or worse, have left the field they teach because they are not very good at it.

This is way off-topic. Sorry I led it astray. May you never encounter the "six pack" captain who forgot many years ago that you have the right of way. We'll just disagree.


----------



## Maine Sail

chef2sail said:


> Sal Paradise,
> 
> *This is a rude remark, uncalled for and does not belong on the posting. It shows and inability to control your anger and discuss topics in a rational grownup way. In addition it does not add to the topic or help fellow sailors in general and is clearly a personal attack oriented comment.* If you wish to be taken seriously future posting should not be personal in nature. Finally posts of a personal attack nature are against ther terms of service of this site.
> 
> *Because you a relatively new with 60 posts you should understand that many us on on this site have learned to play fair with each other and can disagree strongly with each other from time to time or even freaquently and do it in a civil respectfully nature.* Even with Paulo, whom I have had strong difference of opinion on this particular thread, I value his contributions to SN in many other threads and agree with him most of the time. Do not get caught up in your emotions here as it only the internet, but at the same time do not use that it is the internet to make personal characterizions of people. If that is YOUR agenda...try the off-topic threads where less emphasis is placed on political correctness.
> 
> You may not like I have to say... and you can disagree in an adult civil manner like all others...but what you cannot do is what you have done above. In the future keep your posts on the subject not on the subjects or your posts will be reported.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Dave


Dave,

You might consider heeding your own advice. As I read it you've done exactly the same here on SN, and quite recently to boot.

Like this in the Rule 62 thread where Leocat66 simply suggested that the skipper of Rule 62 explain himself publicly. You lit into him like a pit bull.



chef2sail said:


> Leocat66 he has no obligation to you, me or other sailors in this matter. * I do not want to hear your ameteur criticisms or Monday morning quarterbacking of what happened.*
> 
> *This thread has had many knowlegeable contributors *which has helped myself and others in thinking of what to do to prevent this situation/ scenario and how to handle it if we got into a similar fix. *You are not one of them* and your rant would serve as no learning experience to myself.
> 
> Dave


You called the guy an "ameteur" with regard to his posting yet what "facts" do really you about him to make that factually worded statement? What if he is a professional captain? Jumping to conclusions & speculation perhaps? You also told him others were knowledgeable and that he was not knowledgeable? Do you know that for a fact or is this speculation?

Just looking at this you suggest we should...

In this post it seems you let you let _"your inability to control your anger and discuss topics in a rational grownup way"_ take over just as you suggested the poster above not do..



chef2sail said:


> Didnt take long for the *judgement police of SN* to voice their opinions. *Whos annointed you god to judge*. *Great commentary from an internet jockey sitting behind a computer.* You have no right to use the word "we" amd you certainly dont speak for all sailors.


Personal....?



chef2sail said:


> That's incredible. *No insurance and your what 16?* So if someone gets hurt on your boat or because of your boat they will have to sue mommy and daddy. They could loose their house. If they don't have insurance. Your needed to have this boat against their wishes and were encourahed by some on here to do that dispite how they felt and *your inability to have the money to pay for even the simplest of safety gear point to absolute immature decisions.
> *
> *I have followed you exploits for a while. I have to call it as I see it sorry no matter how unpopular that makes what I say appear. From your first posts to yelling out a fisherman thinking you had the right away to this escapade. To this latest reckless situation where you are putting others in danger needlessly, again through immaturity and lack of finances show that you need to learn responsibility.*
> 
> Those on here who have teen agers and have raised children would not like if your kids got on the Internet and were encouraged by others to go against your wishes as a parent.
> 
> Those who find this clever or romantic about someone folllowing their dream, why don't you moor beside this child and let his boat smack yours.
> 
> Dave


Are we judging others with speculation? Do we know for a fact that "mommy & daddy" could lose their house? Is this not a personal attack? Calling him a "child" & using terms like "mommy & daddy" are certainly derisive words to choose when talking to a teenager. This post smells of derogatory personal comments and again included comments about ones lack of maturity. Where I come from calling someone "immature" is considered a personal attack and derogatory.

Do we know for a fact that Smallboatlover is any more or less mature than say Robin Lee Graham who sailed around the world on a shoe string budget, with no insurance, and then wrote the book Dove..?. Do we have all the facts to make those statements?

Please don't take this as an attack on you I just see a little hypocrisy in all this, in a pot/kettle sort of way.. If we are to be above the fray, and preach that, then we should strive for that ourselves, no??


----------



## chef2sail

RC,

I resepct your advice and dont see it as an attack. 

Understand in this particular thread I know I have acted over-agressively. I understand I have in this thread and feel justified due to the nature of the posts which were also directed at me of a personal nature as well as defending a friend ( the Captain). We all react differently and have different tipping points on different subjects. 

In this thread, most of the posters IMHO were respectful and even when accusing the Captain of his obvious responsibility did it in a measured fair way. He deserved to be hammered for the actions he took. His aggregious error cost another their life and also his own. He paid the ultimate price for his actions. IMHO I also beleive there are other responsible parties, but that wont be apparent until the investigation ends. What he didnt deserve are out of context remarks, innuendos, and half truths.

Some went about it like rabid dogs throwing out innuendos, half truths, unsupported musings and purposly disparaging a dead mans reputation without thought. It was these which I "fought fire with fire" so to speak. Thats the only language they understand. They dont get "political correctness".

Just the way it is my friend. I will always defend my friends. I dont apoligize for that loyalty. My friends deserve that. So now all know Robin Walbridge was more than some news story or internet figure to me.

I will remain my normal loving self (sic) on other threads ( sans off topic) 

As a side...I really dont get "angry" about stuff on the internet.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Well, since there remains a great deal of factual information that apparently will forever be unknown to us regarding the RULE 62 tragedy, and we are still awaiting the final determination of an "official investigation" which appears likely never to occur...
> 
> Wouldn't any attempt to answer your question involve, by your definition, little more than "speculation" on our part? (grin)JOnEisberg
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of Rule 62 we have a few similar notes to this incident
> The Captain made a poor decision and brought his vessel into an area where a "rage" was occuring and it contributed to the sinking of the boat.
> 
> Are you willing to state that the Captain of the Rulke 62 and his actions led to their deaths. He in charge made a decision which ultimately cost the life of people, therefore he was ultimately responsible, correct?
> 
> In the case of the Farlones...the CG found they "cut to close" Are you willing to state the Captain caused the death of the others on the boat?
> 
> Not meant to be argumentative...just want to see the thinking with these incidents also.
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...

Of course both skippers shoulder the ultimate responsibility, of that there is no question... However, I believe there are significant differences in their respective "degrees" of responsibility, the 2 incidents seem to me not to be so easily compared...

The Farallones incident by definition entailed a bit more risk, by virtue of the fact that they were racing. Everyone aboard that boat likely understood the challenging and risky nature of racing around that rock - that's a large part of the appeal, thrill, and satisfaction of doing so, of course. What was going on aboard that boat involved much more of a 'team effort' than would have been the case aboard RULE 62. The helmsman would have been taking some guidance from the navigator as to the course sailed, and some of the crew would have been riding the rail, looking to seaward. At no point in Bryan Chong's detailed account of the wreck, was any mention made of any concern from any of the crew that they might be cutting the islands dangerously close. Other boats had sailed a similar track, and IMHO had they been in that particular spot either a minute earlier, or a minute later, their rounding of the Farallones may have been uneventful... Elements of risk, mistaken judgement, and sheer bad luck all conspired in that particular tragedy, and in my view the mistake made by the person in command were nowhere nearly as egregious, or clearly defined, as the decisions made aboard RULE 62, or in the case of the BOUNTY...

FWIW, the primary lessons to be learned from the RULE 62 tragedy are the dangers of making a bluewater passage with an untested crew, the over-reliance and overconfidence in electronic navigation, and the failure to master or even attempt the practice of heaving-to...

And, perhaps most importantly, the failure to have large scale PAPER charts aboard... I'd be willing to bet almost anything that skipper did not have the ability to spread out a large chart of the Abacos/NE Providence Channel on a table before him, otherwise a number of perfectly safe options would have become apparent to him at a glance... However, that is pure 'speculation' on my part, of course... (grin)

Amazing to me, that one of the required items of the Caribbean 1500's Safety Inspection is not a compliment of paper charts for the Bahamas and Greater Amtilles, as potential bailout points from the rally... Perhaps that's changed now, but last time I heard, such was not the case...


----------



## TakeFive

smurphny said:


> Licenses and training and red tape often have little correlation with actual competence...
> 
> ...Apparently you did not read/see the word "often" in my statement and yes, this occurs frequently, often, more than occasionally and quite frequently in some professions...


Oh, another one of these "you must have missed that one word" insults.

NO, I DID NOT miss the word "often." But I suggest that maybe you don't realize the importance of the word "correlation," which you appear to have used sloppily in your statement.

I do not deny that there are people who have certifications but lack the common sense and experience to be fully competent. But I claim that they are, by and large, statistical outliers. As I said, no correlation is 100% perfect - there will always be outliers. But those outliers do not destroy the correlation.

You said that certification and competence "often have little correlation." I insist that they are almost always correlated, but agree that there are outliers to that correlation.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent.
> 
> In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence.
> 
> It is absurd to suggest that licenses and training have little correlation with competence. It is simply not true. The correlation is not 100% perfect, but it is a very strong correlation.


Well at least on this point we fully agree

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JonEisberg said:


> And, perhaps most importantly, the failure to have large scale PAPER charts aboard... ?....skipper did not have the ability to spread out a large chart of the Abacos/NE Providence Channel on a table before him, otherwise a number of perfectly safe options would have become apparent to him at a glance..
> 
> Amazing to me, that one of the required items of the Caribbean 1500's Safety Inspection is not a compliment of paper charts .


Paper chart arguments abound, but please, you need to understand that what is easy and intuitive to you may not be for a modern generation.

I'm not denigrating your ability and/or preference to paper.

I have been using a computer for such a long time, decades, that I really find it difficult to write with a pen. 
The same is with charts.... You might find it easy to lay it out, for me it's uncomfortable, I miss what I am looking for, its inaccurate, slow, and my mind just doesn't work that way anymore.

So what is apparent to you at a glance on paper is apparent to me at a glance on computer.

You've seen kids be able to text a message on their smart phone while still talking. Ask that kid to write that message out with a pen and still carry on a conversation. They can't.

Ask me to plot a l&l on a paper chart and I can do it but it takes me ages, but I can do it faster than you on any of my 3 plotters. In fact I can plot a route around the world in the time it would take some people to get a l&l onto a plotter.

Computers are here and have been for so long that its stupid to require an architect to design a house without CAD, it's stupid to ask a mechanic to diagnose your sports car without downloading from inboard computers, it's stupid to ask NASA to issue astronauts with slide rules. For the new generation of sailors paper charts are archaic.

Paper just isn't tactile to someone who never uses paper. But a computer with a mouse full of wheels and buttons is.



Mark


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Paper chart arguments abound, but please, you need to understand that what is easy and intuitive to you may not be for a modern generation.
> 
> I'm not denigrating your ability and/or preference to paper.
> 
> I have been using a computer for such a long time, decades, that I really find it difficult to write with a pen.
> The same is with charts.... You might find it easy to lay it out, for me it's uncomfortable, I miss what I am looking for, its inaccurate, slow, and my mind just doesn't work that way anymore.
> 
> So what is apparent to you at a glance on paper is apparent to me at a glance on computer.
> 
> ....
> 
> Mark


Mark, I passed from paper charts to plotter ten years ago and generally I agree with you but Jon is right about one thing: A plotter or a computer have a small image and you cannot get a global good reading because the global image would be too small. A chart is big and you would only have the same legibility if you had a screen with that size and you don't.

So, for what he is saying, for looking to another options that are at some distance a paper chart offers big advantages and I use them for that and also to prepare the voyage and go tho the plotter to details and to actually do what was planned on a paper chart (if the distances are not really small).

There is another point that can be very dangerous with the plotter: You are used to get very reliable information on the plotter regarding the boat position in relation to the chart. That is like that most of the time but sometimes it is not so and if you are used to have a blind confidence on the electronics you can be done. It happened to me on the last years at least 2 times, on the med where the cartographic information is very reliable. I imagine that in more remote zone the errors can be much more frequent.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> have a blind confidence on the electronics
> 
> Paulo


Or a blind confidence in paper.


----------



## chef2sail

You should know how to use both and rely on neither. During passage we always have our paper charts spread out on the Nav Station, and plot out position every 1/2 hour. After all the elctrontics can fail. I understand the ease the plotter is now a days to most ( I have a c90w) and also an I Pad. I also have ease using the charts as thats how I learned. My wife it has been easier to teacher her the chart by using the IPAD or plotter first. 

As far as Rule 62, I never heard on of the causes was not that he didnt have charts laid out on the table.

Jon,
He CHOSE to come in to shallow water where he did and he didnt have to. He could have stayed put in deep water. Hove to and gone nowhere.. an taken his lumps like everyone else did.

IMHO He like the Captain of the Bounty placed his ship in jeopardy when he had a safer choice. 

One of my lessons for me from this is that the Captain has the responsibility to do the safest thing and that sometimes the prerssures and pleadings of the crew concerning their comfort level must be ignored to maintain that safety. They were never in immediate danger until he placed them there by his actions.


----------



## HeartsContent

Certifications and regulations are designed as barrier to entry and protect those already there from competition. Not to mention that there is a lot of money in running certification programs.

Competence is derived from experience and can easily be verified by references.



PCP said:


> That is not the point. The point is that a highly qualified professional for a job is normally much more capable at that job then an unqualified one, in what regards sailing captains or in other any activity. If it was not like that governments would not invest huge amounts of money in qualification and education of professionals for all kinds of jobs.
> 
> It is so obvious to me that I cannot see what you guys are trying to say. Of course there are incompetents in all qualified professions but certainly much more incompetents on unqualified ones. That's one of the reasons why they did not manage to qualify themselves to do anything except basic stuff that anybody can do without a need to learn a lot. That is also the reason qualified professions are better paid.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> For the new generation of sailors paper charts are archaic.


Would that include those times when the electrons might cease flowing aboard a small boat at sea, or into her chartplotters and/or computers?

Nah, that could NEVER happen, right? (grin)



MarkofSeaLife said:


> So what is apparent to you at a glance on paper is apparent to me at a glance on computer.


I've debated this issue at length elsewhere, no need to repeat it here... I'm simply not entirely comfortable going anyhere without a paper backup, but that's probably just me... Many people nowadays obviously feel quite comfortable doing so...

My point was, however, more precisely this: In trying to imagine the circumstances the skipper of RULE 62 found himself off Lynyard Cay that evening, the likelihood of an overwhelming desire on the part of everyone aboard that boat to "get us off this damn thing, NOW...", a more 'leisurely' perusal of his options would not have been as readily available via electronic means, as it would had a larger format paper chart been spread out before him...

To obtain a similar degree of information that could have been gleaned from an appropriate chart 'at a glance' generally involves considerably more 'work' - in the form of zooming, panning, atc - when using electronic means... I don't think I'm alone in sensing 'The Big Picture' might not be as readily available when relying on electronic means, it certainly isn't to me...

One thing that captain needed to do that night, was more fully 'explore' his options... I'm sorry, but for him to have fully done so, to have assessed the merits of running around behind a spot like Hole in the Wall, or up to Sandy Point, or down to Royal Island or the safe haven of Spanish Wells using a plotter or computer alone, could simply not have been easily done 'at a glance', the necessary information simply isn't available in a single screen shot, as it is on paper... At least, certainly not on my C-Map card of that regiion, when viewed on my 10" Simrad display...

And, it doubt that's just my tired "older generation" eyes talking, there... (grin)

One thing I've noticed since the advent of electronic navigation... In places conducive to gunkholing - the Bahamas and Maine, for example - it seems nowadays less likely to encounter boats in the sort of 'unexpected' places that might intrigue one during a previous evening's perusal of a large paper chart... There seems to be very little of the "hey, THAT looks like a cool spot, why don't we check that out..." going on anymore... Rather, choices now seem to be made simply more in accordance with the recommendations of cruising guides, and all the waypoints and routes provided to take you there...

And that, I believe, is partially a result of the limitations or difficulty of 'browsing' a topography as intricate as the coast of Maine on a 13" computer screen, as opposed to a traditional chart several feet square... Used to be a big part of the routine of cruising, spread out the chart on the table after dinner had been cleared, pour another glass, and browse the possibilities for the following day... Now, that's morphed into firing up the Honda 2000 on deck, and shooting a CD from the latest season of MAD MEN into the player... (grin)

Like reading a book on Kindle as opposed to the physical object in your lap, or shooting images digitally as opposed to on film - there's nothing wrong with either means, of course.... But, that doesn't mean that they're the same...


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> As far as Rule 62, I never heard on of the causes was not that he didnt have charts laid out on the table.


I thought I'd made it clear, that's nothing but pure speculation on my part...



chef2sail said:


> Jon,
> He CHOSE to come in to shallow water where he did and he didnt have to. He could have stayed put in deep water. Hove to and gone nowhere.. an taken his lumps like everyone else did.
> 
> IMHO He like the Captain of the Bounty placed his ship in jeopardy when he had a safer choice.
> 
> .


Not sure why you're directing that at me, I believe I've been as vociferous as anyone around here, right from the start, in being critical in the decisions made aboard RULE 62 that led to that tragedy, or in pointing out the numerous superior options he had...


----------



## chef2sail

Jon...not aimed at you other than you just posted concerning it.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JonEisberg said:


> To obtain a similar degree of information that could have been gleaned from an appropriate chart 'at a glance' generally involves considerably more 'work' - in the form of zooming, panning, atc - when using electronic means...


Just like you don't have to tell your head or eyes to move to see something I do not have to tell my hand on a mouse to pan or zoom. It just does it like your head and eyes do.

That's what I am talking about.

When one is so good at a skill it becomes automatic. My skill is in computers, not paper.

You will find more like that with the texting generation. How do they text so fast? How can they be so accurate? How can the communicate so succinctly with a IQ so low?

Like driving a manual car, changing gears isn't though of, it's just done.

the future is technology that's intuitive, fast and accurate.


----------



## casey1999

If electronic charts are good enough to pilot a plane, maybe they are good enough to pilot a boat:
Airlines, FAA Chart New Course With iPads | Autopia | Wired.com


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Or a blind confidence in paper.


I guess you miss what I have said. I was talking about the position of the boat on the chart that appears on the plotter and that can be wrong. On a paper chart is you that have to put your boat where it is regarding the chart and you have also *your eyes* to do that, I mean regarding reality. If you miss that it is you that are missing not an electronic device.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

Lets get back to the OP.

More details come out of the woodwork:

CBS19 Exclusive: Nelson County Man Recounts Rescue from HMS Bounty Ship

Strange, date on article says 2011 not 2012?


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Just like you don't have to tell your head or eyes to move to see something I do not have to tell my hand on a mouse to pan or zoom. It just does it like your head and eyes do.
> 
> That's what I am talking about.
> 
> When one is so good at a skill it becomes automatic. My skill is in computers, not paper.


Well, I'm guessing maybe, just _maybe_, the captain of RULE 62 might not be quite as facile with a computer mouse or chartplotter cursor as you are...

Otherwise, he might have noticed the myriad of other options that would have been plain to see, on a chart of the Northeast Providence Channel & Approaches spread out before him...



MarkofSeaLife said:


> the future is technology that's intuitive, fast and accurate.


Not to mention, immune to something like, say, a lightning strike... (grin)

We'll just have to agree to disagree, is all... Look, I'm a big fan of electronic charting, I use it all the time... There is no better means of taking you from Point A to Point B, when you're certain Point B is definitely where you want to go... I'm simply arguing that it has certain limitations, is all... And, I imagine what happened with RULE 62 fits the scenario perfectly of what might have happened due to not having a large scale paper backup aboard...

Just my own gut instinct, nothing more... I could be wrong, of course - too bad we'll likely never know...


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Originally Posted by Minnewaska
> Southwest was clearly the one he was going for, based on the satellite tracking of the ship's position. I do believe that would be to get the wind behind him on that trip.
> 
> Which he actually said seems unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about that interview with the Capt before departure. In the interview the Capt made a circle with his thumbs and forefinger stating he wanted to take the ship into the position of his right thumb (SE part of Sandy), article said no crew questioned him. Interesting he was telling the crew he was going to take the ship into head winds and seas (while trying to go south) and no one said "hey Capt, don't you mean your left thumb" (SW part of sandy), where apparently he actually went with stern winds and waves not off the bow.
> 
> Seems no one questioned the Capt.- ever.
Click to expand...

It's a mistake to consider that interview to be "prior to departure", or having anything to do with "chasing" Sandy. It was conducted back in August, after all...

Nevertheless, his comments about the "SE quadrant" make no sense to me, in a general discussion of hurricanes... In many storms which took pronounced easterly tracks at some point - such as Lenny, or Wilma - the SE quadrant would have been one of the worst places to be... "Chasing" the SE side of a storm in order to "get a good ride" might make some conceivable/theoretical sense if sailing generally northbound, but when dealing with a storm like Sandy on a voyage south, makes no sense whatsoever...

I'm more and more inclined to believe now that the stories of the BOUNTY having previously sailed "through" 2 other hurricanes are BS, as well... In reference to the 70' seas, he mentions that once they had a hurricane "several hundred miles distant", that was sending them a very "gentle" 70' swell...

That would be utter nonsense, of course...


----------



## casey1999

I thought this was interesting:

"As 'Superstorm' Sandy brewed in the Atlantic Ocean, the ship's captain, Robin Walbridge, called the crew to the deck for a meeting.

"At that point in time, I didn't know a hurricane was coming," said Barksdale. Captain Walbridge told the crew he wouldn't blame them if they wanted to get off the ship and he wouldn't hold it against them.

"Naturally, I thought about it," Barksdale said. "But the captain had a good plan to circumvent the storm and at that point, we didn't realize the magnitude of the storm."

Citing the old saying a ship is safer at sea than at port, none of the other 15 crew members opted out either. The Bounty set sail on Thursday. Three days later, the ship sailed directly into Hurricane Sandy's path.

"I knew we were in trouble early afternoon on Sunday," Barksdale recalls. "It appeared we were taking in more water than we were pumping out."

Above from:
CBS19 Exclusive: Nelson County Man Recounts Rescue from HMS Bounty Ship


----------



## chef2sail

Jon,

IMHO I suggest you take the same stance as the to Rule 62 as to the Bounty to be consistant and not blame it on paper charts vs electrontics. It was completely the Captains decision and fault per like you have though about the Bounty.



> What I've simply tried to make clear from the outset, is my doubt that there will come to light any mitigating factors or evidence that will make his decision to depart New London when he did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, appear to be anything short of "unfathomable", or impossible to justify in terms of any reasonable Risk/Reward analysis...JonEisberg





> If anything, seems to me that most of the 'speculation' engaged in during the course of this thread has come from those who appear to be loosely "in defense of" of the captain. I have seen nothing to support the notion advanced that the BOUNTY might have been ordered to leave New London, for example - and yet, some hear have tossed that out as a potential mitigating factor... Aside from appearing purely speculative, it's a moot point, in any event. Even if the BOUNTY had been ordered to depart, Waldbridge still had many options to consider. ...JonEisberg





> Again, perhaps it's just me... But it seems as if those who believe that some mitigating factors might eventually emerge, that will justify or make the captain's decisions and actions appear reasonable, prudent, or seamanlike, are the ones who are REALLY engaging in "speculation", here... (grin) Seems rather unlikely, when it appears no one here so far can even IMAGINE a scenario in which this voyage made any real sense... ...JonEisberg


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> It's a mistake to consider that interview to be "prior to departure", or having anything to do with "chasing" Sandy. It was conducted back in August, after all...
> 
> Nevertheless, his comments about the "SE quadrant" make no sense to me, in a general discussion of hurricanes... In many storms which took pronounced easterly tracks at some point - such as Lenny, or Wilma - the SE quadrant would have been one of the worst places to be... "Chasing" the SE side of a storm in order to "get a good ride" might make some conceivable/theoretical sense if sailing generally northbound, but when dealing with a storm like Sandy on a voyage south, makes no sense whatsoever...
> 
> I'm more and more inclined to believe now that the stories of the BOUNTY having previously sailed "through" 2 other hurricanes are BS, as well... In reference to the 70' seas, he mentions that once they had a hurricane "several hundred miles distant", that was sending them a very "gentle" 70' swell...
> 
> That would be utter nonsense, of course...


According to Walbridge's wife, he has sailed in many huricanes, and she brings up the East side of the cane again? Look here:
HMS Bounty captain 'wasn't gambling' with lives, wife says | Sympatico.ca News

"In the interview, Walbridge said "you try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it - you want to stay behind it. But you'll also get a good ride out of a hurricane."

McCann said Tuesday that during the public television interview her husband was "being a little?cute, I guess."

"But he would like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fast. And he's been in many hurricanes. I mean, I can't even count the number of hurricanes he's been in."

McCann said her husband had been trying to navigate around the storm "and get on the east side of it, which is what he did do."

She said that in the weeks since the ship went down, she has learned of a series of "unfortunate circumstances" at sea, including overwhelmed pumps and generator problems.

The crew has been "extremely supportive and caring and loving" since the sinking, McCann said, adding that the first mate spoke to her about her husband's dedication to safety.

McCann said she will remember her husband as a "humble, gentle soul" who touched people's lives around the world."


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> It's a mistake to consider that interview to be "prior to departure", or having anything to do with "chasing" Sandy. It was conducted back in August, after all...
> 
> Nevertheless, his comments about the "SE quadrant" make no sense to me, in a general discussion of hurricanes... In many storms which took pronounced easterly tracks at some point - such as Lenny, or Wilma - the SE quadrant would have been one of the worst places to be... "Chasing" the SE side of a storm in order to "get a good ride" might make some conceivable/theoretical sense if sailing generally northbound, but when dealing with a storm like Sandy on a voyage south, makes no sense whatsoever...
> 
> I'm more and more inclined to believe now that the stories of the BOUNTY having previously sailed "through" 2 other hurricanes are BS, as well... In reference to the 70' seas, he mentions that once they had a hurricane "several hundred miles distant", that was sending them a very "gentle" 70' swell...
> 
> That would be utter nonsense, of course...


Jon, 
You are mistaken.

Chef, if you like "facts", you should remove the "like" on post #664.

Here is the interview, happened Oct 25, 2012 just prior to his departure into the cane:

Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald

"Capt. Robin Walbridge stood on the deck of the 180-foot wooden sailing ship Bounty on the sunny afternoon of Oct. 25. The wind was so mild that the ship had motored back to harbor after a short sail. The Bounty was tied to a city pier in New London, Conn.

Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."
The National Weather Service's marine forecast for the area described the coming confluence of systems: "HIGH PRESSURE MOVES OFFSHORE ON FRIDAY AS A COLD FRONT APPROACHES FROM THE WEST. A COASTAL STORM ASSOCIATED WITH TROPICAL CYCLONE SANDY MAY IMPACT THE AREA LATE IN THE WEEKEND AND INTO EARLY NEXT WEEK."

Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.
"He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections."


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Would that include those times when the electrons might cease flowing aboard a small boat at sea, or into her chartplotters and/or computers?
> 
> Nah, that could NEVER happen, right? (grin)
> 
> I've debated this issue at length elsewhere, no need to repeat it here... I'm simply not entirely comfortable going anyhere without a paper backup, but that's probably just me... Many people nowadays obviously feel quite comfortable doing so...
> ...


I don't think it is just you. On most European countries (the others I m not sure) you will receive a fine if inspected and will not have aboard paper charts of the region where you are sailing independently if you have or not electronic charts.

I guess this means that the ones that are responsible in Europe for security in what regards pleasure boating consider that paper charts are indispensable at least as a back up, probably because as you have pointed out, electronics can get out of order or you can have no energy to run them.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Jon,
> 
> IMHO I suggest you take the same stance as the to Rule 62 as to the Bounty to be consistant and not blame it on paper charts vs electrontics. It was completely the Captains decision and fault per like you have though about the Bounty.


JFC, what the hell do I have to do to convince you I am in complete AGREEMENT on that? (grin)

Please, go back and read my posts in the RULE 62 thread, if you have any doubts...

My only point is that I believe it is highly likely that his overconfidence in the accuracy of electronic position fixing and charting CONTRIBUTED to his decision to enter that cut...

I see this all the time now in the Bahamas... The Explorer Charts are now considered to be so accurate, that many cruisers now feel increasingly EMBOLDENED do things like piloting The Devil's Backbone in poor light, or traveling after dark... 20 years ago, if he'd been relying on the sketch charts in The Yachtsman's Guide to the Bahamas - where the piloting directions for that cut might have read something akin to "when the small casuarina on the north end of Lynyard cay forms a range with the red-roofed shack on...", there is no freakin' way he would have considered that passage at night, during a rage...

(But, hell - back in the days pre-GPS, he wouldn't have been doing the 1500 to begin with... For that matter, without GPS, would there even BE a Caribbean 1500 Cattle Drive today? (grin))

The skipper is absolutely, completely responsible for an egregiously poor decision of seamanship, for which he will have to bear the tragic consequences for the rest of his life...

I'm simply saying that such a decision was not made in a vacuum, and that perhaps something like having once seen his computer navigation software having placed his boat IN HIS PRECISE SLIP in his marina on Google Earth likely led him to believe such a cut was navigable in those conditions...

All he had to do was keep the little boat icon on the dotted line...


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> I don't think it is just you. On most European countries (the others I m not sure) you will receive a fine if inspected and will not have aboard paper charts of the region where you are sailing independently if you have or not electronic charts.


It's no different down here... and there have always been paper charts in use on the bridges of every commercial ship I've visited both here and in Asia.

It's also my understanding that most (all?) commercial shipping companies require their crews to mark their position on a paper chart every hour for legal reasons... and I'd be very surprised to hear a supposedly experienced seaman like Wallbridge wasn't doing the same thing on HMS Bounty.


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> I'm simply saying that such a decision was not made in a vacuum, and that perhaps something like having once seen his computer navigation software having placed his boat IN HIS PRECISE SLIP in his marina on Google Earth likely led him to believe such a cut was navigable in those conditions...
> 
> All he had to do was keep the little boat icon on the dotted line...


FWIW, one of Australia's mopst experienced yachtsmen lost his boat (Shockwave), his life and the life of a crewmate also on a small rocky outcrop on a dark night off Woolongong doing exactly the same thing.

So there you go. It's a trap.. and the best of us can fall into it, no matter where you are in the world. Be careful out there.


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Jon,
> You are mistaken.
> 
> Chef, if you like "facts", you should remove the "like" on post #664.
> 
> Here is the interview, happened Oct 25, 2012 just prior to his departure into the cane:
> 
> Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> "Capt. Robin Walbridge stood on the deck of the 180-foot wooden sailing ship Bounty on the sunny afternoon of Oct. 25. The wind was so mild that the ship had motored back to harbor after a short sail. The Bounty was tied to a city pier in New London, Conn.
> 
> Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."
> The National Weather Service's marine forecast for the area described the coming confluence of systems: "HIGH PRESSURE MOVES OFFSHORE ON FRIDAY AS A COLD FRONT APPROACHES FROM THE WEST. A COASTAL STORM ASSOCIATED WITH TROPICAL CYCLONE SANDY MAY IMPACT THE AREA LATE IN THE WEEKEND AND INTO EARLY NEXT WEEK."
> 
> Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections."


My apologies, you are correct, of course... your link shows the infamous YouTube video in Belfast right under the headline, I had THAT one on the brain, obviously...

Still, this nonsense about getting to the SE side of a storm 800+ miles wide is just that... Or, he obviously changed his mind between that interview, and the setting of a course as soon as he cleared Rhode Island Sound to a point between Hatteras, and Sandy's projected track at the time...


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> My only point is that I believe it is highly likely that his overconfidence in the accuracy of electronic position fixing and charting CONTRIBUTED to his decision to enter that cut...
> 
> ......


It is unacceptable that he had tried that at night without being able to have a complete idea of the sea conditions, that is clear. But there is another point that I don't know if it was check out: Doing that at night he was surely relying completely on the plotter and the boat position on the electronic chart. Anybody had checked if the position of the boat on the electronic chart was accurate on that particular place?

There are some places where a considerable difference can be observed and I can tell you that is quite confusing. We are so used to have reliable data from the plotter than when it is obviously wrong there are a split second of fright before we take things on hand again. It happened late September on the entry of Lefkas channel when obviously the position of the boat on the electronic chart was incorrect. I had no problems and the dept was enough, even for mine considerable draft, but there have been an incredibly number of boats aground and I believe it has to do with people following the plotter, no matter what.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> According to Walbridge's wife, he has sailed in many huricanes, and she brings up the East side of the cane again? Look here:
> HMS Bounty captain 'wasn't gambling' with lives, wife says | Sympatico.ca News
> 
> ...
> 
> "But he would like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fast. And he's been in many hurricanes. I mean, I can't even count the number of hurricanes he's been in."


Yeah, right...



> McCann said her husband had been trying to navigate around the storm "and get on the east side of it, which is what he did do."


Is she referring to a snowstorm in the midwest at that time, or something?


----------



## Capt.aaron

I gotta chime in on this paper chart bizzness. You have to have paper charts on board and be proficaint in their use. Period. Yes we use them still in the wheel house on commercial vessels, even cruise ships. The computer plotters are neat and handy. I think most of them have a disclaimer " not for use as a primary navigation tool" or something. What did Joe say " One lightening strike" You may think your laying out a line and getting all the info, but your not. Paper isn't a throw back or nostalgic, it's how it's done. Newbie after newbie is skipping the essential step of learning how to navigate and using a computer. It's true computers are here to stay and may even take over the world someday, but if you are out there on the ocean navigating, you need to have paper on board. I don't have any doubt the Bounty was marking their position every hour on a chart. He surley knew where he was. It so reminds me of the Pride. This " I go faster when it's wicked windy sh!t" It's that racer sailor crap popping up again, I'm not gonna go there, but lives. Lives are being lost due to ego's making descisions and young fool's having mis guided confidence in the wrong leaders and blindly following them to sea. I wish I wish I was crewing on that damned boat, there would have been another mutiny on the Bounty and two people would be alive today.


----------



## TakeFive

HeartsContent said:


> Certifications and regulations are designed as barrier to entry and protect those already there from competition. Not to mention that there is a lot of money in running certification programs.
> 
> Competence is derived from experience and can easily be verified by references.


While it is hypothetically possible to use certifications as a barrier to entry, and it may even happen in a few areas of specialty, it's absurd to suggest that this is their primary purpose. I think your extreme cynicism is distorting your view of reality here.

And references are not so easily verified these days. Due to fear over defamation lawsuits, many employers absolutely refuse to provide anything more than a verification of dates of employment. My employer has a special hot line set up just for that, and we're not allowed to say anything besides giving out the phone number.

I continue to insist that education means something. I know that book smarts alone isn't enough - you need practical experience be be truly competent (Malcolm Gladwell argues that it takes 10,000 hours in most fields). But you need both.

In the US's politically hyper-partisan environment, it has become fashionable for some to try to discount the importance of degrees and certifications by scornfully referring to educated people as "elites." Don't let yourself get caught up in that. Any time I fly on a plane, hop on a ferry, or get on a train, I want my pilot/captain/engineer to have both the book smarts AND the practical experience to keep me safe. I can't check references myself, so I want there to be a system in place to ensure that the people responsible for the safety of large numbers of people are fully qualified.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Listen, At the level of Captain we are discussing, ships the size of the Bounty, it's not a certification, It's an MMD. Or Credential, Mercahnt Marine Document. You can not qualify to test until you have documented years of experience. Not years on a calander, years between the sticks, years of on the job training, documented time. Only then can you test for the ticket, it's sea time coupled with school, exams and scrutiny,


----------



## chef2sail

> You can not qualify to test until you have documented years of experience. Captain Aaron


Of course that kind of credentials requires years of experience. Which Captain Walbridge had. And tell me how did that work out for him. . Experience doesnt gaurentee good decisions or does it? If his experience was one of running hurricanes as was posted on here ( not sure if its a fact or not), and he was successfull running hurricanes, did his experience give hin a false sense of security in them?

If experience leads to good decisions why do I see some people give advice on here to newcomers who want to take a 25 ft boat with no experience to the carribean and beyond and tell them to follow thier dream, that the rest of us are too cautious.


----------



## Capt.aaron

I posted earlier that there are a ton of dip sh!ts running boat's out there all the way up to unlimited tonnage. The fact is, a good seaworthy boat can carry a sailor to the caribbean from Fla. with a fairly small amount of experience and a lot of common sense. I'm an advocate of smart people with the right attitude seeking adventure on the sea with the right hull and equipment, forthought and weather outlook. I get mad at this "I like running in a Huricane, I sail faster" attitude. If that is the mind set, one should do it alone and not with a ship full of trusting soul's. It's frustrating even in the commercial world where you need all these endorsements to get the job when you know you have the chop's. There are job's I want but I need 1080 day's running as 200 mate before I qualify for my 500 ton even though I know I'm ready now. And there are dudes who are doing the job that have the time but not the chop's. I tell people out there all the time to get the skill's before they bring the people. I poked the Bounty with my nuckle 10 years ago when they where anchored in Key West, I was giving the crew rides to shore in my Harbour launch, it was soft and they were in a hurry to cover rot with house paint. The crew said they would'nt want to actually go to sea in the boat but they liked the training and nostalgia of the experience. I don't care what the Captains tonage was, he a had false confidence in his and the ships ability, un like that dude who got the bad rap for his seamanship in the perfect storm, was it a Tahiti Ketch? that rolled and despite his protest the coast guard insisted on rescue and one coastie died trying, only with the boat to found un harmed a few day's later. More ar less what happened, anyway's I know for sure the Lisence isn't a 100% of what one should used to evaluate a persons qualification, just look at the kid's these acadamy's pop out, and as soon as they get out there they realize it takes a lot more than good testing skill's to make it, the culture is harsh as well as the enviroment. I stand by my advice to those gifted with the common sense and desire to sail off in a seaworthy vessel, in the right conditions. I also want people to understand these Credentials in the bigger tonnage boats's are'nt handed out overnight in a safe boater class with a cartoon bobber as a mascot on the text pamplet cover. I say again that it is astounding that dude's meet the criteria and still come out stupid on the other side as well. But they do.


----------



## kjango

An old guy told me something years & years ago & I always remembered it. " You can't bulls#$t the ocean."


----------



## Capt.aaron

kjango said:


> An old guy told me something years & years ago & I always remembered it. " You can't bulls#$t the ocean."


Another one I was told while crewing on a ship simular to the Bounty in size years ago " The sea is the great master who will accept no bad art"


----------



## Capt.aaron

Sal Paradise said:


> "Capt. Robin Walbridge stood on the deck of the 180-foot wooden sailing ship Bounty _on the sunny afternoon of Oct. 25._ The wind was so mild that the ship had motored back to harbor after a short sail. The Bounty was tied to a city pier in New London, Conn.
> 
> Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty _would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night _instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."
> 
> Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections."
> 
> Comment - not a lot of @#!*% time for a crew member to decide to leave the ship, a couple hours at most - and with a sense of loyalty towards each other, the storm still days away and the belief that the Captain would know what to do. Well, I can see how they decided to go, with such little time to consider the danger, they stuck together and went.


That's understanable. If only they had put the solidarity of the ship above the solidarity of the crew. Mates are on boat's to be a sounding board for the captain. A good mate say's, "hey wait a minuet Cap. That sounds risky" or "did you take this in to consideration." I just hope future schooner crew's Remember the mistakes and complacancy of the Pride of Baltiomore and now the Bounty, and stand up to their captain's ego and lust for "sailing Fast" like the weeeeeee of a kid on carnival ride or the ignorance and greed of the home office deciders on the Phantom. There is no doubt in my mind, if I were the mate on the Bounty, And I have the credentails, I'd stopped that guy from trying to out run that storm, I've done it in the past in Hugo ( and we did sink at the dock in P.R.) but not at sea. I was perparing to engage in sabbotage in order to keep the boat in harbour if my pleas's had not been headed. Hopefully the schooner community has learned this time, because there still seems to be a few nuckle heads running some of them out there.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> .....Comment - not a lot of damn time for a crew member to decide to leave the ship, a couple hours at most - and with a sense of loyalty towards each other, the storm still days away and the belief that the Captain would know what to do. Well, I can see how they decided to go, with such little time to consider the danger, they stuck together and went.


I'm betting a round of drinks that this is exactly what happened and why the Capt will own this calamity.

Double or nothing says the Captain had in fact been other storms and became complacent in his decision making.


----------



## chef2sail

And the Captain bashing keeps rolling on........we know he is to blame.[

Its like beating a dead horse.


----------



## xymotic

how is the Captain possibly not to blame? The ONLY scenario I can see is that he got a weather forecast that said it would be sunshine and rainbows and he believed it.

Otherwise, it is his fault, period.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> And the Captain *bashing* keeps rolling on........we know he is to blame.[
> 
> ..


Bashing is a harsh, *gratuitous, prejudicial attack* on a person, group or subject. Literally, bashing is a term meaning to hit or assault, but when it is used as a suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply that the act is motivated by *bigotry*....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative)

Dave, no one is bashing the Captain. When you say that there are people bashing the Captain you are insulting those persons. A person that bashes somebody in a gratuitous attack motivated by bigotry is an ugly and depictable person and I don't believe that apply to any of those involved in this discussion.

No one is moved by bigotry here.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.aaron

chef2sail said:


> And the Captain bashing keeps rolling on........we know he is to blame.[
> 
> Its like beating a dead horse.


Well.. ya... jeez.. ya know... It's a dead horse, But hopefully picking it a part, examining his errors and the errors of those before him, that made tragically irresponsable decisions, the rest of the herd can avoid future catastrophy's. Blame is a normal and healthy part of the process.


----------



## chef2sail

> Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group or subject. Literally, bashing is a term meaning to hit or assault, but when it is used as a suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply that the act is motivated by bigotry....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative)
> 
> Dave, no one is bashing the Captain. When you say that there are people bashing the Captain you are insulting those persons. A person that bashes somebody in a gratuitous attack motivated by bigotry is an ugly and depictable person and I don't believe that apply to any of those involved in this discussion.
> 
> No one is moved by bigotry here.-PCP


Gee Wizz Paulo,

In your* haste to jump on what I say*and to go after me please read the dictionary next time. *NO ONE IMPLIED ANY BIGOTRY EXCEPT YOU*. I certainly didnt



> to attack physically or *verbally*


-Websters Dictionary



> *To criticize (another) harshly*, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair" (Lally Weymouth).


I used the King's English here correctly my friend.

Captain Aaron,

There are many lessons I think which will come out. The one which is so apparent was the Captains setting sail into a storm. No one disagrees with his responsibility on here that I can see.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Yes indeed, I supose I did nothing more than point out the obvious.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Gee Wizz Paulo,
> 
> In your* haste to jump on what I say*and to go after me please read the dictionary next time. *NO ONE IMPLIED ANY BIGOTRY EXCEPT YOU*. I certainly didnt
> 
> .....


Dave, I am here to attack nobody but to enjoy and learn. You keep saying people are bashing a dead captain. I find that awful, I mean bashing a dead man and I resent you say that there are some doing that. Probably you did not wanted to say that, but then it is to you to say that you did not mean to say somebody (or some) were bashing here a dead Captain.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

No Captain Aaron...it was your first post concerning the incident. We have some who post the same thing about the Captain over and over again. Its not you. Your posts are usually right on and succinct.


----------



## Capt.aaron

chef2sail said:


> No Captain Aaron...it was your first post concerning the incident. We have some who post the same thing about the Captain over and over again. Its not you. Your posts are usually right on and succinct.


Thank you and yes. I try to find a balance between speaking my mind and not offending ( quite difficult but getting easier) Just for sh!t's and giggles what was my first post on the incident? I tried to read back but everything I read was spot on and elequent:laugher so I failed to see the prompt to mention with anything but praise.


----------



## JulieMor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Or a blind confidence in paper.


Or blind confidence that navigational aids are actually there. Case in point: Chart says 55' lighted tower. When you arrive there you see a 55 gallon drum painted fluorescent orange. The Bahamian Harbor Master says, "Oh that tower! It blew down in a storm years ago so we put a 55 gallon drum in it's place." 

No big deal. It only marked the entry into the harbor on which either side sat shallow shoals that would ground any boat with a draft of 3' or less.


----------



## Capt.aaron

JulieMor said:


> Or blind confidence that navigational aids are actually there. Case in point: Chart says 55' lighted tower. When you arrive there you see a 55 gallon drum painted fluorescent orange. The Bahamian Harbor Master says, "Oh that tower! It blew down in a storm years ago so we put a 55 gallon drum in it's place."
> 
> No big deal. It only marked the entry into the harbor on which either side sat shallow shoals that would ground any boat with a draft of 3' or less.


Aids to navigation are notorious for breaking, and  disappearing. Especially outside the states. But they are just that, aid's. I looked for the green flasher off the north end Of Isla Mujeres till sunrise the first time I sailed there. it had been broken since Gilbert. I assume they are'nt there and and rejoice when they are, but I alway's know where I am on paper.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> The Bahamian Harbor Master says, "Oh that tower! It blew down in a storm years ago so we put a 55 gallon drum in it's place." .


Those Bahamians are fun.

They probably took the 55 gal drum from another shipping channel.



In the Caribbean at a swap meet I was trying to sell my last remaining paper charts and I had one of the island we were on.... These two, youngish, fishermen were looking at it, pouring over it, like they had never seen one before. They obviously couldn't afford it, i think i was asking $5 for it, but I couldn't give it to them as they were proud, so I sold it to them for a dollar. And they said they fished there all their lives and had never seen the chart. They carried it round the whole market like it was gold. 

It was a magic moment.


----------



## PCP

The Bounty accident on the Italian Nautical press:

"Affondamento della replica del Bounty: dubbi sul comandante

In molti si chiedono perché il comandante del Bounty abbia portato la sua nave nel mezzo dell'uragano Sandy

Raleigh, North Caroline (USA) - In molti si chiedono perché il comandante della replica del Bounty, il veliero protagonista del famoso ammutinamento, Robin Walbridge, morto nel naufragio della sua nave il 29 ottobre scorso, abbia deciso di prendere il mare nonostante l'arrivo dell'uragano Sandy fosse sicuro e la sua forza già prevista?

La risposta in parte si trova sulla pagina di Facebook del veliero, dove Walbridge, che ormai si trovava in mezzo alla tempesta, ha scritto: " Questo viaggio del Bounty è una decisione calcolata... non c'è mancanza di lungimiranza o irresponsabilità, come alcuni hanno suggerito. Una nave, quando c'è burrasca, è più sicura in mare che in porto".

Probabilmente è questa convinzione che ha portato il comandante del Bounty a uscire in mare nonostante le pessime previsioni meteorologiche.
Walbridge era convinto di poter aggirare l'uragano, ma molti suoi colleghi hanno dichiarato che era una convinzione assurda, l'estensione e la potenza di Sandy era tale da non lasciare alcuna speranza di poterlo aggirare.

Dopo più di un giorno passato nella tempesta scatenata dall'uragano a 90 miglia a largo di Cape Hatteras, il Bounty ha cominciato a fare acqua al ritmo di 60 centimetri all'ora. Una quantità gestibile su di una nave da 60 metri modernamente attrezzata, nonostante fosse concepita come un veliero del 700.

.......

Il comandante Walbridge, aveva 63 anni ed erano 17 anni che comandava la nave. La famiglia del comandante Robin Walbridge lo chiama eroe per aver voluto salvare il suo equipaggio prima della sua stessa vita, come in effetti il comandante ha fatto.

Se, però, l'inchiesta appurerà che Walbridge ha preso una decisione irresponsabile portando la nave in mare e andando a navigare verso la zona d'influenza di Sandy, invece di rimanere nella zona di Hallifax, dove la nave avrebbe potuto attendere il passaggio dell'uragano, passerà alla storia per aver ucciso se stesso, un membro del proprio equipaggio e perso la sua nave."

Naufragi: Affondamento della replica del Bounty: dubbi sul comandante

If you don't read Italian you can run it through google translator but it is much what have been said here.

....


----------



## JulieMor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Those Bahamians are fun.
> 
> They probably took the 55 gal drum from another shipping channel.


:laugher I like that because it's probably true!

When we were over there, we anchored off a beach where there were a lot of people. We took the dinghy in and and beached it. The kids, who were pretty young at the time, loved it. It was great for me because so much of the water was so shallow off the beach. No sudden drop offs!

I was in the water, maybe shin deep, with my two youngest when suddenly I heard a man yell, "Shark!" I looked about 200 feet away and saw a small dorsal fin. The water was so clear I could see it easily. It was about a 3-4 foooter. The kids froze then the Bahamian man ran out into the water towards the shark, yelling at it, trying to shoo it away.

Yeah, they are fun!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> The water was so clear I could see it easily. !












Clearest water close to islands I've seen.


----------



## PCP

Interesting editorial on gCaptain. I guess they take a general position that is not very agreeable to amateurs but then perhaps it is good to remember the time this thread took to align with the views they had from the beginning about Bounty's Captain actions in what regard the best strategies to deal with an Hurricane or the need to wait for an investigation to know if the Captain was to blame or not.

BY ROB ALMEIDA ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012 (Rob Almeida is partner and CMO of Unofficial Networks and an editor of gCaptain.com. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5 years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer.)

"The Disconnect Between Professional Mariners and Recreational Boaters over the Bounty Tragedy.

Ever since the Bounty sank off Cape Hatteras last week a fiery online debate has literally raged.

It's a tragic event that pretty much everyone who has ever spent any time at all on the ocean has an opinion on. HMS Bounty's Facebook page, gCaptain's Facebook page, the Woodenboat Forum, the Trawler Forum, and of course gCaptain have been a few of the focal points for this unfolding story. None have pulled punches, although a few days ago the Bounty's Facebook page moderators removed the ability for people to comment on their page due to an influx of critical comments.

Nowhere on the internet however, has more criticism been raised of this event than the gCaptain Forum. With over 20,000 members from around the world, this forum has essentially grown to become the social media platform for the professional maritime industry. And when it comes to seamanship, you better believe they have an opinion and are unafraid to share it with you.

Steamer, a gCaptain Forum Member, brought up an interesting comment today about the disconnect between the professional community and the recreational community that I thought deserved particular highlight. Here's what he posted:....

If nothing else this whole Bounty affair is showing us that there really is a gulf between the recreational (including the TSC) hobbyist and the professional mariner. These guys are really really scary, a lot scarier than I ever believed they were. I think this storm has opened a few eyes but unfortunately it seems to have driven some of the survivors into a deeper defensive position, from fear or just embarrassment I don't know."

http://gcaptain.com/author/rob/
....


----------



## Minnewaska

Just to be sure I'm not missing something. TSC stands for?


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> And the Captain bashing keeps rolling on........we know he is to blame.[
> 
> Its like beating a dead horse.


Chef,

You may choose not to, but I would ask if you would indulge me in an example of any scenario where the Captain won't take the full blame here.

I would defend you against any that would argue you are suggesting such an example was what happened. I'm just trying to understand your point of view that something from the investigation could soften the overwhelming criticism of the Captain over the loss of life.

If you prefer not to, I understand.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> Just to be sure I'm not missing something. TSC stands for?


Tall ships community.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Just says there is a divide, doesnt say what the divide it?

Are the Pros saying: think nothing till the Coast Guard report comes out? Or are the pros saysing sail on into hurricanes?

Are the recreational boaters all of the same mind? Reading our threads it doesnt seem so.


----------



## Minnewaska

PCP said:


> Tall ships community.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


So they are lumping the Tall Ship Community into the recreational boating community and drawing a distinction from professional mariners.

However, I'm not entirely clear how they are stereotyping the two camps.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> So they are lumping the Tall Ship Community into the recreational boating community and drawing a distinction from professional mariners.
> 
> However, I'm not entirely clear how they are stereotyping the two camps.


I agree that they are drawing steorotypes and as all sterotypes they are unfair to many.

I guess their main distinction in what regards professional mariners has to so how risks are viewed.

Regarding recreational boating I would say that even to me some things that are looked as normal to our community or some feats that are looked as great seamanship look to me just foolish things. I give you some example:

Guys that cross oceans and even circumnavigate with small children aboard or guys that cross oceans, go offshore in small old boats, many times knowing very little about sailing or sail for pleasure at high latitudes. Most of these guys are not looked by the sailing pleasure community as risky guys that not only risk their lives as the lives of their crews and the ones that are going to save them, but as guys that are doing the real thing, living the dream.

I am quite sure they are looked by the professional mariners as lunatics that should be prevented to put their feet on a boat.

Some examples:
















Not always those dreams have an happy end but what makes the news is when they survive, not when they die.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

I would have thought the professional would consider the recreational community to be..... less professional. If less professional translates to high risk taking, I'm still confused by the fact that almost the entire recreational community is vilifying the Bounty for taking this risk. 

Hard to follow.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnie,

I am not of the opinion that the Captain should not take full blame for *HIS *actions of sailing into the hurricane so I cant come up with an alternative scenarios. I will restate my belief for the 50th time * HE IS REPSONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS FULLY *.

Somehow when I, and others, have asked that we dont not rush to judjement on all of the factors which led to the sinking a few have construed that meant that we didnt hold the Captain responsible. I can only speak for myself and I do hold him responsible. Not sure why that gets lumped into defending him.

I do think there are other individuals and other factors which also contributed to this sinking and if ignored will prevent this incident from becoming a TRUE learning experience and the full impartial investigation of the sinking will lead to other contributory factors. This in turn may lead to other regulations or procedures to improve the odds of this not reoccuring. I beleive that is the purpose.

Continued focusing on the captain and bashing him ( a point to which there is no dissagreement) has become just a restatement of the same information and IMHO is beating a dead horse.

*What is the lesson we learn from this tradgedy from those of you beleive that this Captain is the ONLY reason for the sinking*.

Can any of you propose here* concrete specific *remedies and corrections here which will prevent a Captain from sailing his ship into a hurricane again?

If we dont LEARN from this experience it will for sure be repeated again. It is one thing to continually criticise things....anyone can do that. I have huge respect for anyone identify an issue and then who can propose actual remedies which will prevent this from reoccuring, which is the purpose of LEARNING.


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> I would have thought the professional would consider the recreational community to be..... less professional. If less professional translates to high risk taking, I'm still confused by the fact that almost the entire recreational community is vilifying the Bounty for taking this risk.
> 
> Hard to follow.


Yes, I agree it's hard to follow. Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any difference between the criticisms he's getting from pros or amateurs. For the pros to suggest that there's a difference sounds a little elitist to me. Almost sounds like they're saying that, in lieu of actual facts, their speculation is more accurate than amateurs' speculation. And it might actually be more accurate, given their greater experience, but it's still speculation. That's why I'm waiting to hear more facts from the USCG investigation.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Minnewaska said:


> I would have thought the professional would consider the recreational community to be..... less professional. If less professional translates to high risk taking, I'm still confused by the fact that almost the entire recreational community is vilifying the Bounty for taking this risk.
> 
> Hard to follow.


The commercial marine transportation world see's anything that's not driven by 6000 HP as recreational. Anything with stick's as pleasure And dudes that sail off shore as ninkapoops. The scuttle but in the wheel houses I frequent are calling the Bounty a sensless, tragic, and down right stupid move.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> I would have thought the professional would consider the recreational community to be..... less professional. If less professional translates to high risk taking, I'm still confused by the fact that almost the entire recreational community is vilifying the Bounty for taking this risk.
> 
> Hard to follow.


If you go to the beginning of this thread you would find many that thought that the Captain attitude was acceptable because a ship is safer at sea than in a port or because the captain was an experienced sailor that had sailed in worst weather, because the ship was able to stand to the conditions and so on, or that an investigation was needed to see if the Captain was to blame or not.

It took a long time and I would say many opinions of professional tall ship captains and professional mariners to reach a consensus that the Captain was irresponsible in sailing out if Port and face an Hurricane, not going away from it but sailing to its pass.

The same happened in other internet boating forums and on the Bounty facebook page were not only the Bounty members but many other posted nonsense about an heroic captain that was not to blame.

Professional mariners, from Tall ship Captains or expressed on gCaptain forum were very clear from the beginning seeing the Bounty's Captain decision as an irresponsible one. Even their views posted on this forum were initially subjected to harsh criticism.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> So they are lumping the Tall Ship Community into the recreational boating community and drawing a distinction from professional mariners.
> 
> However, I'm not entirely clear how they are stereotyping the two camps.


I had a scan through their stuff and I didn't see any reference to the small boat recreational community.

What I did see a lot of and it's an area that we haven't discussed because it doesn't really concern us, is the commercial shipping industry thinks the tall ships are evading government regulations and government safety inspections because they call unpaid volunteers, or unpaid people who pay for the privilege to be crew. The shipping industry thinks unpaid, or people paying to be crew are passengers. If they are passengers then its a commercial passenger ship and subject to much more stringent safety inspections.

They have a good point. However, we haven't been discussing that as we have more been into the what's right or wrong to do in certain types of weather etc.

Another thing that's popped up in the professional forum is the thought that tall ship regular crews are a particular type of seaman (sea person)... Long hair tied in pony tail, canvas trousers and bare feet, perhaps bordering on political and environmental views that differ from many other people.
That is a bit of a call.... But kinda correct too, from observation.
One could not expect some tall ship type crew getting a job on a container ship, not that they would want it.
That feeling seems to be coupled with thoughts that some tall ships captains have a stronger 'cult' type personality that projects above the necessity to have maintained bilge pumps etc.

So yes, it's interesting to read the gCaptain forum. They are all quite good posts, well, mostly  just subjects that don't really,concern our take on the Bounty sinking.

There is one point of close similarity... They are putting a fair bit of the responsibility on the Captain. As recreational forums have done too.

Mark


----------



## chef2sail

What are the particular liscences Robin Walbridge had?
What are Captain Walbridges past experience,vessels he served on?
What disqualifies him from being a professional captain?
Are there 20,000 professional captains in the world?
What qualifications and professional checks do people who want to join the 
social blog gCaptain have to undergo?
Is gCaptain really a professional organization or just another social media internet blog 
site?

For instance ( I am not singling you out Minnie).. CAPA is a professional organization
for airline pilots ( my slip neighbor and best friend is a long time United Airlines
International Pilot) amd we were discussing this leats night in terms of lobbys.
ThirtyThousandFeet has a myriad of blogs concerning airplanes and airlines.

One is a professional organization of pilots which obvious qualifications ( and they are vetted) to post on...the other is a social media site which anyone can join and post on and can make up their credentials

gCaptain is what? a professional organziation with vetted credentials? or is a soicial media bloig site.

My point is here that when weighing statements, facts, and opinons to take into consideration the source. Thats all.


----------



## Capt.aaron

I was crew aboard a Tallship for 4 years, I ran around barefooted, wearing canvas pants cut off at the knee, climbed the rig in a blow with out a harness, and a knife in my teeth to deal with hung lines, sang sea shanty's as we actually walked around a capstain. I was paid all though not well. Actually I paid for the first 9 months as a student and was subsequently hired. Now I work on a commercial ocean tug, I must wear steel toe boot's a hard hat and work vest, Long pants and a blue collar shirt with an american flag patch on the sleeve. I must continue training and up grading my credentials and I am under a lot of scrutiny by my employer and the Coast Guard to work safe, paricipate in drill's and stay sober etc. In my free time I saill off shore in my 28 foot sloop or deliver other peoples, from the Key's to Honduras, Columbia, Where ever. The Captains I worked under on the Tall ship were incredably competant, they had just come from Antarctica when I joined.The Captains I work with now can handle a boat and make responsable decisions. My point is I have a pretty good insight to both culture's and some how fall inbetween. Captains are the first to call another captain a ding-aling when they make a poor decision, they should know.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Minnie,
> 
> I am not of the opinion that the Captain should not take full blame for *HIS *actions of sailing into the hurricane so I cant come up with an alternative scenarios. I will restate my belief for the 50th time * HE IS REPSONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS FULLY *.


This is the part that still seems to mystify. If we are in agreement that the Captain is fully responsible and we know that one of his crew lost their life, I don't understand why its repetition is anything other than expected. That's the i



> *What is the lesson we learn from this tradgedy from those of you beleive that this Captain is the ONLY reason for the sinking*.


Complacency will kill you or your crew or both. Failing to personally consider others decisions, even if from a really nice guy/captain who lived through danger before, could get you killed.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Capt.aaron said:


> My point is I have a pretty good insight to both culture's and some how fall inbetween.


In your opinion, in which type of employment is their least chance of injury?

Is commercial tug crew much better paid, vastly better, or just a bit better?

Last question: pony tail when you were on tall ships?


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> If you go to the beginning of this thread you would find many that thought that the Captain attitude was acceptable because a ship is safer at sea than in a port or because the captain was an experienced sailor that had sailed in worst weather...


There was never anything of the sort posted on this thread. Maybe YOU should go back and reread. When you find something, post it here.


PCP said:


> ...or that an investigation was needed to see if the Captain was to blame or not...


Are you saying that no investigation is needed? That the USCG will be wasting their time? Why don't you call them and suggest that - I'm sure they'll be open to your opinions. :laugher

As we have told you, over and over, those of us who are interested in the investigation are not suggesting that the captain is not to blame. I believe that competent captains don't just suddenly lose their judgement. There are external factors that lead to their incorrect judgements, and we can learn from what the investigation reveals about those external factors. USCG will want to know whether their enforcement procedures could have helped prevent it. We all will benefit from an investigation.

It really is getting tiring to hear you constantly misquote us and attempt to mislead others about what we are saying. You often have useful things to contribute to this forum, but on this message thread you have passed the point of diminishing returns.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> What are the particular liscences Robin Walbridge had?
> What are Captain Walbridges past experience,vessels he served on?
> What disqualifies him from being a professional captain?
> Are there 20,000 professional captains in the world?
> What qualifications and professional checks do people who want to join the
> social blog gCaptain have to undergo?
> Is gCaptain really a professional organization or just another social media internet blog
> site?
> 
> ....
> One is a professional organization of pilots which obvious qualifications ( and they are vetted) to post on...the other is a social media site which anyone can join and post on and can make up their credentials
> 
> gCaptain is what? a professional organziation with vetted credentials? or is a soicial media bloig site.
> 
> My point is here that when weighing statements, facts, and opinons to take into consideration the source. Thats all.


 Captain Robin Walbridge was a professional Captain and had a 1600-ton license. Regarding his experience :

..he secured his 50-ton license while working on the Miller houseboats on the Suwanee River in Florida where he was the field mechanic for five years....He went on to work on the Governor Stone in Apalachicola, Florida as Captain, conducting day sail programs, and crew training programs for the operation of the vessel. It was here he earned his 100-ton license....Robin moved on to HMS Rose in 1993 as First and Second mate and went on to obtain his 500-ton Captain's license. He continued to work with youth sail training programs, developing programs for trainees along the eastern seaboard and Great Lakes. In 1995, he obtained his 1600-ton license.

Enter HMS Bounty in 1995.

TallShipBounty.org

Regarding gCaptain forum is not a Captain's forum. They say about it:

With over 20,000 members from around the world, this forum has essentially grown to become the social media platform for the professional maritime industry.

It is an open forum but the ones that are members are the ones that are related with the maritime industry, including professional sailors and captains. You don't need to be a member to access to each member profile and see its maritime qualifications and their professional story. I did.

gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

rergards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.aaron

Industry vs. Tallship life.
Both can be incredably dangerous, On the Tugs dudes get cut in half by wires under load and 4 inch lines snapping, and overboard's. We lost a captain this year, they hope he fell overboard any way's. it's a rough bunch. 

A schooner kid died in Key West this year, he fell from the mast head. 
( his girfriend was on the smart end of the hoist and let him go.) 

We are paid very well in the industry, the pay is crap on the schooners. I cut my own hair with dull scissors on the tall ship, kind of a spikey mess with shackle grease as hair gel. Now I shave it with clippers but I did get a tattoo on my head when I was on the tallship and it's still there.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> There was never anything of the sort posted on this thread. Maybe YOU should go back and reread. When you find something, post it here.


Just on the first 3 pages or so :

*They were on passage from Canada to Florida, and they had left Canada before Sandy was even a tic on NHC's radar. They detoured WELL east of the storm track,
...
They really weren't being that crazy and conditions where they are aren't so horrible.
&#8230;
It doesn't seem like 18' seas should have been too much for a boat of that size. Sounds like she opened up some seams and pumps couldn't keep up with it. ..There may be no fault other than inadequate pump capability or lack of bottom maintenance.
&#8230;.
Many larger vessels (including navy ships, cruise ships) put to sea for hurricanes since they are more likely to be damaged or sunk in harbour. I suspect the HMS Bounty was somewhere in the projected landfall area of Sandy and was trying to get south to safer water...damned if you do and damned if you don't.
&#8230;.
That totally made sense, then, given Sandy's predicted impacts in NY and New England, that they'd be safer at sea than in port. They ssailed out due east to get well clear of the storm before continuing south.
*



TakeFive said:


> ..
> 
> Are you saying that no investigation is needed? That the USCG will be wasting their time? Why don't you call them and suggest that - I'm sure they'll be open to your opinions. :laugher
> 
> .


Regarding an investigation, of course it is necessary, no to access Captain's blame into deliberately sailing a XVIII century designed wooden ship on the path of an hurricane but to understand how can this can have happened and to prevent that it will never happen again.

regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Paulo,

Well I am a memeber of gCaptain and certainly not a professional. Its a social media site and I would not want to quote from it or pass it off as the " authority or on professional captains anymore tha Sailnet is>

Also your reporting from the social media site is not even handed and there is a much differening opinions on the site as on Sailnet.

NOTE: This does not mean I am defending the captains actions.

For isnstance the follwoing psoted on gCaptain


> The Bounty fiasco and an undeserved black eye
> 
> "Sail training" and tall ship sailors has certainly gotten a black eye over the past two weeks. Some of the criticisms are well thought out; and, hopefully, some positive things will come out of the Bounty fiasco.
> 
> However, this forum has hosted many unwarranted, disparaging comments about the people who crew these "tall ships" I am posting this to, hopefully, put some of the "sail training" discussion back on a charted course.
> 
> I had the privilege to meet a lot of really great people in the wrongly named "sail training community". Many of them were retired people who want to the opportunity to give back to the community. Some were fresh out of college. Some were attracted by the living history. Some were looking for an outdoor activity. And, yes, some of them were tree-hugging, granola chomping , want-to be actors, who showed up to volunteer because the renn fair was rained out.
> 
> But the common thread is that they are very good people. And they deserve far better treatment than they have received on this forum over the past couple of weeks.
> 
> And if you think your better than they are, in part, because you were able to pass a Coast Guard multiple choice test, you might be mistaken. PMC


Professional organizations tend to have more credibility if you choose them to bolster you opinions than passing off a social blog sie as the authority on the sunbject and quoting them.

Another example of as takefive put it


> you constantly misquote us and attempt to mislead others about what we are saying


' Its getting old

You do have a lot of other good posts, however I think your time ( as well as mine) may have run its course on this thread.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ..
> 
> Another example of as takefive put it ' Its getting old


That is very low. When somebody wants to say something like that, it is wrong to use others to hide behind them. I certainly would be very clear in what I was meaning if I was accusing someone of wrongdoing. Takefive is talking about a misquote I have made, not of a poster but from an article, attributing some sentences to the wrong person. That article was confusing, at least for me and when someone noticed that I was wrong I acknowledged and apologized.

Some difference from you that had quoted me wrongly and did not apologized, mumbling something about my posts being confusing.

I am referring to this:










Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Usually when people quote they do not copy the others moniker or avatar. It confusing and makes it look like I just posted this when it in fact was weeks ago. No one else on here does this ...any special reason? 

Is your purpose on here to to help others or do you have a hidden agenda directed at me? You can try and point the finger back at me but before you do I suggest you look at your tone and posts specifically directed at me. I put you on ignore, but found out you were continuing to respond to my posts in a negative and inflamatory manner when they got forwarded to me by my friends on here though PM,s. 

I apologize to others if I seem argumentative or seem distracted from my normal posts and I will try and do better. Sorry to waste your time with this nonsense. Lies cannot go unanswered lest they become perceived as the truth.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

So as Minnie posted complacency is one of the dangers. How can we prevent that in the future?


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> So as Minnie posted complacency is one of the dangers. How can we prevent that in the future?


Prior to a flight, we use things like checklists and mandatory weather briefings. They help, but complacency can also cause one to skip through them too quickly.

I think the solution to this one is going to put the Tall Ship community directly in the bullseye. By design, they are intended to conjure up the thought of our forefathers sailing the open ocean in a time without any modern convenience or safety. They didn't have the ability to forecast weather like we can.

Combine the romance of crewing a ship that crossed oceans hundreds of years ago with the realization that they had to tackle severe weather and the thought of adventure can probably overcome the logic of risk management. Compound that with what appears to be a loophole in how these ships and their crew are regulated and that may have been the real perfect storm around Sandy.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Usually when people quote they do not copy the others moniker or avatar. It confusing and makes it look like I just posted this when it in fact was weeks ago. No one else on here does this ...any special reason?
> 
> Is your purpose on here to to help others or do you have a hidden agenda directed at me? You can try and point the finger back at me but before you do I suggest you look at your tone and posts specifically directed at me. I put you on ignore, but found out you were continuing to respond to my posts in a negative and inflamatory manner when they got forwarded to me by my friends on here though PM,s.
> 
> I apologize to others if I seem argumentative or seem distracted from my normal posts and I will try and do better. Sorry to waste your time with this nonsense. Lies cannot go unanswered lest they become perceived as the truth.
> 
> Dave


Dave, has I said before I did not attack you or anybody I am here to enjoy and learn and certainly I have nothing against you or anybody else. It was you that accused me of wrongdoing and for several times, saying that my tone was hysterical and accusing me of misquoting constantly without referring to what you are talking about. On the last post you are accusing me to lie, or to post lies and as usually you don't say to what you are referring to. Of course that should be unacceptable, but who cares? I never attacked you personally and if so, please post what you consider a personal attack.

I have diverged from your opinion as well as others and my tone was never rude but I don't fell that anybody has the right to tell the others when they should stop posting or stop expressing his opinion.

Regarding re-posting your post where you misquote me, that way is the only way to re-post it comprehensibly because as that post has quotes, they would not have appeared if I simply used the quote system and would make it incomprehensible. Regarding people thinking that it is a new post, it is inside my post, I say in what contest I am referring to it and at the end I send regard to you and post my name, so it is clear it is inside my post. Besides that it is clear on the re-post that is the post nº 413 and we are now well over post 700 and that will tell people were the post was made and where to look for it, if they want to check it out.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> ...
> Combine the romance of crewing a ship that crossed oceans hundreds of years ago with the realization that they had to tackle severe weather and the thought of adventure can probably overcome the logic of risk management. Compound that with what appears to be a loophole in how these ships and their crew are regulated and that may have been the real perfect storm around Sandy.


Yes, I agree. There are holes in what regarding the crew needed to sail a tall ship and their qualifications (I don't mean the Captain but the number of sailors needed and their qualifications). There are holes in what regards the classification of this ships, holes that make possible some ships, including Bounty, to escape any serious qualified safety inspection and I do not mean to the safety items aboard but to the ship itself.

I guess that after this accident and the recommendations that will be given on the CG investigation, things are going to change in what regards the way these ships are regulated.

This is the second accident in a short time (Concordia) and that is not acceptable.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

It will be economically impossible for a Tall Ship to stay in pristine enough condition to pass a serious modern safety inspection. They will have a very difficult time in defining what standard should be acceptable for a ship like Bounty. Further, they could restrict the severity of condition that they undertake a passage, but again, defining it will be difficult.

I think the most likely outcome will be a mandatory minimum crew that have minimum experience applicable to the vessel. Real professionals. They are much more likely to push back than adventuresome passengers lost in the romance of an 18th century tall ship.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Paulo,
> 
> Well I am a memeber of gCaptain and certainly not a professional. Its a social media site and I would not want to quote from it or pass it off as the " authority or on professional captains *anymore tha Sailnet is*>
> 
> Also your reporting from the social media site is not even handed and there is a much differening opinions on the site as on Sailnet.
> .....
> For isnstance the follwoing psoted on gCaptain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Professional organizations tend to have more credibility if you choose them to bolster you opinions than passing off a social blog sie as the authority on the sunbject and quoting them.
> &#8230;You do have a lot of other good posts, however I think your time ( as well as mine) may have run its course on this thread.


Dave, I generically agree with that post you have quoted from gCaptain, in fact I have said that myself, I mean that the Tall Ship Community has also good Captains, sailors and ships run properly and that this case was menacing all community to be looked at risky unprofessional sailors.

This has nothing with what was posted on that forum regarding the Captain of the Bounty or the Bounty accident. This is a recent thread, not the one about Bounty accident.

By the way, the response of that post, that was made by a qualified tall ship crew and passenger vessel (1600 master) had very interesting replies that go on the direction Minnewaska and myself are pointing:

*Capt Leigh*
(1600 Master Oceans, 6000 Master OSV Oceans, MOT Inland/Gl, Master Inland AGT,2nd Mate) :

That was incredibly well stated, and with great restraint considering all the chatter of late.
We all lose track sometimes, and the anger over the loss of life due to one mans poor decision has many of the professional Mariners rightly upset. We don't suffer fools lightly, but none the less, no offense was meant to the many great teachers and Mentors of this TSC.
&#8230;..

*cappy208*
(1600GT Oceans, MTV, 1st Class Pilot, NY harbor, upper, lower, east r, DE)

Sorry. It IS a well deserved swollen, black and blue, bloodshot, tear stained eye!

While the concept of 'true' sailors, experienced crew and safe operations do exist.... The lack of knowledgeable oversight has been around since the concept of privately owned, pay for 'trainee' time, outward bound, shoestring budget operations started, the venerable HMS Bounty has done more to illuminate the tallship society for what it truly is. A way to run sailing ships with 'paying passengers' who are then listed as trainee, or some other name, so the vessels don't have to be inspected, meet full safety standards and put the entire 'crew' (wink wink) at risk.

There is a reason sailing ships were relegated to the dustbins of old. At the age of the Bounty (heck, even half the age... It even a quarter the age!) These old ships became barns, or were ran up on shore and became docks. I don't ever recall any old stories about any old 50 year old sailing boats that ended on a good note.

It is sad that an 'Industry' that does not pay a living wage to the entire crew, depends upon modern day impressment of seamen for manning, and uses a sneaky method of having help 'pay' and NOT be considered passengers that needs defending.

Makes me glad I saw the light 'working for Bob Douglas over 30 years ago. I was young, but saw the incongruity then. The Shennandoah is currently OUT of service. Why? She is 1 year younger than the Bounty. Coincidence? Most likely not!

*C.Captain*
(Ship captain?)

Just to get something clear here. BOUNTY was not a "Sail Training Vessel" which are inspected under 46CFR subchapter R and have a minimum safe manning determination. BOUNTY was an 46CFR subchapter C uninspected passenger vessel which is worse as far as any oversight goes regarding safety of construction and equipment but to the best of my knowledge, nobody aboard BOUNTY on Oct 29th had paid for the privilege to be there that awful night. They might have been volunteers however.

*Fraqrat*
(chief&#8230;I have sailed just about everything)

Most of us recognize there are many competent mariners,sailors, seamen in the TSC. Many feel it is unregulated high seas theatre. The vocal majority of bashers all agree on one thing the "Master" of that vessel FAILED his crew miserably. All of us that work in the oilfield had to endure this same thing after DWH. As we all know the truth hurts. Judging by all the comments here, on the news and the interweb this was not an isolated incident. As the oilfield people had to do now the TSC has to take a long hard look at itself.

Professional mariners are motivated to make a good wage and get home safely. In the TSC it appears that each vessel master has his on cult of personality and his fair share of sycophants for crew. In that instance you're only as safe as the guy making all the decisions.

This particular instance was a case of the blind leading the blind and it ended in catastrophe. If they had miraculously completed their voyage we would still find this man craven for taking that vessel out into a hurricane.

*Steamer*
(C/E Steam/motor/GT unlimited)

I think they were surprised that the professional mariner community (PMC) didn't bubble over with condolences and support after the tragic loss of one of their best and most experienced captains courageous.

It is as if they believe they share some bond with working sailors and actually believed someone here would give them a hug and say they understand how that big bad storm just came up out of nowhere and took the ship away from the heroic captain who gave his life fightng the elements in a futile attempt to save his ship and crew - they believe he did everything he could - yeah, right, he did everything except for getting them rooms in the nearest Holiday Inn and having a storm party in the bar until it passed.

If after 300+ posts telling them that their hero was a criminally negligent idiot you would hope that they would get the idea that something is wrong with their club and its members. They were in a position to prevent 
this and didn't say or do a thing to stop it. They knew what kind of dangerous fool was running that ship, they had almost 20 years to watch him and never said a word about it. They used that ship and that idiot to promote their own dockside attractions and sideshow cruises.

Well, TSC apologists, look for sympathy and kind words elsewhere, most of us here just call it as we see it and there just aren't many who see much glory or glamour or professionalism in taking a rotting, undermanned, leaking, poorly maintained wooden carnival ride into what was recognized even before Bounty sailed as the largest hurricane ever to hit the US east coast.
*13 members liked this post.*

*PMC, the one that posted what you re-posted* here posts this, quoting another poster. I think it is enlightening:

Originally Posted by Fraqrat 
"In the TSC it appears that each vessel master has his on cult of personality and his fair share of sycophants for crew."
PMC: "Thank you for your timely illustration of my point"

The Bounty fiasco and an undeserved black eye

I have said something similar on the other thread regarding the Bounty, talking about personality cult and the dangers of any cult, even a personality one, in what regards seamanship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> It will be economically impossible for a Tall Ship to stay in pristine enough condition to pass a serious modern safety inspection. They will have a very difficult time in defining what standard should be acceptable for a ship like Bounty. Further, they could restrict the severity of condition that they undertake a passage, but again, defining it will be difficult.
> 
> I think the most likely outcome will be a mandatory minimum crew that have minimum experience applicable to the vessel. Real professionals. They are much more likely to push back than adventuresome passengers lost in the romance of an 18th century tall ship.


I think that it will end the possibility of these ships to be classified as unispected passenger vessels (like the Bounty) and that all ships will have a mandatory proper inspection and not one only over safety items aboard.

As I have said, and agreeing with what you say, many of those ships, but not all, are fair or moderate weather ships and not able anymore to sustain with safety heavy weather.

I hope that as a result of those inspection these ships to be reclassified regarding the sea conditions they are authorized to sail. This seems to me the ruling that can prevent better more accidents and that will allow the Tall ships that have conditions to sail unlimited to carry on with their activity.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kjango

I understand the logic of putting to sea before a storm....the part I don't get is closing with the storm after putting to sea......duh


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> Further, they could restrict the severity of condition that they undertake a passage, but again, defining it will be difficult.
> .


The ridiculous thing about this incident is even Captain Bligh would not have taken his ship near a hurricane if they knew one was there.

Your complacency post was a good one. Lets forget about tall ships and see how it relates to cruising sailors. Perhaps we need to consciously think about easy voyage as if it was our first one. Do those checks slowly and methodically.

In the Bahamas this year before the hurricane season started you may remember the weather was bad with a string of preseason storms.
I could not believe how many boats left Marsh Harbour to go to the USA in such bad weather! Talk about uncomfortable! uke not really dangerous, but uncomfortable!

I counseled a friend not to go... But he was "forced" to by crew. His voyage of three days was so bad he put his boat up for sale at the other end!!!
Oh and before the old timers start their slagging, it was one of those old fashioned full keel jobs, not a production boat.

My rules try to help avoid complacency... Never go when weather is deterieriating, never go on a MIXED SKY... Look up you cloud book but it means when you look up if there is sh!tty clouds are all different levels then stay put. Sounds damn easy!

Yes there's lots for us to learn from the Bounty. Complacency is a good one.

Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

kjango said:


> I understand the logic of putting to sea before a storm....the part I don't get is closing with the storm after putting to sea......duh


One thing I can't understand is hat he said he wanted to go east of the storm. How did he end up west of it?


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> One thing I can't understand is hat he said he wanted to go east of the storm. How did he end up west of it?


I still think that was a simple misstatement. Many will say East when then mean West and catch themselves. No? It's just me?


----------



## Capt.aaron

Minnewaska said:


> It will be economically impossible for a Tall Ship to stay in pristine enough condition to pass a serious modern safety inspection. They will have a very difficult time in defining what standard should be acceptable for a ship like Bounty. Further, they could restrict the severity of condition that they undertake a passage, but again, defining it will be difficult.
> 
> I think the most likely outcome will be a mandatory minimum crew that have minimum experience applicable to the vessel. Real professionals. They are much more likely to push back than adventuresome passengers lost in the romance of an 18th century tall ship.


Problem is, pro's cost money. I make $3*** dollars a day and it just goes up from here....A day. The opperating cost's would go through the roof if you put 9 proprely credential seaman on board. A captain, first mate, second mate, third mate, 3 ab's and and engineer as minimum. They can pay us like that in the dangerous liquid cargo transportation industry because we charge a lot to transfer the product, You'd have to charge $500 a ticket for sunset sail to afford a professional crew on the tall ships / schooners. Maybe that's why they have incidents like this.


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> T...
> 
> In the Bahamas this year before the hurricane season started you may remember the weather was bad with a string of preseason storms.
> I could not believe how many boats left Marsh Harbour to go to the USA in such bad weather! Talk about uncomfortable! uke not really dangerous, but uncomfortable!
> 
> I counseled a friend not to go... But he was "forced" to by crew. His voyage of three days was so bad he put his boat up for sale at the other end!!!
> Oh and before the old timers start their slagging, it was one of those old fashioned full keel jobs, not a production boat.
> 
> ....
> 
> Yes there's lots for us to learn from the Bounty. Complacency is a good one.
> 
> Mark


Yes, not to mention that the weather reports are not always true and conditions can be worst. For two times I had made the mistake of trusting weather reports with uncomfortable results. I don't mean that I had the boat or the crew at risk but if I could or know that I was going to sail on those conditions I would no sailed away. One time out of North Africa with a downwind f7, that would just give me a good ride home, that turned in a f9/10 and the other one with a possible downwind f8 that turned in as a real f9.

On the last one (this year) I sailed out because on the last days the WR was giving the possibility of f6 and f7 and I never got more than f4, so I guessed they were always exaggerating

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

Working construction for almost 40 years I often heard the guys trash talk weekend warriors but I've met some weekend warriors that really impressed me. And I've known MANY construction pros who were an embarrassment to their trade. 

FWIW


----------



## Minnewaska

Capt.aaron said:


> Problem is, pro's cost money. I make $3*** dollars a day and it just goes up from here....A day. The opperating cost's would go through the roof if you put 9 proprely credential seaman on board. A captain, first mate, second mate, third mate, 3 ab's and and engineer as minimum. They can pay us like that in the dangerous liquid cargo transportation industry because we charge a lot to transfer the product, You'd have to charge $500 a ticket for sunset sail to afford a professional crew on the tall ships / schooners. Maybe that's why they have incidents like this.


I already understood the economic impact it would have on the Tall Ships. However, I also think it will be the best way to prevent another Bounty incident. Perhaps the full compliment will only be required for passages, as opposed to tourist tours around the Bay.

Ultimately, it may mean that most Tall Ships just don't make these passages, which is fine by me.


----------



## Deb Morrin

Here is the thing. We have all be caught by surprise storms and maybe that is the unfortunate thing that happened to Bounty. However, it was long on the radar. Hey I am a woman, not a guy, so maybe that reflects my personal opinion is I would rather have the boat wreck itself in a harbor with the crew safe and sound on land, than risk lives by heading out to sea in a severe storm. Saving a boat is not worth risking peoples' lives. NOt to mention the cost of the rescue and putting at risk Coast Guard lives as well.


----------



## PCP

Deb Morrin said:


> Here is the thing. We have all be caught by surprise storms and maybe that is the unfortunate thing that happened to Bounty. However, it was long on the radar. Hey I am a woman, not a guy, so maybe that reflects my personal opinion is I would rather have the boat wreck itself in a harbor with the crew safe and sound on land, than risk lives by heading out to sea in a severe storm. Saving a boat is not worth risking peoples' lives. NOt to mention the cost of the rescue and putting at risk Coast Guard lives as well.


You are right, off course and has nothing to do with you being a woman...and welcome to the sailnet. Great first post. I hope it will be the first of many

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> But he was "forced" to by crewMarkseaof life.


Good post. NOt sure how a Captain can let his crew force him to leave. A good Captain should have stood his ground. One of the things learned from Rule62. The Captain must do what is right for the safety of those hes in charge of and not succemb to the pressure of the crew. ( even if it is your wife).

Dave


----------



## Classic30

Sal Paradise said:


> The realistic thing to put in place is a board of directors that manage the routing and missions of the ship with stability , condition, risk in mind. Roger Long wrote that regarding the Pride of Baltimore that the recommendation was for a policy based on stability curves and other studies which the board should use to task and route the ship. If there is a chance of exceeding the capability of the vessel, it either does not go on the trip, or its route and/or schedule is altered.
> 
> Its not the best situation to rely on a mutiny or insubordination of the crew as a safety plan.
> 
> If the Bounty had such a policy and directors overseeing its implementation, then without a doubt she would still be afloat.


Sal, many, many, commercial shipping companies already have policies and directors and routing and all the rest of it, but the most idiotic (in hindsight) stuff still happens. _Costa Concordia, Rena, Exxon Valdez_.. need we go on?

The sea is not something you can tame or control and "stability curves" make absolutely no difference against rogue waves, freak storms, navigational errors, etc. As has been pointed out several times already, you can't mitigate against stupid... and even the most experienced sea-captains have been known to make the wrong decisions from time to time.

..so IMHO if the Bounty had such a policy and directors overseeing its implementation, then, sure as eggs, she would still be right where she is now.


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> Sal, many, many, commercial shipping companies already have policies and directors and routing and all the rest of it, but the most idiotic (in hindsight) stuff still happens. _Costa Concordia, Rena, Exxon Valdez_.. need we go on?
> 
> The sea is not something you can tame or control and "stability curves" make absolutely no difference against rogue waves, freak storms, navigational errors, etc. As has been pointed out several times already, you can't mitigate against stupid... and even the most experienced sea-captains have been known to make the wrong decisions from time to time.
> 
> ..so IMHO if the Bounty had such a policy and directors overseeing its implementation, then, sure as eggs, she would still be right where she is now.


Well, if the boat licence specified that the boat should not sail over f7 or go out of port with a prevision of winds over f7, the boat would be still afloat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.aaron

JulieMor said:


> Working construction for almost 40 years I often heard the guys trash talk weekend warriors but I've met some weekend warriors that really impressed me. And I've known MANY construction pros who were an embarrassment to their trade.
> 
> FWIW


I'd hire a skilled amature carpenter to build a deck or even an addition, not to manuver a derick crane on top of a sky scraper with city traffic below. To get an AB unlimited licsense you need 1080 day's at sea on a vessel with some tonnage on it. That's a lot of weekends. That's the minimum a watch keeper should have on a ship the size of the Bounty. 
The Phantom had some land lubb'n board of director's seal there fate. And A young Captain who did'nt have the ball's to take control of his ship.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> Well, if the boat licence specified that the boat should not sail over f7 or go out of port with a prevision of winds over f7, the boat would be still afloat.


Is that what the boat license said, Paulo?? What source?

I'd be very surprised if it did.. such decisions are usually the responsibility of the Captain. It's his job to know the capabilities of his ship and if something goes wrong (like this) he's the one who has to explain (just like the captain of Costa Concordia had to).


----------



## chef2sail

> Well, if the boat licence specified that the boat should not sail over f7 or go out of port with a prevision of winds over f7, the boat would be still afloat-PCP.


This is not necessarily true and I await the full investigative report. We still do not know what sunk the ship. There have been unverified rumors about leaking planks, failed genrators and engines, pumps which failed. All this could have happened in a gale also.

This enough would not prevent a similar fate IMHO and there needs to be a deeper or more thorough means of inspection, vertification and verification of the vessels maintainence amnd structural integrity just as an airplane undergoes before it flies at all. I agree with Minnie in his ststement about the need for certification of the Tall ships/ Tourist ships. I beleive the full inspection will point out and recommend changes to the current method or certification ( or not) of these vessels.

In addition you also have contributed in the assertion indirectly that there needs to be assurance of a more "professional" overall crew other than the Captain aboard the ship. While I dont necessarily agree with the "cult" analolgy, especially the Jim Jones comparison you jumped to, I do think that you pointed to a potential flaw in the staffing of these vessels which convey tourists. Again IMHO there needs to be more than one lisneced ( Captain) individual on board. The running of these ships requires a certain degree of specialization. Even though I have sailed for 4 years, I would have no real clue how to sail a ship like this, her capabiliteis, as well as her critical deficiencies and danger points.

I will continue to point out so no one misconstrues my opinoin, none of this exonnerates or minimizes the Captains decision and leaving the dock in the direction of an impending storm.

Dave


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> Is that what the boat license said, Paulo?? What source?
> 
> I'd be very surprised if it did.. such decisions are usually the responsibility of the Captain. It's his job to know the capabilities of his ship and if something goes wrong (like this) he's the one who has to explain (just like the captain of Costa Concordia had to).


Sorry Hartley You have understood me wrongly I have said : "if the boat licence specified " not that it said that. I guess that it is an unlimited license.

What I have said it is what I think a licence of an old wooden replica of a XVIII century boat should say. I hope something similar comes out of this. I expressed the idea on this post:



PCP said:


> I think that it will end the possibility of these ships to be classified as unispected passenger vessels (like the Bounty) and that all ships will have a mandatory proper inspection and not one only over safety items aboard.
> 
> As I have said, and agreeing with what you say, many of those ships, but not all, are fair or moderate weather ships and not able anymore to sustain with safety heavy weather.
> 
> I hope that as a result of those inspection these ships to be reclassified regarding the sea conditions they are authorized to sail. This seems to me the ruling that can prevent better more accidents and that will allow the Tall ships that have conditions to sail unlimited to carry on with their activity.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> What I have said it is what I think a licence of an old wooden replica of a XVIII century boat should say. I hope something similar comes out of this. I expressed the idea on this post:


Ok.  Perhaps martime law is different in the US (but I don't think so).. The idea you suggest be implemented is called "Survey" over here and any vessel capable of carrying paying passengers must be "In Survey" to legally do so - for insurance reasons.

"Survey" means that the vessel must meet a whole host of detailed safety criteria, have regular evac drills, safety inspections, etc. etc. It is a very expensive process, but has been a part of commercial shipping for as long as I can remember.

There should be no need to change anything: HMS Bounty is not someone's private yacht.. and given she could carry paying passengers, I'd be surprised to hear it if the mandatory inspections, etc. you mention were not already being carried out.


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> Ok.  Perhaps the law is different in the US (but I didn't think so).. The idea you suggest be implemented is called "Survey" over here and any vessel capable of carrying paying passengers must be "in survey" to legally do so.
> 
> "Survey" means that the vessel must meet a whole host of safety criteria, have regular evac drills, safety inspections, etc. etc. It is a very expensive process, but has been a part of commercial shipping for as long as I can remember.
> 
> HMS Bounty is not someone's private yacht.. and given she could carry paying passengers, I'd be surprised to hear that the mandatory inspections, etc. you mention were not already being carried out.


No, I don't think the boat was inspected except in what regards having the legal safety equipment. I am refereeing to a structural inspection to the hull, rig and masts, I mean a serious one to the ship. That is one of the legal holes that was discussed at length on the gCaptain forum. We will know for sure after the investigation.

Quoting :

*C.Captain
(Ship captain?)*

Just to get something clear here. BOUNTY was not a "Sail Training Vessel" which are inspected under 46CFR subchapter R and have a minimum safe manning determination. BOUNTY was an 46CFR subchapter C *uninspected passenger vessel* which is worse as far as any oversight goes regarding safety of construction and equipment.

The Bounty fiasco and an undeserved black eye

quote:

Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 gross tons carrying 12 or fewer passengers;....

Uninspected Passenger Vessel (more than 100 GT)

Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 GT are also regulated in 46 CFR Subchapter C and are allowed to carry 12 or fewer passengers, at least one of whom is for hire. T*he U.S. Coast Guard does not formally inspect these vessels*, although they may be boarded for examinations. Large charter yachts, also known as mega-yachts, are the best known representatives of this class of vessels.

Comm Rerport Summary

The boat was also classified as a dock attraction and on that quality was mandatory inspected, for that purpose, or at least it was what I understood.

Way back on this thread someone from the bounty showed the inspection paper with inspections from the CG. I asked if those inspections were related with the status of the boat as a dock attraction and I am still waiting for a reply, so I guess they were.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Hartley18 said:


> "Survey" means that the vessel must meet a whole host of detailed safety criteria, have regular evac drills, safety inspections, etc. etc. It is a very expensive process, but has been a part of commercial shipping for as long as I can remember.
> 
> .


Well, Hartley, the USA has really screwed this one up, if it is as we have been reading over the past few days.

The tall ships get around the passenger regulations by calling passengers volunteer crew, or similar.

Means the ship doesnt have to Survey, in Australian parlence.

The difficulty is going to be quite remarkable when the enquiry is held:
1) will the Coast Guard brush it under the carpet?
2) will the Coast Guard start requiring propper inspections of all tall ships, thus making them all unviable finacially?
3) will the government do some trick to save the tall ships?

One thing that might not be obvious in Australia is that there are a LOT of tall ships in the USA and people treat them with remarkable affection.... Vastly more affection than some would think justified.
Some might say this overly affectionate treatment is just not worth the lives put at risk.

The world has quite a few tall ships and they are astronomically expensive to keep up. Remember that story only a few months ago of the Argintinian navy tall ship that was commandeered by creditors when it arrived in Europe? The Argentinians couldnt pay!

Mark


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> No, I don't think the boat was inspected except in what regards having the legal safety equipment. I am refereeing to a structural inspection to the hull, rig and masts, I mean a serious one to the ship.


So am I. What a mess.. 

So, HMS Bounty never carried more than 12 paying passengers? A ship that large?? and it's obviously a little more than a "dockside attraction" so I'd have thought it would fit a the "sail training" category myself..

FWIW, under the Survey system, "Restricted Survey" is also possible, being the usual stuff with a bunch of conditions attached, but



PCP said:


> Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 gross tons carrying 12 or fewer passengers;....
> 
> Uninspected Passenger Vessel (more than 100 GT)
> 
> Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 GT are also regulated in 46 CFR Subchapter C and are allowed to carry 12 or fewer passengers, at least one of whom is for hire. T*he U.S. Coast Guard does not formally inspect these vessels*, although they may be boarded for examinations. Large charter yachts, also known as mega-yachts, are the best known representatives of this class of vessels.


That is indeed a bit of a weak point. It sounds like they're saying a charter vessel doesn't really have to be any different, or follow any different safety proceduresm to any other yacht so long as they don't carry more than 12 passengers?

My parents used to own a charter yacht (carrying 12 or fewer passengers) and that most certainly got inspected once a year out of the water... with all the various hoops and hurdles required to be jumped through as a result.


----------



## Classic30

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Well, Hartley, the USA has really screwed this one up, if it is as we have been reading over the past few days.
> 
> The tall ships get around the passenger regulations by calling passengers volunteer crew, or similar.
> 
> Means the ship doesnt have to Survey, in Australian parlence.


That makes sense. We have a few Tall Ships over here (Enterprize, HMS Endeavour, One&All, James Craig..) and I'm sure that doesn't wash for them - they're either "in survey" or they don't leave the dock.

At least one of them has been a lot further at sea than HMS Bounty ever went: HMS Endeavour has been around the world at least once, playing a bit part in the filming of "Master and Commander" in the process.



MarkofSeaLife said:


> The difficulty is going to be quite remarkable when the enquiry is held:
> 1) will the Coast Guard brush it under the carpet?
> 2) will the Coast Guard start requiring propper inspections of all tall ships, thus making them all unviable finacially?
> 3) will the government do some trick to save the tall ships?
> 
> One thing that might not be obvious in Australia is that there are a LOT of tall ships in the USA and people treat them with remarkable affection.... Vastly more affection than some would think justified.
> Some might say this overly affectionate treatment is just not worth the lives put at risk.
> 
> The world has quite a few tall ships and they are astronomically expensive to keep up. Remember that story only a few months ago of the Argintinian navy tall ship that was commandeered by creditors when it arrived in Europe? The Argentinians couldnt pay!


We may not have anything quite like the Argentinian ship, but people over here do get seriously stuck into the (fewer) Tall Ships we have - a few of which really aren't worth repairing but they raise funds and do so anyway.

For example, one of the biggest lost causes in these parts is this one. You can join up to be a Deck Officer if you like.. on a ship that will never float again!.. but they're preserving history and that's fine - just so long as nobody gets hurt in the process.


----------



## chef2sail

We know what the law says.

Does anyone know for sure without a shadow of doubt what inspections if any the Bounty went through or did not go through? The fact they may not have been required is not proof that they didnt.

First hand knowledge or report from a government agency will suffice. I prefer not to make assumptions and hypothesis unless it is a known fact.

Anything other than that is conjecture and unfounded speculation.

Dave


----------



## Capt.aaron

I know the Western Union , the ship that laid the phone cable to Cuba was over and over again failing their Coast Guard Inspection, until finally they passed after a huge structural refit, and they are only sailing around the Bay with tourists. It's the Coast Guard who say's yay or nay in the end. Most of the big ocean Tall ships are steel, like the Eagle. The ones I see that are sea worthy are Sweedish or Dutch. It takes a government to fund these things properly.


----------



## Classic30

Capt.aaron said:


> I know the Western Union , the ship that laid the phone cable to Cuba was over and over again failing their Coast Guard Inspection, until finally they passed after a huge structural refit, and they are only sailing around the Bay with tourists. It's the Coast Guard who say's yay or nay in the end. Most of the big ocean Tall ships are steel, like the Eagle. The ones I see that are sea worthy are Sweedish or Dutch. It takes a government to fund these things properly.


You're right - most of them are steel - although this one HMB Endeavour is a world traveller (via the Horn no less!) and certainly not steel..


----------



## Capt.aaron

Hartley18 said:


> You're right - most of them are steel - although this one HMB Endeavour is a world traveller (via the Horn no less!) and certainly not steel..


You can just look at that boat and see that it was built tough, I think the Bounty was not built to tarvel the world and I don't think it should have been out there at it's age. The ship I worked on was Fero-Cement, built in 1976 and it's still sailing the Globe. I think the worms were holding the Bounty together.


----------



## PCP

Capt.aaron said:


> ... The ones I see that are sea worthy are Sweedish or Dutch. It takes a government to fund these things properly.


All seafaring European nations have at least on tall ship. In many cases it belongs to the Navy. Yes you are right it is needed government funds to maintain those boats and most of them if not all are steel sailing ships.

Most of the wooden old ones are maintained on the water or out of the water, but not in sailing condition, as historical ships and touristic attractions. To put this ones sailing it would be possible, but the cost would not be justifiable not even at government/country level.

Some of those famous wooden ones:











Fragata Dom Fernando II e Glória (Almada) - Distrito de Setúbal | Guia da Cidade | Região de Lisboa





















Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

Yes... actually _Cutty Sark_ is what was known as a "hybrid" (composite construction) - timber on iron frames - and _Vasa_ isn't so much a ship as an exercise in advanced conservation techniques.. but, yes, you're right... and you missed all of the ones we have down here ("famous" being a relative term)..

..but back to the story at hand.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> ....Does anyone know for sure without a shadow of doubt what inspections if any the Bounty went through or did not go through? The fact they may not have been required is not proof that they didnt.
> 
> First hand knowledge or report from a government agency will suffice. I prefer not to make assumptions and hypothesis unless it is a known fact.....


There is proof they were inspected. I think it's been posted before.

The Bounty was an "uninspected passenger" vessel, as you can see in the next link, but that apparently doesn't mean its never inspected. From what I've read, the difference is whether she is inspected for the basics or for serious seaworthiness. While I can't find copies of the inspection documents themselves, I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can describe what these would have been on an uninspected passenger vessel. That should not require the results of an investigation to clarify.

USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page

I think it is also important to point out that complying with regulation never insures safety. You are required to have PFDs aboard, but people routinely drown. Inspected vessel are known to sink as well. It almost always comes back to one's judgement.

To restrict the Tall Ships to serious professional crews when making a passage would undoubtedly restrict their mobility, perhaps prevent it. I've seen armadas of Tall Ships celebrate various holidays, most typically our Independence Day on Jul 4th. It must be our pride, as a new country, in defeating the most powerful Navy in the world at the time.

However, I will never look upon one again, without the thought of the risk it may have taken to arrive and I'm not impressed.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Ship builder's should build the strongest and well built ships they can. If they are building a replica of a 19th century wooden tall ship, the should'nt just go for the look but the integrity which which those ships were built. Look at the house's that ship's carpenters built in Key West, they are are still there, I rent a little studio in a house that was built circa 1860 by ship's carpenters. And the ships should be decommisioned when the beam's are rotten and the plank's are old and butter. The Bounty was OLD. my Grandpa was a hell of a football player when he was 20, He wasn't playing in the big leagues at 40, or 50, or 60.....The tug I'm working on this hitch was built in 1960 and it's about to be taken out of service. And yes, there need's to be a governing body that say's no, that old boat has no buisness going to sea with volenteers, payed crew or students. One problem is our Coast Guard is comprised of a bunch of pencil pushing Land Lubbe'rs. Any one that has the sea coursing through there veins would never join the coast Gaurd. My neighborhood pub is a block from the gate of the Key West Coast Guard Station. Ask any of the Coasties sitting in there where they are from. 9 times out of 10 they are from a land locked state. We are pushing for a Merchant Marine Body to Govern the Merchant Marine's because the coast Guard Has there prority's all out of whack. As for meesing with Huricanes, It's just stupid. Somebody Hired the Bounty Captain, I'm betting someone with little or no experience at sea, there fore he could convince them he was capable of making wize decsisions, didn't his wife say's he had been in lot's of huricanes?


----------



## Minnewaska

Capt.aaron said:


> .....Ask any of the Coasties sitting in there where they are from. 9 times out of 10 they are from a land locked state........


Haven't met a pilot born in the sky yet. I don't think this is a serious disqualifier. I understand the frustration with bureaucracy. I'm willing to wager a round at Sloppy Joes that the FAA is more bureaucratic, almost all of which have never flown an aircraft at all. Still, there are some very capable USCG officers.



> .....didn't his wife say's he had been in lot's of huricanes?


I think she did. I know the Captain himself is on tape saying so, as well as one of the rescued crew members. I believe it was the first mate.


----------



## chef2sail

> To restrict the Tall Ships to serious professional crews when making a passage would undoubtedly restrict their mobility, perhaps prevent it. I've seen armadas of Tall Ships celebrate various holidays, most typically our Independence Day on Jul 4th. It must be our pride, as a new country, in defeating the most powerful Navy in the world at the time-Minniewaska.


I wasnt talking about a whole crew of professionals here. Some of the opinions expressed here were that you had a bunch of syncophants or cult ( tall ship groupies) sailing this ship. Not sure I completely agree with that characterization, but knowing that the Captain is the only professional aboard the ship, a ship which characteristics are not necessarily like other sailing ships doesnt seem like a great idea and may be something which needs to be addressed.

To the point about the tall ships owned by governments, looking at Eagle, Gloria, Godspeed, Dewaruci, Cauhtemoc, and Guayas this summer at the Baltimore OP Sail, these are maintained by governments and used by their navies as training vessels for their navies. Thats a different class of tall ships IMHO for what we are talking about. You cant compare the to the Bounty

Minnie, you are in the airline industry...how do they deal with the issue you raised here of complacency? How often is complacency identified as a cause in airplane accidents? What steps does the industry use to combat it and are any of them apprapo to be used to overt a disaster like this?


----------



## chef2sail

> One problem is our Coast Guard is comprised of a bunch of pencil pushing Land Lubbe'rs. Any one that has the sea coursing through there veins would never join the coast Gaurd.-Captain Aaron


Pretty broad brush you are painting with here. I know many of the people at the USCG Station Cape May and most are pretty well put together. They do a major amount of resucues, drug interdiction, port control and just basic grunt work there. Most of them are dedicated career minded who take seriously their responsibiloity.

At the same time I agree with you about some of the administrative eleements of the CG. That is usual in all large neaurocratic instittutions which have a political basis necesaary for funding therefore oversight.

dave


----------



## aeventyr60

You guys still flogging a dead horse? Geez....


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

aeventyr60 said:


> You guys still flogging a dead horse? Geez....


No. We are learning something that might benefit the chances of us surviving our next cruise.

You are not being forced to partake.

Now, back to the Coast Guard and whatever an un inspected passenger ship is...

The CG may get a grilling in an inquiry... And the outcome may be interesting:

The Bounty certainly had a lot of certificates, but does each one mean an actual inspection? And to what degree?


> CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION	USCG	July 25, 2012	July 31, 2013
> Tonnage Certificate, International	ABS	July 16, 2012
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	May 16, 2012	September 30, 2012
> Certificate of Inspection - Amended	USCG	May 16, 2012	September 30, 2012
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	April 5, 2012	April 5, 2013
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	April 5, 2012	September 30, 2017
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	December 20, 2011	April 1, 2012
> Tonnage Certificate, International	ABS	July 25, 2011
> Stability Letter June 15, 2011
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	May 20, 2011	May 20, 2012
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	March 5, 2011	March 5, 2012
> Certificate of Inspection - Amended	USCG	March 3, 2010	March 3, 2011
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	March 3, 2010	March 3, 2011
> Certificate of Inspection	USCG	March 3, 2009	March 3, 2010
> Certificate of Inspection - Amended	USCG	March 3, 2009	March 3, 2010


USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page

Some of the threads on gCaptain are about some photos of Bountys engine room allegedly taken in May 2012. Those photos have now been removed from public view but some of the comments about the standard of the engine room remain.
I think those photos would come out in an enquiry.
Maybe a lot of the comment on gCaptaain on apparent oddities in the engine room will be discounted, but with the photos there some may need to be explained by the CG as to why certain certificates were issued and what they mean.


----------



## PCP

Capt.aaron said:


> Ship builder's should build the strongest and well built ships they can. If they are building a replica of a 19th century wooden tall ship, ...


18th century ship:

"*Bounty was originally known as collier Bethia, built in 1784 at the Blaydes shipyard in Hull."
*

That does not change what you say, make it a little worst, I mean regarding the Ship design in what regards seaworthiness.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.aaron

Minnewaska said:


> Haven't met a pilot born in the sky yet. I don't think this is a serious disqualifier. I understand the frustration with bureaucracy. I'm willing to wager a round at Sloppy Joes that the FAA is more bureaucratic, almost all of which have never flown an aircraft at all. Still, there are some very capable USCG officers.
> 
> I think she did. I know the Captain himself is on tape saying so, as well as one of the rescued crew members. I believe it was the first mate.


There are sailors borne to the Sea. Son of gun's. son's of son's of son's. People borne in community's that live and die by the sea. It gives a sailor a predisposition for being a Seaman, and it is a qualifier. Reading a brochure in your high school lobby about joining the coast gaurd and getting out of Indiana, set's a student on a learning curve all ready ingrained in a Glouscterman's DNA. In a few hundred year's we may have son's of the sky as flight becomes more and more advanced, but today, we have the sea as our heritage...lineage. I work close to, live close to and have relitives in the coast guard, I work for ex-coasties, I witness time and time again their inept, and at times silly take on Seamanship. The helicopter squad's and swimmer are great, hat's off to them. Their office squad can suck it.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I wasnt talking about a whole crew of professionals here. Some of the opinions expressed here were that you had a bunch of syncophants or cult ( tall ship groupies) sailing this ship. Not sure I completely agree with that characterization, but knowing that the Captain is the only professional aboard the ship, a ship which characteristics are not necessarily like other sailing ships doesnt seem like a great idea and may be something which needs to be addressed....


Nobody on this forum used the word "syncophants" in what regards qualifying the crew. That word was used on the gCaptain forum by Fragrat ((chief&#8230;I have sailed just about everything) and PMC (1600 master), the one you quoted here as having a different opinion on gCaptain forum, agreed with the qualification. More five users "liked" that post on that forum.

quote:

Originally Posted by Fraqrat 
"In the TSC it appears that each vessel master has his on cult of personality and his fair share of sycophants for crew."
PMC: "Thank you for your timely illustration of my point"

The Bounty fiasco and an undeserved black eye

I used the phrase " cult of personality" as a possible explanation of why sailors, that apparently had some experience, followed the Captain in what was obviously a very risky and dangerous voyage without even making some questions or expressing some doubts.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

aeventyr60 said:


> You guys still flogging a dead horse? Geez....


and you lose time reading it

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> 18th century ship:
> 
> as collier
> 
> Paulo


I think colliers were very stoutly built. That's why they were used for exploration. Endevour was one too.

The 1960 was not a replica! It was a movie prop designed to be sunk for the final scene in the film... But Brando threw a hissy fit.
It was designed to look good on film, and probably proportioned to fit into standard camera lenses. And deck space to mount a camera, and shrouds so it looks like actors are tough climbing them.

It's like movie cars. They may SOUND life they have a v12 under the bonnet but actually it's a Korean engine that does 1,000 mpg and fits Califorias emissions rules!


----------



## JulieMor

Capt.aaron said:


> I'd hire a skilled amature carpenter to build a deck or even an addition, not to manuver a derick crane on top of a sky scraper with city traffic below. To get an AB unlimited licsense you need 1080 day's at sea on a vessel with some tonnage on it. That's a lot of weekends. That's the minimum a watch keeper should have on a ship the size of the Bounty.
> The Phantom had some land lubb'n board of director's seal there fate. And A young Captain who did'nt have the ball's to take control of his ship.


I agree that there should be minimal requirements for certain positions on a ship, such as the captain of a passenger vessel. But time alone doesn't make a wise, skilled professional. I had one guy on my crew who had 15 years in the electrical trade but had no mechanical aptitude. He was all thumbs. He had to be watched constantly or I'd have a mess on my hands to clean up. BTW, he was also one of the most critical of non-professionals.

In my post, I was replying to the comments on the pro forum calling recreational boaters foolish. All we really know about them is they identify themselves as professionals. So placing a higher degree of importance to what they say over what anyone here says may be an erroneous assumption.

But yes, absolutely, learning in a system that promotes expertise, safety and professionalism is by far preferable to being self-taught.


----------



## nolatom

Capt.aaron said:


> Ship builder's should build the strongest and well built ships they can. If they are building a replica of a 19th century wooden tall ship, the should'nt just go for the look but the integrity which which those ships were built. Look at the house's that ship's carpenters built in Key West, they are are still there, I rent a little studio in a house that was built circa 1860 by ship's carpenters. And the ships should be decommisioned when the beam's are rotten and the plank's are old and butter. The Bounty was OLD. my Grandpa was a hell of a football player when he was 20, He wasn't playing in the big leagues at 40, or 50, or 60.....The tug I'm working on this hitch was built in 1960 and it's about to be taken out of service. And yes, there need's to be a governing body that say's no, that old boat has no buisness going to sea with volenteers, payed crew or students. One problem is our Coast Guard is comprised of a bunch of pencil pushing Land Lubbe'rs. Any one that has the sea coursing through there veins would never join the coast Gaurd. My neighborhood pub is a block from the gate of the Key West Coast Guard Station. Ask any of the Coasties sitting in there where they are from. 9 times out of 10 they are from a land locked state. We are pushing for a Merchant Marine Body to Govern the Merchant Marine's because the coast Guard Has there prority's all out of whack. As for meesing with Huricanes, It's just stupid. Somebody Hired the Bounty Captain, I'm betting someone with little or no experience at sea, there fore he could convince them he was capable of making wize decsisions, didn't his wife say's he had been in lot's of huricanes?


Captain,

I wouldn't try to debate with you who has the sea coursing through his veins and who doesn't, but historically, you indeed used to have a government agency comprised of merchies and not the Coast Guard, it was the Old Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation (the BMIN). But they were taken off the helm in the mid-1940s due to rampant back-scratching and corruption, and their duties given to the Coast Guard (marine inspection, licensing, investigation) and Customs (documentation).

Be careful what you wish for... just sayin'


----------



## Capt.aaron

JulieMor said:


> I agree that there should be minimal requirements for certain positions on a ship, such as the captain of a passenger vessel. But time alone doesn't make a wise, skilled professional. I had one guy on my crew who had 15 years in the electrical trade but had no mechanical aptitude. He was all thumbs. He had to be watched constantly or I'd have a mess on my hands to clean up. BTW, he was also one of the most critical of non-professionals.
> 
> In my post, I was replying to the comments on the pro forum calling recreational boaters foolish. All we really know about them is they identify themselves as professionals. So placing a higher degree of importance to what they say over what anyone here says may be an erroneous assumption.
> 
> But yes, absolutely, learning in a system that promotes expertise, safety and professionalism is by far preferable to being self-taught.


Well, it's not time alone, it's time coupled with a mother of a test. That 1600 ton test makes peoples head spin. I've only done up to the 200 ton and I had smoke comming out of my ears, the room next to mine was guy's preping for the 1600 and they were sad and worried at lunch break. Any body remember the U.S Air Craft Carrier arguing with the Canadian Light house that he had the right of way and should move, and light house keeper telling him he could stand on if he wished but moving the light house would be next to impossable. I know some unlimited dudes that are morons. Even the simplist of large tonnage Captains has an advantage over the hobby sailor in regaurds to descisions made at sea, if not through inherant intellagence, than through absorbtion of being out there day and night for months at a time, under the scrutiny of proticals enforced by the employer and commercial shipping regulations.


----------



## Capt.aaron

nolatom said:


> Captain,
> 
> I wouldn't try to debate with you who has the sea coursing through his veins and who doesn't, but historically, you indeed used to have a government agency comprised of merchies and not the Coast Guard, it was the Old Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation (the BMIN). But they were taken off the helm in the mid-1940s due to rampant back-scratching and corruption, and their duties given to the Coast Guard (marine inspection, licensing, investigation) and Customs (documentation).
> 
> Be careful what you wish for... just sayin'


AH THE GOOD OLD DAY'S. I'd rather a merchie, scratching my back than a Coastie sticking me in the rear. I think in this day of information the corruption would not be as rampant. My wifes uncle is a captain in the Coast Guard and you may be surprised at some of the shananigans that go on in that institution. What's that saying, absolute power corrupt's absolutly.


----------



## chef2sail

> Nobody on this forum used the word "syncophants" in what regards qualifying the crew.


I didnt pull the word synchophant out of thin air. Wether it was originally posted on gCaptain or quoted by a poster on here to make their point it is the same as posting it IMHO. Whoever posts it agrees with it or they wouldnt quote it. Please stop nitpicking my posts over words, like who said sychophant or the REAL meaning in the kinds english of the word bash ( BTW a poster on gCaptian also used the same word), It detracts from the intention of the post and the constant nitpicking really is irrelevant.

Now back to our regular scheduled message



> But time alone doesn't make a wise, skilled professional-JulieMor


.

So true, I can think of many instances like this. It was stated well here that just passing a CG multiple choice test by itself doesnt qualify you for anything. (I know there is an experiencial part to this also in terms of hours/ days)

We have also seen experience doesnt mean it also. The wrong experience could lead to a false sense of security...and too much expeience could lead to complacency.

So what do we do...check out people before we board their ship for a quick sail in Baltimore harbor? I certainly would be more thorough checking out the Captain as a crew memeber on an ocean going passage like this vessel set out on. Would that research have shown his willingness to set sail into the path of a hurricane?

Here is the real question....I have a feeling I know what most of your answers are but I will ask......

Had you been a signed up member of the crew, with your present state of experience and knowledge....would you have stepped foot on the Bounty and left the dock with Captain Walbridge that evening? If not what would you have done? Would you step off and walk away quietly? Would you confront the Captain and tell him your misgivings and not sail, would you tell the others they should not go? Would you call the home office and tell of thier misgivings? Would you call the CG and let them know the Captain likes to chase Hurricanes and was hell bent on chasing Sandy?

What would you really DO?

Dave


----------



## Capt.aaron

chef2sail said:


> I didnt pull the word synchophant out of thin air. Wether it was originally posted on gCaptain or quoted by a poster on here to make their point it is the same as posting it IMHO. Whoever posts it agrees with it or they wouldnt quote it. Please stop nitpicking my posts over words, like who said sychophant or the REAL meaning in the kinds english of the word bash ( BTW a poster on gCaptian also used the same word), It detracts from the intention of the post and the constant nitpicking really is irrelevant.
> 
> Now back to our regular scheduled message
> 
> .
> 
> So true, I can think of many instances like this. It was stated well here that just passing a CG multiple choice test by itself doesnt qualify you for anything.
> 
> We have also seen experience doesnt mean it also. The wrong experience could lead to a false sense of security...and too much expeience could lead to complacency.
> 
> So what do we do...check out people before we board their ship for a quick sail in Baltimore harbor? I certainly would be more thorough checking out the Captain as a crew memeber on an ocean going passage like this vessel set out on. Would that research have shown his willingness to set sail into the path of a hurricane?
> 
> Here is the real question....I have a feeling I know what most of your answers are but I will ask......
> 
> Had you been a signed up member of the crew, with your present state of experience and knowledge....would you have stepped foot on the Bounty and left the dock with Captain Walbridge that evening? If not what would you have done?
> 
> Dave


I know exactly what I would of done, I would of told him he's a flipp'n moron and physically stopped him from leaving the dock. I've been faced with the same descision when I was a young crew on a ship right before Hugo hit P.R.. and the ship did sink, at the dock. Luckly the crew headed my protest and joined in my descision to not go, or I was going to disable the engine beyond a quick repair.


----------



## casey1999

So we are going to ask the Coast Guard to increase inspections to protect us from ourselves?

Chef2Sail:
Is your yacht called Haleakula? If so, that means "house of the Open Meadows" in Hawaiian. "House of the Sun" is "Haleakalā" in Hawaiian.


----------



## SloopJonB

JulieMor said:


> I agree that there should be minimal requirements for certain positions on a ship, such as the captain of a passenger vessel. But time alone doesn't make a wise, skilled professional.


Witness the captain of the Costa Concordia.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I didnt pull the word synchophant out of thin air. Wether it was originally posted on gCaptain or *quoted by a poster on here to make their point it is the same as posting it IMHO*. Whoever posts it agrees with it or they wouldnt quote it. ... It detracts from the intention of the post and the constant nitpicking really is irrelevant.
> 
> ....
> Dave


Dave, let me make it clear: When I post here the opinions of experienced professionals (as you saw I posted also their qualifications) about a subject that does not mean I agree necessarily with all of what they are saying and *I may even disagree*. However, have I said, for the reasons that Capt.aaron made clear, I value their overall opinions over my own and I think they are a good contribution for this discussion. By the way I don't agree with the word "*synchophant* " to qualify the Bounty crew.

Regards

Paulo

Regards


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> Had you been a signed up member of the crew, with your present state of experience and knowledge....would you have stepped foot on the Bounty and left the dock with Captain Walbridge that evening? If not what would you have done? Would you step off and walk away quietly? Would you confront the Captain and tell him your misgivings and not sail, would you tell the others they should not go? Would you call the home office and tell of thier misgivings? Would you call the CG and let them know the Captain likes to chase Hurricanes and was hell bent on chasing Sandy?
> 
> What would you really DO?
> 
> Dave


That's a good question... But it doesn't work as a question because the people going with him have neither the life experience or sailing experience of me... That's not saying I'm anything great, but I am a solo sailor who has been solo in all my endeavors thru life, never married etc. I don't really do well in a company or team type group. I hate and can identify peer preasure, where others don't mind it, nor realize when they are being persuaded by the "if the team sticks together" crap.

So I have no doubt I would be straight off the boat and everyone would know its my decision based on lack of faith in a captain taking the vessel to sea in those conditions(note that's different to me saying I don't like the weather).

I would not tell the captain in front of the crew my lack of faith in him, I would say in front of the crew I think it's a weather problem and advise people to get off.

I would not call the Coast Guard but I would call the owners.
If I had a friend on board who I thought was under the influence of peer group, or cult group, I would call a lawyer to speak to the owners.

Finally I might call the local news.


----------



## PCP

Capt.aaron said:


> I know exactly what I would of done, I would of told him he's a flipp'n moron and physically stopped him from leaving the dock. I've been faced with the same descision when I was a young crew on a ship right before Hugo hit P.R.. and the ship did sink, at the dock. Luckly the crew headed my protest and joined in my descision to not go, or I was going to disable the engine beyond a quick repair.


Well, I certainly would not have sailed on a wooden XVII designed ship to an hurricane path unless at gun point. I surely would steep back of that boat and would voice loudly my opinion regarding the insanity of doing that even at a cost of being called a coward and knowing perfectly well that nobody would listen to me. At least I would have tried

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Here is the real question....I have a feeling I know what most of your answers are but I will ask......
> 
> Had you been a signed up member of the crew, with your present state of experience and knowledge....would you have stepped foot on the Bounty and left the dock with Captain Walbridge that evening? If not what would you have done? Would you step off and walk away quietly? Would you confront the Captain and tell him your misgivings and not sail, would you tell the others they should not go? Would you call the home office and tell of thier misgivings? Would you call the CG and let them know the Captain likes to chase Hurricanes and was hell bent on chasing Sandy?
> 
> What would you really DO?
> 
> Dave


Here's what I would do. Talk with the Capt in private and tell him I think it is a bad idea to sail when a hurricane is lurking in our path. Try to talk him out of going. If he still wanted to sail, I would probably call the main office, talk with the head hancho and try to talk them out of sailing the ship.

If the Office and the Capt still wanted to sail, I would privately warn each crew individually of my concerns especially if they were not experienced with the sea, to give them the option to step off the ship. In the end, if the ship sailed, I would probably go. I am a pretty good swimmer and think I could survive a sinking, and may be able to help others survive and be some benefit to the ship, so I probably would go.


----------



## casey1999

Question:
Could the Coast Guard have prevented the Bounty from sailing when it left the dock prior to hurricane Sandy? If so, under what regulation? If someone had called the CG and said they did not think Bounty should sail, would the CG do anything or just let her go? Can the CG restrict boats/ships from sailing into certain weather systems like a northeaster or hurricane, seeing the CG will be called for help when somthing goes wrong?


----------



## Capt.aaron

casey1999 said:


> Question:
> Could the Coast Guard have prevented the Bounty from sailing when it left the dock prior to hurricane Sandy? If so, under what regulation? If someone had called the CG and said they did not think Bounty should sail, would the CG do anything or just let her go? Can the CG restrict boats/ships from sailing into certain weather systems like a northeaster or hurricane, seeing the CG will be called for help when somthing goes wrong?


They can close a harbor. restricting movement. MARSEC level's and what not. They can advise against, and they can decommission a vessel and admin. fines to the captain and owners as well as pull his ticket if he does'nt head the warning.


----------



## PCP

Capt.aaron said:


> They can close a harbor. restricting movement. MARSEC level's and what not. They can advise against, and they can decommission a vessel and admin. fines to the captain and owners as well as pull his ticket if he does'nt head the warning.


Sorry, MARSEC levels?

Do you mean that like here they can close selectively a Port?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.aaron

PCP said:


> Sorry, MARSEC levels?
> 
> Do you mean that like here they can close selectively a Port?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


They can decide they have reason's for security threat and or weather and stop all commercial trafiic.


----------



## killarney_sailor

casey1999 said:


> Question:
> Could the Coast Guard have prevented the Bounty from sailing when it left the dock prior to hurricane Sandy? If so, under what regulation? If someone had called the CG and said they did not think Bounty should sail, would the CG do anything or just let her go? Can the CG restrict boats/ships from sailing into certain weather systems like a northeaster or hurricane, seeing the CG will be called for help when somthing goes wrong?


Had an interesting example of this last year. We were in the Galapagos when the earthquake and tsunami from Japan happened. The first reaction of the Port Captain, actually connected to the Ecuadorean navy, was to close the harbor and not allow anyone to leave. They actually sent a patrol boat out to retrieve one boat that had left, not because of the tsunami but just because they were leaving and had their zarpe (clearance document). This was obviously the wrong decision since the harbor pointed pretty clearly toward Japan, but we had several hours notice. I was going to go ashore to the Port Captain's office and explain why I was going to leave, clearance, closed port or not and why others should leave - when the PC got word from someone that everyone should be in deep water (not hard there) an hour before the tsunami was to hit.

I think this points out the sometimes difficult dynamic between the responsibilities of the governing body (USGC, Ecuadorean navy, et al) and the responsibilities of the master of a vessel. I hope I am never in the shoes of the captain of the Bounty, but I think it is simplistic to suggest that it was a clearcut decision either way.


----------



## nolatom

They can also declare a planned departure to constitute a "manifestly unsafe voyage", see section (g) here:

§ 177.07 Other unsafe conditions. :: PART 177--CORRECTION OF ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS :: CHAPTER I--COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY :: Title 33 - Navigation and Navigable Waters :: Code of Federal Regulations :: Regulations :: L

Thing is, while it is tempting to opine that a voyage "was" manifestly unsafe after a casualty, if this very considerable power is used too often, we are looking at the "nanny state" which most mariners hate.

So in my experience the Coast Guard (meaning a District Commander, the decision actually gets all the way to the Admiral) uses this weapon very sparingly, and usually it's the vessel's condition, rather than the captain's planned route or tactics, that triggers such a finding and termination of a voyage. And they are particularly reluctant to tell a skipper who wants to ride a storm out at sea, that he can't.

Would more people live if they declared a voyage manifestly unsafe if there was even a little doubt? Yes. But at what price freedom and 'captain's discretion', which typically (okay, not here I admit) saves many more lives than it costs?


----------



## PCP

Capt.aaron said:


> They can decide they have reason's for security threat and or weather and stop all commercial trafiic.


What I am asking if it is like here? The Port captain has absolute authority in what regards safety and sometimes, if he finds it adequate, he can, for safety reasons, close the port not to all commercial or pleasure craft but just to some types of boats.

For instance in Figueira da Foz, a marina on a river near the mouth and also a Port, the Port Captain frequently closed the port to boats smaller than 10m, when the waves on the bar would make dangerous the crossing of the bar for those boats. I am not discussing if he is right or not. If he finds so his ruling is final. He can do whatever he pleases in what regards safety if he finds it justifiable. Of course if he takes absurd measures he has to justify himself to his superiors, but only later.

Well, for you to understand better, here all Ports are regulated in what regards security not by civilians but by navy officers. The Captain of a port is always a Navy officer and I guess only one of those would have the balls to say that the Bounty was not authorized to leave port. Or am I wrong?

edit: I guess Nolatom replied to my question but that need to go till the Admiral seems not very practical on what regards effective measures when they are needed.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

nolatom said:


> Would more people live if they declared a voyage manifestly unsafe if there was even a little doubt? Yes. But at what price freedom and 'captain's discretion', which typically (okay, not here I admit) saves many more lives than it costs?


I think the tall ship industry in the USA may well be shivering in their shoes.

And I think we can say that for the future of cruising as it is now, we are lucky that not all 16 died!


----------



## nolatom

Paulo, the Coast Guard, though having lots of peacetime missions, is also a military service, and they and their predecessor services (the Revenue Cutters of the Treasury Dept) took in all major wars at sea.

So the Captain of the Port is typically a Coast Guard Captain, or Commander. And they have much authority to order ships to move,or not move, depending on the security needs of the port or any other event which requires such action in the interest of safety, preservation of the port, and the like. So sounds not unlike your Navy Port Captains.

A blurb on Coast Guard history from the 'good book' Wikipedia ;-)






And the need to go to the Admiral is to make sure this rather drastic step of ordering someone not to sail from a nice harbor on a nice day because of what might happen later at sea, isn't overused of taken in haste by some Lieutenant down on the waterfront. Usually Admiral follows the recommendation of the Captain of the Port, who knows his/her Lieutenants.


----------



## JulieMor

Capt.aaron said:


> I know exactly what I would of done, I would of told him he's a flipp'n moron and physically stopped him from leaving the dock.


Too bad you weren't on board. It may have been the second Mutiny On The Bounty but lives would have been saved.


----------



## Capt.aaron

JulieMor said:


> Too bad you weren't on board. It may have been the second Mutiny On The Bounty but lives would have been saved.


Indeed, I hope the next generation of schooner kid's learn from this and realize these Capt guy's are'nt demi gods as so many of them think they are. 
I was taught early to respect the captains orders until they are down right rediculous.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Something is still missing.

As I said in my earlier post, since I am Captain Obvious, the Bounty crew were not conscripts. Why did all of them decide to go on what so many have labeled as an obvious suicide voyage? Not one of them could be compelled to sail against their will.

Even in the U.S. Navy, nobody is going to tackle you if you decide to walk off the brow even as the lines are being singled up. Oh, your ass is grass alright... but nobody's going to tie you up and force you to get underway. Better to have discipline problems OFF the ship than to bring them along for the ride. Follow the captain's orders on the ship or follow the guard's orders in the brig. But either way, you still have a choice.

So, why were 16 people complicit in such stupidity, if that is the argument that is being made- namely that the decision to sail would be obviously stupid, even to the most disinterested observer?

I say that 16 people would not be so stupid. Nor would they all be coerced by imaginary orders from a commercial captain of a display ship. The captain is the captain at sea-we live and die by following his orders, but on the hard he's one more boss at a job that you can quit. There's the door. This is still America.

Although a great number of smart people have posted wonderfully insightful opinions on this thread, it is all total conjecture at this point. There are 16 people who have to answer the question, because only they know the truth- and dare say not all 16 will agree when all is said and done.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

ShoalFinder said:


> Something is still missing.
> 
> There are 16 people who have to answer the question, because only they know the truth- .


Oh no, they may not know the truth!! They may think they know. They may think they were going of their own free will.

But no they may have been deluded!

Young, naive, and deluded by lots of nice masts, a skipper with personality, a mate with a gold earring, the smell of adventure and "we are a team!" Or the other type: "yes, you go home to mummy you woooose. Go play with toys, you're not man enough to sail on a tall ship with us. Look how stupid you will feel when we arrive in Florida having beaten Frankenstorm".

No. The people inside the cult, the ones believing the cult leader may be the last to be able to tell the truth.


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Oh no, they may not know the truth!! They may think they know. They may think they were going of their own free will.
> 
> But no they may have been deluded!
> 
> Young, naive, and deluded by lots of nice masts, a skipper with personality, a mate with a gold earring, the smell of adventure and "we are a team!" Or the other type: "yes, you go home to mummy you woooose. Go play with toys, you're not man enough to sail on a tall ship with us. Look how stupid you will feel when we arrive in Florida having beaten Frankenstorm".
> 
> No. The people inside the cult, the ones believing the cult leader may be the last to be able to tell the truth.


I think it is all in degrees of risk.

A lot of non sailing folks think we as sailors going out on the ocean in little plastic sail boats is stupid. They think it is a risk, and when we run into trouble we call up the Coast Guard asking for (and sometimes demanding) help, all at the risk of lives to the Coast Guard and all the while spending taxpayers' money in the process. A lot of non sailor folks probably think all pleasure boats should stay at the dock at all times.


----------



## PCP

nolatom said:


> ...
> And the need to go to the Admiral is to make sure this rather drastic step of ordering someone not to sail from a nice harbor on a nice day because of what might happen later at sea, isn't overused of taken in haste by some Lieutenant down on the waterfront. Usually Admiral follows the recommendation of the Captain of the Port, who knows his/her Lieutenants.


Yes I guess it has similarities but here a Port captain is never a lieutenant. We have a different terminology, here a Captain is always a Navy officer and also one that is a rank to be Captain of a ship have a look:

Postos

As you see there are several Captains and the lower one it is Capitão Tenente that corresponds to a Major in the army. Normally Captain-lieutenant are in charge of smaller ports and on bigger ones the rank is Capitães de Fragata (over on the hierarchy). No inexperienced lieutenants in charge, all experienced seamen and probably is why they don't have to have authorization from an Admiral if they think something requires their ruling in what regards safety.

On the merchant ships "Captains" here are Comandantes (commander) and on fishing boats or small boats Mestres (Master). On private boats they are Patrões (Boss). Were we have to have licences for commanding private boats over 7m (Patrão). Under that you need only a Sailor's licence (Marinheiro). There are 3 Patrões licences, Local, Coastal and Deep sea (unlimited).

Well, complicated but you have to remember that our Navy is almost 800 years old and names and titles come for a long way and that tend to make things a lot more complicated

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.aaron

I know a girl who is friends with one of the 16, she's a schooner girl from Key West and I'll ask her when I get to land on wed. If I can sit down and buy him a beer. I think he"s in The Key's now. Maybe get the scoop.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I think it is all in degrees of risk.
> 
> A lot of non sailing folks think we as sailors going out on the ocean in little plastic sail boats is stupid. They think it is a risk, and when we run into trouble we call up the Coast Guard asking for (and sometimes demanding) help, all at the risk of lives to the Coast Guard and all the while spending taxpayers' money in the process. A lot of non sailor folks probably think all pleasure boats should stay at the dock.


I think someday we are going to have problems because there are too many sailors out there calling for help without having a valid reason to do so (except inexperience) or because they are doing foolish things in old boats that should only be sailed locally. The worst thing is that the non sailing guys are starting to have a point.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> I think someday we are going to have problems because there are too many sailors out there calling for help without having a valid reason to do so (except inexperience) or because they are doing foolish things in old boats that should only be sailed locally. The worst thing is that the non sailing guys are starting to have a point.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Agree. And with all the electronic charts, navigation, gps trackers, sat phones and e-mail, weather routing, weather forcasting, power winches, rolling furler and reefing mains on boats now, it is easy for a non experienced sailor (with a lot of money) to purchase a large well equiped boat and go out and get themselves into real trouble.


----------



## Capt.aaron

casey1999 said:


> agree. And with all the electronic charts, navigation, gps trackers, sat phones and e-mail, weather routing, weather forcasting, power winches, rolling furler and reefing mains on boats now, it is easy for a non experienced sailor (with a lot of money) to purchase a large well equiped boat and go out and get themselves into real trouble.


amen!


----------



## ShoalFinder

Capt.aaron said:


> I know a girl who is friends with one of the 16, she's a schooner girl from Key West and I'll ask her when I get to land on wed. If I can sit down and buy him a beer. I think he"s in The Key's now. Maybe get the scoop.


That would be really cool. Even if his answer is "on the advice of my lawyer, I can offer no comment." I can only imagine the line of questions the guy has had to endure already. Maybe a few pints will get him to speak anonymously to fellow salt.


----------



## Capt.aaron

ShoalFinder said:


> That would be really cool. Even if his answer is "on the advice of my lawyer, I can offer no comment." I can only imagine the line of questions the guy has had to endure already. Maybe a few pints will get him to speak anonymously to fellow salt.


I ran into her in the produce section of my neighborhood market. She was upset and asked me if I had heard about the Bounty. " No" I said, and she said her buddy was on board and had heard 2 had been lost. He called her in the morning and said he was rescued, so they are pretty tight if she was one of the first people he called. She probably know's a lot about what went down. She's a talker so I'll just stop by with a six pack and let her do her thing. He's probably crashing on her couch.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Agree. And with all the electronic charts, navigation, gps trackers, sat phones and e-mail, weather routing, weather forcasting, power winches, rolling furler and reefing mains on boats now, it is easy for a non experienced sailor (with a lot of money) to purchase a large well equiped boat and go out and get themselves into real trouble.


Or more likely not to be in trouble but to think he is in trouble or even more likely his wife thinking they are in trouble

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> I think someday we are going to have problems because there are too many sailors out there calling for help without having a valid reason to do so (except inexperience) or because they are doing foolish things in old boats that should only be sailed locally. The worst thing is that the non sailing guys are starting to have a point.





> And with all the electronic charts, navigation, gps trackers, sat phones and e-mail, weather routing, weather forcasting, power winches, rolling furler and reefing mains on boats now, it is easy for a non experienced sailor (with a lot of money) to purchase a large well equiped boat and go out and get themselves into real trouble.


Probably how the professional truckers feel about car drivers.
Probabaly how the cowboys felt about the settlers going west to populate the US
Probabaly how the landowners in the country feel about the amateur hunters
Proabaly how the professional pilots feel about amatuers taking flying lessons

I am sure the professionals or people who make their professions feel this about people who utilize their space in a recreational manner.

Their are multiple layers of police who gaurd assist in the waters in coastal United Staes and it isnt necessarily always the CG intervening. I fact the CG has turned a lot of calls from recereational boaters over to other first responders and have changed their protocols. In addition there are many money making organizations who respond to most boating problems the people you describe above would require response to. Generally they dont respond unless their is potential loss of life immediately or they are the only game in town.

Overall I have respect for the CG and have seen a degree of professionalism throughout most of my dealings with them. very organization has its Wyatt Earps. Every big organization which has a political head has its beauracracy.

In todays world of terrorism I like seeing their presence in our waterway and harbor. I like seeing them escorting the cruise ships.


----------



## chef2sail

> Yes I guess it has similarities but here a Port captain is never a lieutenant-.PCP


Our larger ports are not under the jurisdiction of Jr Officers at all. Comparing the area amount of waterways between coastal Portugal and the entire United States not a realistic comparison. Portugal has less coastline than Florida or Maine . Therefore their will be less ranked officers in charge of some of the minor tribuataries and ports.

Here is a quick refernece to the CG. One of their major missions is SAR and always has been


----------



## Capt.aaron

chef2sail said:


> Probably how the professional truckers feel about car drivers.
> Probabaly how the cowboys felt about the settlers going west to populate the US
> Probabaly how the landowners in the country feel about the amateur hunters
> Proabaly how the professional pilots feel about amatuers taking flying lessons
> 
> I am sure the professionals or people who make their professions feel this about people who utilize their space in a recreational manner.
> 
> Their are multiple layers of police who gaurd assist in the waters in coastal United Staes and it isnt necessarily always the CG intervening. I fact the CG has turned a lot of calls from recereational boaters over to other first responders and have changed their protocols. In addition there are many money making organizations who respond to most boating problems the people you describe above would require response to. Generally they dont respond unless their is potential loss of life immediately or they are the only game in town.
> 
> Overall I have respect for the CG and have seen a degree of professionalism throughout most of my dealings with them. very organization has its Wyatt Earps. Every big organization which has a political head has its beauracracy.
> 
> In todays world of terrorism I like seeing their presence in our waterway and harbor. I like seeing them escorting the cruise ships.


Can't argue with that, however the week end sailor used to have to have a much broader skill set than today, First they invented the engine, all of a sudden you didn't need to know how to sail, then the radio direction finder, no need to learn to navigate, now the chart plotter, why learn to read a chart, clips and jam's, why learn how to handle line,..........


----------



## PCP

Capt.aaron said:


> .... however the week end sailor used to have to have a much broader skill set than today, First they invented the engine, all of a sudden you didn't need to know how to sail, then the radio direction finder, no need to learn to navigate, now the chart plotter, why learn to read a chart, clips and jam's, why learn how to handle line,..........


It seems that there is yet some good amateur sailors out there. About this one I have mixed feelings: I would have not attempted to cross the Atlantic in such a light and small cat, I guess that it was risky and foolish but at least the guy took the risks alone, did not cry for help when things went wrong (and he had an Epirb) and I guess he would have made it back home alone.

BBC News - Skipper of missing Orinoco Flo 'gutted' to be rescued

Boat builder stranded alone at sea for 50 DAYS after mast snapped as he crossed the Atlantic in friend's boat | Mail Online

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> It seems that there is yet some good amateur sailors out there. About this one I have mixed feelings: I would have not attempted to cross the Atlantic in such a light and small cat, I guess that it was risky and foolish but at least the guy took the risks alone, did not cry for help when things went wrong (and he had an Epirb) and I guess he would have made it back home alone.
> 
> BBC News - Skipper of missing Orinoco Flo 'gutted' to be rescued


I, for one, wish there were more people out there like that.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Capt.aaron said:


> Can't argue with that, however the week end sailor used to have to have a much broader skill set than today, First they invented the engine, all of a sudden you didn't need to know how to sail, then the radio direction finder, no need to learn to navigate, now the chart plotter, why learn to read a chart, clips and jam's, why learn how to handle line,..........


Come on, Aaron! Don't get pathetic about it. 
That's like saying Neanderthals were better than us because they could make arrows and capture game. 

Electronics have made boating vastly safer for all. They have allowed many people to go sailing vastly more safely than previously.

Just go read a book like Gentelmen never sail to weather and you will see how many times these idiots nearly died.

Just go around a marina or cruising area and have a talk to people. Vastly more intelligent than the critics suggest. Also far more accomplished in cruising, navigation, rules of the road, understanding and respecting other cultures as well as the sea fish and wildlife. 

Because paper and sextants have been shoved up the ass of the garbage can people can now relax and enjoy the important parts of boating.

And if people think its gone to hell, then look at the statistics of cruiser type fatalities. Since GPS and Ecn they are a fraction of what hey were in the 1970s, let alone including the increased number of people doing it.

The modern advent of boat systems have opened the oceans to all. And that makes a lot of old timers very angry because they have lost their uniqueness.

Mark <----- who circumnavigated and says ANYONE can do it!!! And everyone who wants to should


----------



## Capt.aaron

There are a ton of amatuer sailors that are absolute pro's. There are professional sailors that suck. Like the cattle-maran kids in key west harbor. In my world, if the boat is less than 85 feet it's tiny and therefore rather easy to handle, the boat I steer at work is 400 feet long when all hooked up. It's relative. You don't want mariners with no formal training driving vessel's of significant tonnnage and gurth, however I bet some of the 1600 ton guy's I work with would be sh!tting there pants off shore in a 28 foot sail boat. They'd be lost and almost none of them know how to sail.


----------



## Capt.aaron

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Come on, Aaron! Don't get pathetic about it.
> That's like saying Neanderthals were better than us because they could make arrows and capture game.
> 
> Electronics have made boating vastly safer for all. They have allowed many people to go sailing vastly more safely than previously.
> 
> Just go read a book like Gentelmen never sail to weather and you will see how many times these idiots nearly died.
> 
> Just go around a marina or cruising area and have a talk to people. Vastly more intelligent than the critics suggest. Also far more accomplished in cruising, navigation, rules of the road, understanding and respecting other cultures as well as the sea fish and wildlife.
> 
> Because paper and sextants have been shoved up the @#!*% of the garbage can people can now relax and enjoy the important parts of boating.
> 
> And if people think its gone to @#!*% , then look at the statistics of cruiser type fatalities. Since GPS and Ecn they are a fraction of what hey were in the 1970s, let alone including the increased number of people doing it.
> 
> The modern advent of boat systems have opened the oceans to all. And that makes a lot of old timers very angry because they have lost their uniqueness.
> 
> Mark <----- who circumnavigated and says ANYONE can do it!!! And everyone who wants to should


First of all, from what I understand, you have completed a circumnavigation and are on your way to to the Med. So...hat's off to you my man, And every thing you said is true. How ever, I was raised on traditional seamaship, I've been eating it for breakfast since I was a kid, I suckled it from my mothers breast, I sail a little sloop alone with no engine and a compass across oceans and I've been doing that for 20 years. I also use the newest gadgets on delivery's of new Yachts. The Radar I opperate on the tug is sick, I can see kayakers on it. The AIS, the 30" chart plotter etc. I like to be versatile in my skill's and types of boat's I can run, and I think a solid foundation in some of the old tried and true art's free's me from the bond's of technology. Factories full of people and computer engineers have'nt made it possible for me to cross an ocean, I don't need any of that crap, I just think it's neat not necasarry. I used to think it was pathetic to go to sea with out a certain skill set, I used to look at your computers as training wheel's, but I get it now. I see guy's like you sailing around the world and I'm happy you guy's are out there doing it, it's inspirational.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Capt.aaron said:


> . I used to think it was pathetic to go to sea with out a certain skill set, I used to look at your computers as training wheel's, but I get it now. I see guy's like you sailing around the world and I'm happy you guy's are out there doing it, it's inspirational.


Thanks for the nice thoughts  it's been good, and stays good, except for minor problems like this one that's kept me in one spot for three weeks 
It isn't inspirational. It's easy 

I think the skill set we think the old guys had is pretty exaggerated.
My first off shore races when I was 17, I had already raced for years in the Harbour so I knew how to sail, but offshore was a shock. Every morning I would wake up to the navigator and skipper looking through the gloomy dawn saying: ",is that Norah Head?" Or some other point. And I would look out at the thin grey line of the coast knowing I wouldn't know if I'd seen it a million times, just a thin grey line.

So I thought that skipper and navigator must be dickheads.

Next boat I was on was exactly the same!

God knows how a whole race fleet got to Hobart. Must have all just followed one another, and the guys who could count 22 lighthouses and turned right, won! :laugher

So don't tell me they could navigate. If it was easy to take a sextant sight they wouldn't have been kicking the SatNav machine for 8 hours to get one fix putting you somewhere 300 miles ashore.

Don't tell me the guys who say they can reduce a sight actually can, they can't. They put it into a calculator and push the button. That's what they did in the 70's and did till GPS came out, then all the crap was shoved in the bottom draw and never, ever looked at since. 

Don't tell me the professional fishermen could work out the weather by looking out the wheelhouse and sniffing the air.... Fishing was the most dangerous occupation in Australa till the 1980s when weather radar was first effectively used.

And we could discuss ships now going much slower than they used to because their nav is so much better they can clip hours off each day with tight nav and weather routing, schedules are still virtually the same, just the speed has gone down.

For the novice sailor now he has already used all the navigation and communication tools used on a boat! Yes! He has already used computers, electronic maps on his PC, iPhone and car Tom Tom thing, used his phone like a sat phone, used binoculars to perve at girls.
So the learning curve isn't as huge as learning a sextant, Maths, almanacs and pricking his finger with dividers, a funny ruler on wheels, a protractor he hated at school, all whilst vomiting...

We shouldn't look back with rosé colored glasses... Just look at the chart of cape Fear to Cape Lookout and see that long line of wrecks. That line has NOT been added to by cruisers out on their Mum and Dad jaunts to the Bahamas and Carribbean in the last 20 years..... They were all there from when the old timers held sway... Until the Bounty, of course.

I'm not saying recreational cruisers are all wonderful sailors but we have the tools that do make it much easier. We can't outlaw ding-a-lings, and tragedies happen too often, but the benefits of cruising outweigh them 

Mark


----------



## Capt.aaron

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Thanks for the nice thoughts  it's been good, and stays good, except for minor problems like this one that's kept me in one spot for three weeks
> It isn't inspirational. It's easy
> 
> I think the skill set we think the old guys had is pretty exaggerated.
> My first off shore races when I was 17, I had already raced for years in the Harbour so I knew how to sail, but offshore was a shock. Every morning I would wake up to the navigator and skipper looking through the gloomy dawn saying: ",is that Norah Head?" Or some other point. And I would look out at the thin grey line of the coast knowing I wouldn't know if I'd seen it a million times, just a thin grey line.
> 
> So I thought that skipper and navigator must be @#!*% .
> 
> Next boat I was on was exactly the same!
> 
> God knows how a whole race fleet got to Hobart. Must have all just followed one another, and the guys who could count 22 lighthouses and turned left, won! :laugher
> 
> So don't tell me they could navigate. If it was easy to take a sextant sight they wouldn't have been kicking the SatNav machine for 8 hours to get one fix putting you somewhere 300 miles ashore.
> 
> Don't tell me the guys who say they can reduce a sight actually can, they can't. They put it into a calculator and push the button. That's what they did in the 70's and did till GPS came out, then all the crap was shoved in the bottom draw and never, ever looked at since.
> 
> Don't tell me the professional fishermen could work out the weather by looking out the wheelhouse and sniffing the air.... Fishing was the most dangerous occupation in Australa till the 1980s when weather radar was first effectively used.
> 
> And we could discuss ships now going much slower than they used to because their nav is so much better they can clip hours off each day with tight nav and weather routing, schedules are still virtually the same, just the speed has gone down.
> 
> For the novice sailor now he has already used all the navigation and communication tools used on a boat! Yes! He has already used computers, electronic maps on his PC, iPhone and car Tom Tom thing, used his phone like a sat phone, used binoculars to perve at girls.
> So the learning curve isn't as huge as learning a sextant, Maths, almanacs and pricking his finger with dividers, a funny ruler on wheels, a protractor he hated at school, all whilst vomiting...
> 
> We shouldn't look back with rosé colored glasses... Just look at the chart of cape Fear to Cape Lookout and see that long line of wrecks. That line has NOT been added to by cruisers out on their Mum and Dad jaunts to the Bahamas and Carribbean in the last 20 years..... They were all there from when the old timers held sway... Until the Bounty, of course.
> 
> I'm not saying recreational cruisers are all wonderful sailors but we have the tools that do make it much easier. We can't outlaw ding-a-lings, and tragedies happen too often, but the benefits of cruising outweigh them
> 
> Mark


I hear ya, I don't spend a god awful amount of time trying to figure out where I am. I just dead reckon. I can spit over the side and I know my speed, and My compass tell's me the direction I've been going, eventually a mountain or a point, or the glow of a city appears on the horizon and I start piloting my way towards it. I've been trying to tell people how easy it is for years. I'm fixing to get my all oceans endorsement on my 500 ton international mate lisence and celestial is a big part of the test. No big deal, it's not all that hard to do a short hand noon sight. Getting around with out technology is a big part of what I like about cruising. I'm not against it, just being dependant on it. You should let me know when you are in Key west, love to hear your sea stories and have more enlightening disscusion's on the paper vs. comp. screen, I'll buy the first 2 rounds at Finnegan's Wake.


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...
> 
> So don't tell me they could navigate. If it was easy to take a sextant sight they wouldn't have been kicking the SatNav machine for 8 hours to get one fix putting you somewhere 300 miles ashore.
> 
> Don't tell me the guys who say they can reduce a sight actually can, they can't. They put it into a calculator and push the button. That's what they did in the 70's and did till GPS came out, then all the crap was shoved in the bottom draw and never, ever looked at since.
> 
> .....
> I'm not saying recreational cruisers are all wonderful sailors but we have the tools that do make it much easier. We can't outlaw ding-a-lings, and tragedies happen too often, but the benefits of cruising outweigh them
> 
> Mark


Mark, tools just make the live easier but basic knowledge can be necessary. Here for having a licence that permits you to cross Oceans (I am talking about private boats) you have to know how to find your way in the Ocean without GPS, computers or even or dedicated calculators. Everything is made by hand and that's a indispensable part of the examination. If you don't know how to do it you will not pass.

Regarding to be easy there is a guy that cross Oceans in a boat the size of a kayak doing all navigation with a small sextant he invented. If the guy can make it on a kayak that will not be difficult on a much bigger boat, not everyday, but that is part of the navigation: Far away of the shore you have only to know your approximated position and where you are going. With more settled weather you will have a good reading and will know precisely where you are.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> I, for one, wish there were more people out there like that.


I don't know If I agree. Well, the guy did not ask for help and I applaud that, but he was crossing an Ocean with a boat that was not made for it and obviously taking risks and did not have means foe long distance communications. He did not call for help but someone of his relations obviously asked because the guy was not communicating, so in fact this is one of the cases where the non sailors would say (with reason): There they are doing stupid things and wasting huge amounts of our money to save them or to know that they are not in danger.

These are the ones that make the news, like that 69 year's old grand mother that is circumnavigating non-stop, that guy that is going to do the same on a 10ft boat or the other one that is doing that in a sportive way trying to be the faster amateur doing that on a A35. The A35 is a great boat that has crossed oceans many times but ask to a real pro, the ones that race the Open60, to go sail with one on the great southern sea desert at 50º latitude and they will no do it because it is too risky. These are just the more know because they get sponsors and publicity but for each of one I am sure that there are dozens doing stupid and dangerous things in a boat.

You can say: It's their live and all the non sailors would say: It's our money that is used to rescue them.

Sooner or latter the increasing number of these cases will have dire consequences to all prudent sailors that don't do risky things but, as in all things in life, can have a need for help.

You guys consider Europe as a bunch of nanny states and not agreeing in the essential I understand the point. We take care of ours and here nobody dies if someone needs medical attention and has no money.

I understand that someone can disagree with that namely in the case of a guy that has wealth problems because all his life he had taken risks that lead to the need of that medical treatment but what I don't understand is why the same kind of reason is not applied to sailors: Why should prudent citizens pay for expensive rescues to guys that are stupidly risking their lives in inadequate boats and without the knowledge to do what they are doing. It is their fault anyway. Why should all pay for their stupidity?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Flatballer

On Insidenova.com there is an interview with the "engineer". Article is called Surviving the Bounty. He had joined the ship two months ago. Captain explained at the dock what was up and said he'd understand if they wanted to bail.

Had been around small boats all his life. Received basic safety training and some instruction on climbing the rigging. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a crack diesel and genset guy. He owns a handyman business, not exactly qualifying credentials to be in charge of big marine diesels and gensets. 

No mention of the fact that maybe if they had a proper engineer the engine wouldn't have failed.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chef2sail

> Why should prudent citizens pay for expensive rescues to guys that are stupidly risking their lives in inadequate boats and without the knowledge to do what they are doing. It is their fault anyway. Why should all pay for their stupidity


Should we just rescue the guys on the Berring Sea who fish for crab in horrendous conditions?

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Should we just rescue the guys on the Berring Sea who fish for crab in horrendous conditions?
> 
> Dave


No Dave, I think that even the people that is just left do die because they cannot pay the hospital bills should be saved.

what I mean is that good sense is needed here and if the good sense continues to lack and the number of rescues continue to raise, someday we will all have to pay, kind of the rescues being paid by a mandatory insurance...and that is not going to be cheap

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Flatballer said:


> On Insidenova.com there is an interview with the "engineer". Article is called Surviving the Bounty. He had joined the ship two months ago. Captain explained at the dock what was up and said he'd understand if they wanted to bail.
> 
> Had been around small boats all his life. Received basic safety training and some instruction on climbing the rigging. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a crack diesel and genset guy. He owns a handyman business, not exactly qualifying credentials to be in charge of big marine diesels and gensets.
> 
> No mention of the fact that maybe if they had a proper engineer the engine wouldn't have failed.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


You mean this?:

quote:

The storm was not unexpected by the crew; Walbridge had called everyone on deck to tell them about the approaching hurricane before they left Connecticut, saying he would under-stand if people decided to get off the ship, Barksdale said.

Everyone stayed.

"Naturally I was a little hesitant about that, but [the captain] explained the situation and it seemed like he had a pretty good strategy," Barksdale said. "We were going to try and get around the hurricane. Nobody knew that it was going to have the in-tensity and size it ended up having."

Rough winds and waves shook the ship for about a day and a half. 
Crewmembers had to cling to parts of the Bounty or they would be thrown overboard.

Around midday Oct. 28, the crew noticed the ship was taking on more water than normal. Mechanical problems developed, including the failure of one of the main engines and the water pumps. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Bounty's land office were alerted.

Conditions worsened later in the day. Crew members began pulling out immersion suits - used to keep them dry and warm in the water - and stuffing dry bags with rations in case the order came to abandon ship, Barksdale said.

Up until the early hours of Oct. 29, the crew's priority was saving the ship.

...

When the battered and sleep-deprived crew went on deck in the hours before dawn, waves continued to hammer the ship. The Bounty had taken on so much water she was almost on her side with her three masts in the ocean."It became apparent that you didn't have much choice, you were going in that water," Barksdale said.

....

Barksdale became a crew-member a few months ago, when his friend and the Bounty's first mate, John Svend-sen, asked him to fill the engineer's spot on the crew. Barksdale had declined last spring due to family and business obligations, but agreed this time thinking if he turned down his friend again, Svendsen would stop calling.

....

As the engineer, Barksdale was responsible for the engines, electrical generation and water systems. He was with the crew for almost two months.
Barksdale has been around small boats for most of his life, but this was his first experience with a tall ship. Before setting sail, he received basic safety training and some instruction on climbing in the rigging.

....

His life already has started re-turning to normal, with work calls coming in for his small business,* Honey-Do Handyman*. His clients and friends have sent cards, called and emailed since they heard about the Bounty.

Surviving the Bounty: Va. man recalls sinking of HMS Bounty during superstorm Sandy - INSIDENOVA.COM: Virginia & Region: headlines, headlinesscs,

Well, this seems to bring new information:

The Engineer was an Handy-Man and the pumps failed prior of at least one engine. The "engineer" aboard should know about that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> It seems that there is yet some good amateur sailors out there. About this one I have mixed feelings: I would have not attempted to cross the Atlantic in such a light and small cat, I guess that it was risky and foolish but at least the guy took the risks alone, did not cry for help when things went wrong (and he had an Epirb) and I guess he would have made it back home alone.
> 
> BBC News - Skipper of missing Orinoco Flo 'gutted' to be rescued
> 
> Boat builder stranded alone at sea for 50 DAYS after mast snapped as he crossed the Atlantic in friend's boat | Mail Online
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Good articles, that Matt Gill is not only quite a sailor, but a great artist..


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> No Dave, I think that even the people that is just left do die because they cannot pay the hospital bills should be saved.
> 
> what I mean is that good sense is needed here and if the good sense continues to lack and the number of rescues continue to raise, someday we will all have to pay, kind of the rescues being paid by a mandatory insurance...and that is not going to be cheap
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Exactly, that is what I am thinking will happen. Before you are allowed to depart on an ocean crossing passage, you will be required to post insurance or a bond that would cover your rescue if needed.


----------



## chef2sail

> Before you are allowed to depart on an ocean crossing passage, you will be required to post insurance or a bond that would cover your rescue if needed.


How are you going to enforce this? Does it mean going to the Carribean? Fishing of the coast of NJ in winter for clams> Oopelio crab fishing in the Bering Sea?


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> How are you going to enforce this? Does it mean going to the Carribean? Fishing of the coast of NJ in winter for clams> Oopelio crab fishing in the Bering Sea?


Not sure, but then I am not sure how the government is going to enforce Obama Care. How will Obama Care be enforced for the many (and growing) population of homeless, unemployed americans, whom have little or no assets, no address, and do not file taxes?

Any off shore passage that requires an overnight stay on your boat at sea would require the insurance/bond. This would only apply to pleasure boats (including "display" boats).


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> How are you going to enforce this?...


We are talking about pleasure boats and enforce that don't seem difficult to me. I guess that it would be the same way that here it is enforced a mandatory insurance of the boat (third party): They just ask you the paper everywhere, at the marina, on boat inspections, at random inspections.

I think Casey is talking about any boat that does not sail locally. If you don't sail locally sooner or later you would have to go to a marina for water and diesel, if your boat is not a local one they will ask you the paper boats and insurance. In Europe they ask for that for your licence and sometimes for your radio operator licence. They ask because if they don't ask and the coast guard knows about that the ones that are screwed are they.

If it is not like that in US, I guess that it would have to be like that to enforce the mandatory rescue insurance. I guess the authorities will have not any problem if they want to enforce that.

Note that I don't want nothing of this to happen and it is because I don't want to pay for the ones that are reckless and take stupid risks that I think something has to be made to regulate the pleasure sailing and prevent irresponsible sailors to do very risky stunts, the kind that is making the number of rescues to raise sharply on the last 10 years.

Not a problem here. It is already regulated (on most countries) but I guess that if US goes to a mandatory rescue insurance the measure will come here anyway.

Even if I don't like it a bit, a mandatory rescue insurance will be an effective measure. It will make possible even for the ones that want to go offshore on old boats in bad condition or in inadequate boats to do so but the premium would be so big in that case that would really discourage them do that. For guys with big new boats the premium would be probably very small unless the area to sail was particularly dangerous.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> Even if I don't like it a bit, a mandatory rescue insurance will be an effective measure


.

I agree with this

But we dont even have mandaory boat insurance here. How would you require someone like smallboatlover to get this when they dont even want to purchase liability or insurance against environmental damage ? Mandatory...oh man that wont resonate well with most


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> .
> 
> I agree with this
> 
> But we dont even have mandaory boat insurance here. How would you require someone like smallboatlover to get this when they dont even want to purchase liability or insurance against environmental damage ? Mandatory...oh man that wont resonate well with most


Most boats need to be registered with the ported state, even very small day sailors. Maybe the states could require insurance when registering. The same way cars are required to have liability insurance when registering.

Actually, the states would like this, another way to make money off boaters. Part of the money could go to the federal government to pay the Coast Guard.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> You mean this?:
> 
> quote:
> 
> .....
> Conditions worsened later in the day. Crew members began pulling out immersion suits - used to keep them dry and warm in the water - and stuffing dry bags with rations in case the order came to abandon ship, Barksdale said.
> .....


I have a question about water temperature:

Somewhere I read that the water temperature was 77degF, elsewhere 25degC. If that's true, what's with the Gumby suits? I would not have thought they'd be needed (or helpful) in those conditions if the water was that warm. What have I missed?


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> ...if the good sense continues to lack and the number of rescues continue to raise...


Please post a link to your source for these statistics. I did not realize that the frequency of rescues was actually rising and I would be very interested in seeing this.

Or does it just seem like this because of TV shows like Coast Guard Alaska and web sites like Sail net?


----------



## casey1999

Hartley18 said:


> I have a question about water temperature:
> 
> Somewhere I read that the water temperature was 77degF, elsewhere 25degC. If that's true, what's with the Gumby suits? I would not have thought they'd be needed (or helpful) in those conditions if the water was that warm. What have I missed?


I saw that 77 deg report (I believe from the CG). If in or near the gulf stream the water can be warm. But even at 77 deg with the wind blowing and at night, an imersion suit would be good. Although I could see it could hinder you while trying to swim clear of a sinking ship and its rigging (as one survior described). The imersion suit would also help you float in those high wind and large breaking waves. Those suits saved some lives on the Bounty no doubt.

Here in Hawaii the water is normally between 72 and 77 degree. While exerting a lot of energy I can get real cold. After cleaning to bottom of my boat, even with a shorty wet suit on, I come out of the water real cold. Most free divers wear some type of wet suit to stay warm.


----------



## therapy23

PCP said:


> Even if I don't like it a bit, a mandatory rescue insurance will be an effective measure. It will make possible even for the ones that want to go offshore on old boats in bad condition or in inadequate boats to do so* but the premium would be so big in that case *that would really discourage them do that. For *guys with big new boats the premium would be probably very small *unless the area to sail was particularly dangerous.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


If you were familiar with the insurance industry you would not have said that.:laugher


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> Please post a link to your source for these statistics. I did not realize that the frequency of rescues was actually rising and I would be very interested in seeing this.
> 
> Or does it just seem like this because of TV shows like Coast Guard Alaska and web sites like Sail net?


I do not have a source of rescue data, but I will see what I can find. One thing for sure is all these PLB and SPOT's, and cell phones with gps make people feel safer while going on adventure. Help is only a push button away. What this leads to is people taking greater risks as they think they can just punch out when things get to dicey. This happens not only on the water, but on hiking trails and other inland sports locations.


----------



## PCP

therapy23 said:


> If you were familiar with the insurance industry you would not have said that.:laugher


What do you mean? I am only familiar with the ones here and they take into consideration the age of the boat, the type of boat, the navigation area, the sailor's experience and previous accidents. A good insurance company adequate the premiums to the risks. It is not like that in the US?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> Please post a link to your source for these statistics. I did not realize that the frequency of rescues was actually rising and I would be very interested in seeing this.
> 
> Or does it just seem like this because of TV shows like Coast Guard Alaska and web sites like Sail net?


I am not sure how to read into this data, but looks like number of rescues and the rescue hours continues to fall, so maybe all the electronic beacons we have save the CG money:
RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year


----------



## therapy23

PCP said:


> What do you mean? I am only familiar with the ones here and they take into consideration the age of the boat, the type of boat, the navigation area, the sailor's experience and previous accidents. A good insurance company adequate the premiums to the risks. It is not like that in the US?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I suppose it is similar. They do have lots of statistics that they share portions of. But since I think insurance companies are basically evil I have to say that they will never be truly fair in pricing the cost for anyone. I don't know how the oversight is where you are. Here it is strictly regulated but they get away with "murder" all the time.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> Please post a link to your source for these statistics. I did not realize that the frequency of rescues was actually rising and I would be very interested in seeing this.
> 
> Or does it just seem like this because of TV shows like Coast Guard Alaska and web sites like Sail net?


I thought it was evident. Why don't you look yourself the data? It is not difficult.










Cospas-Sarsat Distress Alerts

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

therapy23 said:


> I suppose it is similar. They do have lots of statistics that they share portions of. But since I think insurance companies are basically evil I have to say that they will never be truly fair in pricing the cost for anyone. I don't know how the oversight is where you are. Here it is strictly regulated but they get away with "murder" all the time.


Evil.... I guess they are there not to lose money.... but they are in competition. Here the big competition seems to be between Groupama and Pantaenius. For winning clients they offer what they can without losing money and for that they have to have a good risk assessment and that's what I was talking about.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> And if people think its gone to hell, then look at the statistics of cruiser type fatalities. Since GPS and Ecn they are a fraction of what hey were in the 1970s, let alone including the increased number of people doing it.
> 
> The modern advent of boat systems have opened the oceans to all. And that makes a lot of old timers very angry because they have lost their uniqueness.


Do you have a cite, or a source for those statistics? It would be interesting to be able to do such a direct comparison, but I'm not aware of any such reliable compilation of cruiser fatalities, rescues at sea, numbers of boats lost, and so on which would make such comparisons meaningful...

One would certainly think that much of the modern gear we have now taken for granted would have reduced the overall percentage of such incidents... But in my own personal observation, that seems clearly not to have been the case, at least up and down the east coast of North America, and throughout the Caribbean. And, an old hand like Don Street would definitely agree - don't get him started on the subject of "GPS/chartplotter-assisted stupidity" in the Caribbean, he will definitely make some of the ladies in the audience blush...(grin) Or, have a chat with a long-time dockmaster like Jeb Brearey at Beaufort Town Docks, he could fill a book with anecdotes that really have to make one wonder about the comparative skills and abilities of today's kroozers taking southern sabbaticals, relative to those of 30 or 40 years ago&#8230;

When I first began venturing into the Bahamas, a Northstar 6000 Loran was about the size of a large microwave oven, cost a few thousand bucks, and would only help you get as far as Nassau, or thereabouts... Beyond that, you were on your own, and the charts were not as remotely reliable as today... As a result, people who did make it to the Out Islands and southern Bahamas did so by relying on a heavy dose of caution, and the traditional cautions against sailing those waters in poor light, or after dark&#8230; Sure, the number of boats that made it to places like Georgetown were a fraction of what they are today, but I certainly see no diminishment whatsoever in the number of mishaps that occur in those waters, today&#8230; If anything, they appear proportionally greater, to me&#8230; and, I'd be willing to bet anything, a guy like Don Street would agree...

The principal limiting factor for sailors relative to their experience has always been their ability to find their way to their destination. Prior to GPS, it would have been highly unusual for someone to set off for a destination such as Bermuda, without a considerable amount of experience which eventually mastered the art of celestial&#8230; Such is no longer the case today, of course. You're right, modern electronics - IN THEORY - have made voyaging far safer, but at the cost of being a major double-edged sword, thus enabling less experienced sailors to set off for destinations heretofore unimagined to sailors lacking in the more advanced forms of navigation, and seamanship&#8230;

As I stated earlier, I consider an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy to be a "GPS-enabled" event, no way would that guy have attempted that move 30 years ago&#8230; Sir Francis Chishester sailed GYPSY MOTH around the world singlehanded pretty much without incident back in '67, but it took a fully-crewed compliment with all the modern bells and whistles to put her on a reef in the Tuomotus a few years ago&#8230; Go figure&#8230;

One more thing, that Casey alludes to in one of his posts... Again, only in my own personal observation, the inclination of today's sailors towards any sort of "self-rescue" is WAY down from what it was years ago... I don't think I've ever made a trip south, for example, without hearing at least one ICW kroozer calling frantically for SeaTow after going aground ON A RAPIDLY FALLING TIDE...

In a world where your chartplotter places your position on the earth's surface to a degree of accuracy far smaller than the size of your boat, it can be tough to convince such folks that the most prudent course of action might simply be to wait a few hours, until the rising tide floats you free... (grin)


----------



## JulieMor

PCP said:


> "Naturally I was a little hesitant about that, but [the captain] explained the situation and it seemed like he had a pretty good strategy," Barksdale said. "We were going to try and get around the hurricane. Nobody knew that it was going to have the in-tensity and size it ended up having."


So the reports of deaths in the Bahamas, terms like "Frankenstorm", predictions of at least one, if not two other fronts colliding with Sandy were explained away as no biggie because the captain had a good strategy? Maybe we should revisit the whole cult and brainwashing thing again.


----------



## chef2sail

> Maybe we should revisit the whole cult and brainwashing thing again.


Following and trusting too much yes...cult...no IMHO



> As I stated earlier, I consider an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy to be a "GPS-enabled" event, no way would that guy have attempted that move 30 years ago- JonEisenburg


I dont agree that this was the reason. I am suprised that you arent consistant in your thinking here and dont blame the Captain of the Rule62 as you did the one on the Bounty fully for not excercising good judgement in staying at sea. Its a huge leap to say that he went there because of a chartplotter. Do you even know if it was functioning? He should have stayed in deep water as there was no danger of his vessels sinking there. He lacked the experience to sail the 1500 in the conditions he was in or he erred in judgement...just like the other Captain. He is to blame for ther death of the passanger....just like the other Captain. He placed the ship in the dangerous position...just like the other Captain. He gave into the pleadings of his crew...bad jusgement again. He would have attempted to go in where he did wether he had a chartplotter or charts.

I certainly agree tha reliance on electronics soley is dangerous and short sighted. But lets face it if used in conjunction with the tried and true navigational aides as well as proper judgement the elctronic instruments can be a great advantage in safety. Electronics can be used to enhance safety and shoulkdnt be dependied upon soley for safety.

If the Captain on the Titanic had radar...chances are the ship wouldnt have hit the iceberg and his route would have been further south as he saw them on his scope/ plotter. How may would be lost without EPIRBs?

Fighting or demeaning the use of electronics keeps you further and further back in the dark ages. Its like fighting the use of computers.

Dave


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> As I stated earlier, I consider an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy to be a "GPS-enabled" event, no way would that guy have attempted that move 30 years ago- JonEisenburg
> 
> 
> 
> I dont agree that this was the reason. I am suprised that you arent consistant in your thinking here and dont blame the Captain of the Rule62 as you did the one on the Bounty fully for not excercising good judgement in staying at sea. Its a huge leap to say that he went there because of a chartplotter. Do you even know if it was functioning? He should have stayed in deep water as there was no danger of his vessels sinking there. He lacked the experience to sail the 1500 in the conditions he was in or he erred in judgement...just like the other Captain. He is to blame for ther death of the passanger....just like the other Captain. He placed the ship in the dangerous position...just like the other Captain. He gave into the pleadings of his crew...bad jusgement again. *He would have attempted to go in where he did wether he had a chartplotter or charts.*
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm really mystified by my apparent inability to make myself understood by you on this point... (grin)

There is no 'inconsistency' in my assigning responsibility for both these tragedies to either captain... Let me try one more time to make it clear: THEY ARE BOTH SOLELY, AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS(ES) OF THEIR VESSELS AND CREW...

I'm only surmising that the skipper of RULE 62 thought such a transit of the North Bar Channel was do-able, due to his undue confidence in the accuracy of his means to navigate that cut, at night, in a rage... One more time: IT WAS LIKELY A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN HIS DECISION, NOTHING MORE...It's possible, of course, that he might have attempted to do so without such means at his disposal - but I simply find that possibility highly unlikely...

So, then, how do YOU know that he WOULD have attempted to enter that cut that night, nevertheless? Whether he had a functioning plotter, Explorer Charts, or not?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JonEisberg said:


> Do you have a cite, or a source for those statistics? It would be interesting to be able to do such a direct comparison, but I'm not aware of any such reliable compilation of cruiser fatalities, rescues at sea, numbers of boats lost, and so on which would make such comparisons meaningful...


Fortunately i can help you out.
RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

As posted earlier in this thread and great stats too!
From 1980 till now the drop is about 2/3. I.e. 30 years ago there were three times the number of rescues by the coast guard in those statistics provided.

Half as many people dies nowadays as 30 years ago.


----------



## chef2sail

Jon,

Sorry I frustrate you by my lack of understanding or agreement



> So, then, how do YOU know that he WOULD have attempted to enter that cut that night, nevertheless? Whether he had a functioning plotter, Explorer Charts, or not?


Fact is he did enter it. He chose to head for land because the people on board were sick and complaining/ pleading. Most of the other vessels in his situation rode it out or hove to. He had that option and chose to set a course for the land under pressure from his crew. He took a perefectly sound boat in no ral or apparent danger and put it in danger by entering shallow waters and attempting to run the North Bar Channel

It was you who assumed he had a chartplotter on and that he wasnt looking at his charts, not me by your post. He would have done the same thing 30 years ago with just charts IMHO, he was just reckless........just like the Bounty Captain


----------



## chef2sail

Fortunately i can help you out.
RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year



> As posted earlier in this thread and great stats too!
> From 1980 till now the drop is about 2/3. I.e. 30 years ago there were three times the number of rescues by the coast guard in those statistics provided.
> 
> Half as many people dies nowadays as 30 years ago.


I am actually suprised. I though it would be more too. I guess that shoots the whole electrontics has lerad to more dangerous sailing taking more risks theory and costoing us more money.

Now whos the first one going to say these arent accurate or most events arent recorded?????


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> I thought it was evident. Why don't you look yourself the data? It is not difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cospas-Sarsat Distress Alerts
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Sorry, but you're playing games with the numbers. The chart you show is not total number of SAR missions, it's the number that involve the Cpspas-Sarsat system. Basically the chart shows growth in the implementation of that system, not a growth of the overall number of SAR missions.

The RITA data that MarkofSeaLife linked shows quite definitively that there has been a dramatic reduction of SAR missions

1985: 60,775 cases; 88,000 sorties
2010: 22,226 cases; 23,159 sorties

There are many other metrics on that site, and virtually every one shows a sustained and dramatic reduction of incidents over the past 25 years. The trend is unmistakable.

So while it may initially seem plausible that "false security" of electronics is leading to more accidents, it is not true. In fact, the statistics would seem to show the opposite - that the new technology is making people safer and helping them to avoid accidents. And when accidents happen, the likelihood of successful rescue goes up.

So maybe we should tone down the rhetoric a bit. Safety is getting better, not worse. Fewer incidents are happening. Fewer people are dying. Technology is a good thing.

I'll repeat my prior suggestion that TV shows, proliferation of camcorders and camera phones, and the instantaneous publicity of incidents by the blogosphers makes it SEEM like there are more incidents, but the data prove that there are actually fewer.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> Do you have a cite, or a source for those statistics? It would be interesting to be able to do such a direct comparison, but I'm not aware of any such reliable compilation of cruiser fatalities, rescues at sea, numbers of boats lost, and so on which would make such comparisons meaningful...
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately i can help you out.
> RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year
> 
> As posted earlier in this thread and great stats too!
> From 1980 till now the drop is about 2/3. I.e. 30 years ago there were three times the number of rescues by the coast guard in those statistics provided.
> 
> Half as many people dies nowadays as 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'd suggest that those stats are essentially meaningless if we are talking about - as you initially suggested - about Cruising/Distance Voyaging/Offshore Sailors... Such sailors are bound to represent a very minute percentage of the 800+ "sailors" who died last year, for example... I'll bet more boaters died on inland lakes in landlocked states than died sailing offshore, by a factor of dozens... And, the CG has been touting for years now, how many lives are "saved" annually, simply by the increased use of life jackets...

Not to mention, the number of "responses" or "sorties" that the CG carries out nowadays, is greatly diminished by the incidents responded to by private towing companies such as Sea Tow and Tow Boat US... Those numbers today would likely be mind-blowing, if the CG was still in the business of responding to each and every grounding, or running out of gas, like they once used to be...

For the purposes of this discussion, I think worldwide stats relative to the cruising/voyaging community would be far more instructive... but, my sense is, outside of a very loose compilation by someone like the Cornells at noonsite.com, such stats really don't exist in any meaningful form...


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> ...One thing for sure is all these PLB and SPOT's, and cell phones with gps make people feel safer while going on adventure. Help is only a push button away...


Thanks to MarkofSeaLife for finding that RITA site. I think you realize by now that the data show that people FEEL safer because they ARE safer. A few may take foolish risks, but that data seem to show that those fools are in the minority, since the incidents are dropping.

I remember when people claimed that seat belts caused drivers to drive more recklessly because of the false security that they provided. The data have also proven that myth to be wrong.

This is why I often ask people to show me the data when they state certain "facts." A close look at the data usually reveals the truth, and sometimes it can be surprising. I think that was the case here.


----------



## TakeFive

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks, but I'd suggest that those stats are essentially meaningless if we are talking about - as you initially suggested - about Cruising/Distance Voyaging/Offshore Sailors... Such sailors are bound to represent a very minute percentage of the 800+ "sailors" who died last year, for example... I'll bet more boaters died on inland lakes in landlocked states than died sailing offshore, by a factor of dozens... And, the CG has been touting for years now, how many lives are "saved" annually, simply by the increased use of life jackets...
> 
> Not to mention, the number of "responses" or "sorties" that the CG carries out nowadays, is greatly diminished by the incidents responded to by private towing companies such as Sea Tow and Tow Boat US... Those numbers today would likely be mind-blowing, if the CG was still in the business of responding to each and every grounding, or running out of gas, like they once used to be...
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, I think worldwide stats relative to the cruising/voyaging community would be far more instructive... but, my sense is, outside of a very loose compilation by someone like the Cornells at noonsite.com, such stats really don't exist in any meaningful form...


Weak arguments, methinks. TowBoatUS's response to groundings and fuel outages are hardly the near death rescues that you guys have been complaining about. :laugher


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> Thanks, but I'd suggest that those stats are essentially meaningless if we are talking about - as you initially suggested - about Cruising/Distance Voyaging/Offshore Sailors... Such sailors are bound to represent a very minute percentage of the 800+ "sailors" who died last year, for example... I'll bet more boaters died on inland lakes in landlocked states than died sailing offshore, by a factor of dozens... And, the CG has been touting for years now, how many lives are "saved" annually, simply by the increased use of life jackets...
> 
> Not to mention, the number of "responses" or "sorties" that the CG carries out nowadays, is greatly diminished by the incidents responded to by private towing companies such as Sea Tow and Tow Boat US... Those numbers today would likely be mind-blowing, if the CG was still in the business of responding to each and every grounding, or running out of gas, like they once used to be...
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, I think worldwide stats relative to the cruising/voyaging community would be far more instructive... but, my sense is, outside of a very loose compilation by someone like the Cornells at noonsite.com, such stats really don't exist in any meaningful form...
> 
> 
> 
> Weak arguments, methinks. TowBoatUS's response to groundings and fuel outages are hardly the near death rescues that you guys have been complaining about. :laugher
Click to expand...

Well, you're right about that, of course...

However, they would still qualify as "sorties" if they were still being conducted by the USCG... And, I wouldn't be at all surprised if those totals, if added together, would exceed the numbers for 1985 by a considerable amount...

And, lest anyone assume private towing services only deal with piddly incidents like groundings and fuel outages - consider some of Sea Tow's activities over this past 4th of July weekend, alone:



> The extended July 4, 2012, holiday has been one of the busiest in recent years for Sea Tow Services International Inc. and its network of Sea Tow captains.
> 
> By midway through the holiday week, which runs this year from June 29 to July 8, 2012, Sea Tow already had received more than 2,200 calls for assistance. In addition to these calls, about 20 percent of the Sea Tow network had responded to requests for boat salvages and recoveries through July 4. Call volume to Sea Tow operators was up more than 16% this year over the 2011 holiday period, with the number-one assistance request being for boat tows.
> 
> "With another weekend yet to go, the 10-day July 4 holiday has been tremendously busy for our network of skilled U.S. Coast Guard-licensed Sea Tow Captains and crew," said Capt. Joe Frohnhoefer, Sea Tow Founder and CEO. "We're proud of the job our captains and staff from coast to coast have been doing to help boaters stay safe."
> 
> Through increased boating activity have come a number of harrowing incidents that serve as strong reminders to all boaters to pay attention and follow safe boating practices on the water. Through the July 4th holiday period to date, Sea Tow captains have responded to multiple emergency calls, including the following incidents:
> 
> Capt. Ethan Maass of Sea Tow South Shore in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, rescued 2 boaters on June 29 from an overturned boat in Cape Cod Bay where waves of 2' to 3' were washing over the hull. Neither boater was wearing a shirt or a lifejacket. Capt. Maass provided them with both when they boarded his vessel. He called the Coast Guard, which took both boaters back to shore and marked the vessel for recovery.
> 
> Sea Tow Central New Jersey was involved in the rescue of 5 adults and 4 children from a sinking boat near the north jetty of Barnegat Inlet on July 1. The Sea Tow crew rescued 3 people, while the Coast Guard picked up the remaining boaters. Sea Tow Central New Jersey also freed the boat from the jetty. Everyone was taken ashore safely and transferred to awaiting emergency medical personnel.
> 
> Sea Tow Cape May responded to a July 1 boat fire in the Cape May Canal along with local Avalon Police and New Jersey State Police. A 20' center console boat burst into flames at the fuel dock at Avalon Marine Center. The boat's occupants were able to get out, but were taken to the hospital. In an attempt to prevent damage to surrounding boats and the marina, Sea Tow Cape May's Capt. Scott took the smoking boat in tow, beached it, and helped to control the fire aboard for 45 minutes until the Avalon fire department finally extinguished it with foam. (Live video and photos available upon request.)
> 
> Sea Tow Naples, in Florida, responded to the scene of a boat explosion on June 30 where a father and son were seriously injured. The docked boat exploded when the father apparently turned on a wet/dry vac to remove water from the bilge. It is suspected a spark may have ignited gasoline vapors. The father suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 75 percent of his body, while his 11-year-old son, who had been assisting, suffered severe burns to the legs.
> 
> Sea Tow Miami responded to a July 4 call for help from a Good Samaritan who saw a vessel taking on water and about to sink with 6 adults and 2 children around 8-years-old aboard. Capt. Fernando Sordo headed out only to encounter scores of boats returning from various on-water fireworks shows. Nonetheless, he arrived on scene in about 5 minutes to help the stranded boaters safely board a nearby boater's vessel. Capt. Sordo pumped out the sinking boat and saved it, then towed the vessel safely to shore.


----------



## TakeFive

JonEisberg said:


> ...And, lest anyone assume private towing services only deal with piddly incidents like groundings and fuel outages - consider some of Sea Tow's activities over this past 4th of July weekend, alone:


Maybe the overwhelming number of calls is the reason TowBoatUS has disconnected their DSC radios. uke


----------



## chef2sail

> Thanks to MarkofSeaLife for finding that RITA site. I think you realize by now that the data show that people FEEL safer because they ARE safer. A few may take foolish risks, but that data seem to show that those fools are in the minority, since the incidents are dropping.
> 
> I remember when people claimed that seat belts caused drivers to drive more recklessly because of the false security that they provided. The data have also proven that myth to be wrong.


Amen to that



> This is why I often ask people to show me the data when they state certain "facts." A close look at the data usually reveals the truth, and sometimes it can be surprising. I think that was the case here.


Rick, No wonder. If they did that they couldnt generate the same hysterionics with the real data.

Same reason you shoudnt rush to judgement and over speculate using suspect sources of information. Only a real investigation seperates the wheat (facts) from the chaf ( bulls//t)


----------



## xymotic

Hartley18 said:


> I have a question about water temperature:
> 
> Somewhere I read that the water temperature was 77degF, elsewhere 25degC. If that's true, what's with the Gumby suits? I would not have thought they'd be needed (or helpful) in those conditions if the water was that warm. What have I missed?


That your life expectancy in 80 degree water is still as little as 2 hours?


----------



## xymotic

chef2sail said:


> Should we just rescue the guys on the Berring Sea who fish for crab in horrendous conditions?
> 
> Dave


Those guys are a professional crew, with professional training. you can bet that MOST of them know CPR and they for sure know how to watch each other's back.

They are also on ships that are a kabillion times stronger, designed from the ground up for that specific task. Those boat are also very well maintained, again by professionals in Seattle and that's all they do. They are staffed with an engineer who knows every sound that thing is supposed to make, and they carry a lot of spare parts.

Since they are licensed up the yin yang, there's really only a hadful of boats out there, and every one of them knows every one of the other captains AND crew personally. They are friends and there is actually a pretty good support system, many of the parts are similar and they will share spares if needed and for sure assist a rescue.

Then on top of that, they are very will equipped with survival equipment that is up to the task.

When they go out, the do it knowing full well that 90% of the time a rescue will simply not be possible no matter what.

And So lastly they watch the weather religiously, and I absolutely guarantee you those boats would have been in port.

but yeah the coast guard should try to rescue them if possible. They aren't out there being idiots for no reason.


----------



## Minnewaska

xymotic said:


> That your life expectancy in 80 degree water is still as little as 2 hours?


While I agree that immersion suits will substantially increase your life expectancy in water below body temp, the above is not correct. One will survive nearly a day in 80 degree water, but drops exponentially as water temp drops. 2hr survival is around the 50 degree mark, depending on conditions. Still the suit provides buoyancy, visibility and extended exposure even further.

If I'm going into 77 degree water in the middle of the ocean with no idea when I'll be rescued. I'll take the suit!!

Here's a USCG presentation on ditching and survival skills. Life expectancy is on page 12.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...soCABg&usg=AFQjCNHkKL8bTAaBTnfW5h4y__-so_8mLw


----------



## Minnewaska

On the Rule 62 v Bounty debate:

Similarity...... both Captains appear to be fully responsible for the loss of life among their crew.

Dissimilarity...... The Rule 62 Capt appears to have been attempting to ease the pain of their crew, while the Bounty Capt seems to have caused it.

Irony..... I'm not aware of getting results of an investigation into Rule 62, which would suggest that isn't where the answers are going to come from.


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> Thanks to MarkofSeaLife for finding that RITA site. I think you realize by now that the data show that people FEEL safer because they ARE safer. A few may take foolish risks, but that data seem to show that those fools are in the minority, since the incidents are dropping.
> 
> I remember when people claimed that seat belts caused drivers to drive more recklessly because of the false security that they provided. The data have also proven that myth to be wrong.
> 
> This is why I often ask people to show me the data when they state certain "facts." A close look at the data usually reveals the truth, and sometimes it can be surprising. I think that was the case here.


TakeFive, 
I found the RITA site and MarkofSeaLife gave his interpretation of it. See my post #838.


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> While I agree that immersion suits will substantially increase your life expectancy in water below body temp, the above is not correct. One will survive nearly a day in 80 degree water, but drops exponentially as water temp drops. 2hr survival is around the 50 degree mark, depending on conditions. Still the suit provides buoyancy, visibility and extended exposure even further.
> 
> If I'm going into 77 degree water in the middle of the ocean with no idea when I'll be rescued. I'll take the suit!!
> 
> Here's a USCG presentation on ditching and survival skills. Life expectancy is on page 12.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...soCABg&usg=AFQjCNHkKL8bTAaBTnfW5h4y__-so_8mLw


Note those survival times (as stated in the presentation) are in "good" conditions. At night with high winds, waves, and spray, the survival times should be reduced by quite a bit. Also the survival times as stated in the presentation should be reduced by 30% if you are not just floating motionless. In high seas you would probably be moving quite a bit just to get clear air.


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> Note those survival times (as stated in the presentation) are in "good" conditions. At night with high winds, waves, and spray, the survival times should be reduced by quite a bit. Also the survival times as stated in the presentation should be reduced by 30% if you are not just floating motionless. In high seas you would probably be moving quite a bit just to get clear air.


Good points. I did say, depending on conditions.

However, you may drown from exhaustion in 80 deg water in two hours, but its pretty unlikely to be from hypothermia that quickly.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> TakeFive,
> I found the RITA site and MarkofSeaLife gave his interpretation of it. See my post #838.


Oops, sorry. iI had originally credited you but changed it because I saw his link and couldn't find yours.


----------



## TakeFive

Only on Sailnet would someone find fault with wearing too much safety gear when floating in th. ocean in a hurricane. lol

By the way, I thought Bounty's fenders were too small, and they had the wrong brand of anchor. :laugher


----------



## JulieMor

For all the comments that have been made on this thread, there is an obvious concern for safety and an huge importance placed on common sense that is either stated directly or is an underlying factor to the statements given.

Who says recreational boaters are dummies?


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Fortunately i can help you out.
> RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year
> 
> As posted earlier in this thread and great stats too!
> From 1980 till now the drop is about 2/3. I.e. 30 years ago there were three times the number of rescues by the coast guard in those statistics provided.
> 
> Half as many people dies nowadays as 30 years ago.


Yes in what regard to rescues not in what regards deep water boat rescues that imply search time, considerable time travel and lots of resources.

I saw those and understood that they are talking about all rescues and did not discriminate the ones that are not on the beach or very neat the coast, with swimmers, small dingy or fishermen that fall on the rocks and so on. I wonder how many were due to these circumstances and how many were due to deep sea rescues and then I saw that the British coast guard, that has similar statistics, have a map that is enlightening about where the vast majority of those accidents and rescues take place:










That was not the kind of accidents I was talking about or the ones that interested me, than I keep on searching and the best I could find in what regards that kind of accidents was this chart, that I have already posted:










Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Yes in what regard to rescues not in what regards deep water boat rescues that imply search time, considerable time travel and lots of resources.
> 
> I saw those and understood that they are talking about all rescues and did not discriminate the ones that are not on the beach or very neat the coast, with swimmers, small dingy or fishermen that fall on the rocks and so on. I wonder how many were due to these circumstances and how many were due to deep sea rescues and then I saw that the British coast guard, that has similar statistics, have a map that is enlightening about where the vast majority of those accidents and rescues take place:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the kind of accidents I was talking about or the ones that interested me, than I keep on searching and the best I could find in what regards that kind of accidents was this chart, that I have already posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,
Seems your data shows a lot more rescues are occuring. What is the difference between the red and blue bars, legend is partly cut off.
Regards


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> Sorry, but you're playing games with the numbers. The chart you show is not total number of SAR missions, it's the number that involve the Cpspas-Sarsat system. Basically the chart shows growth in the implementation of that system, not a growth of the overall number of SAR missions.
> 
> The RITA data that MarkofSeaLife linked shows quite definitively that there has been a dramatic reduction of SAR missions
> 
> ....
> So while it may initially seem plausible that "false security" of electronics is leading to more accidents, it is not true. In fact, the statistics would seem to show the opposite - that the new technology is making people safer and helping them to avoid accidents. And when accidents happen, the likelihood of successful rescue goes up.
> 
> So maybe we should tone down the rhetoric a bit. Safety is getting better, not worse. Fewer incidents are happening. Fewer people are dying. Technology is a good thing.
> 
> I'll repeat my prior suggestion that TV shows, proliferation of camcorders and camera phones, and the instantaneous publicity of incidents by the blogosphers makes it SEEM like there are more incidents, but the data prove that there are actually fewer.


As I have explained on my previous post those statistics relate to all SAR missions and the vast majority had nothing to do with cruising boats in deep water.

On other hand the statistics I wave posted regards Epirb deployment, the vast majority regarding boats or ships and even if you cannot differentiate ships, fishing boats and pleasure crafts, I am quite sure that ships and fishing boats are not having more accidents but lesser, so if the numbers are increasing that can only mean more deep water pleasure boat accidents.

Regarding pleasure boats carrying an epirb offshore that is mandatory by law in almost all (I din't know if it is mandatory in the UK) European countries for more than 10 years. I don't know if it is mandatory in the US but nobody in its right mind will cross an Ocean or make a long passage without one so I guess those numbers are reliable in what regards an increase in accidents.

Let me point out that I consider electronic aids a very good help to navigate. That is not the point. The point is that I consider that help makes many to consider that now it is easy to sail to any place and that can induce a false sense of security that leads unprepared sailors to attempt passage that they would not have tried if they had do not that help. But the sea has not changed and is as dangerous with electronics or without electronics. Electronics just made more easy to navigate, not more easy to sail in bad weather.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Do we have to quote people whole post?

Just the lines that are relevant and not their photos. It slows down the loading of pages for cruisers out there will slow internet.


Thanks!


----------



## PCP

xymotic said:


> T...
> but yeah the coast guard should try to rescue them if possible. They aren't out there being idiots for no reason.


Yes, and the coast guard should also save the idiots that should have not been there in first place.

The question is, with the increasing number of idiots that have to be saved, for how much tine the tax payer will remain without saying: Why the well I am paying for idiots to be saved from their own stupidity?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> I am quite sure that ships and fishing boats are not having more accidents but lesser


Based on what? Why do you say this? Whats your metric here?



> , so if the numbers are increasing that can only mean more deep water pleasure boat accidents


.

If the above is not true then this statement isnt also. I thought the information was that the number was decreasing ???

Very dangerous to post hunches as fact then draw a conclusion from that.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> Seems your data shows a lot more rescues are occuring. What is the difference between the red and blue bars, legend is partly cut off.
> Regards


Their both from Epirps but with two different frequencies, the blue one uses 121.5MHz and the red ones 406MHz. The first ones had a much lesser range, were smaller and a lot cheaper. They finished with them in 2010. Till then here a coastal boat was only required to have one of those (121.5) while a 406MHz was mandatory for a pleasure boat with a licence to sail more than 200Nm offshore. Since 2009 the 406MHz is mandatory for both licences.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Based on what? Why do you say this? Whats your metric here?
> 
> ...If the above is not true then this statement isnt also. I thought the information was that the number was decreasing ???
> 
> Very dangerous to post hunches as fact then draw a conclusion from that.


Dave, a bigger safety record and lesser accidents with ships and fishing boats is a constant since XV century. On the last 15 years the nanny EC parliament and government bodies has issued a lot of regulations regarding mandatory safety requirements on boats, ships as well as more demanding mandatory qualifications for crews. It has also offered premium money incentives for fishermen to get ride of old boats. Due to all that the number of accidents have significantly diminished here.

I guess that all developed countries have a similar policy in what regards maritime safety and that would be very odd that those policies would not have resulted in less accidents.

I wish you good luck into proving otherwise. With all the money spent in maritime security it would be a front page scandal if you find out that all that money was spent in vain and that actually the accidents were more frequent

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Paulo,

You keep refering to government bodies issuing mandatory requirements such as insurance and increasing compliance regulations. This must be something specific to Portugal or European countries.

Insurance is not required in the United States in many areas. Government regulations are not as intrusive it appears as in Portugal. It is far more diffocult to enforce laws/ policies in the United States than in a country the size of New Jersey or Florida like Portuagal is. Because of this many of your statements which you write down dont really apply to this country. They are not wrong...because they occur in Portugal, but what is wrong is that you ASSUME they occur everywhere else when in FACT they do not. Maybe we should learn the best practices in Protugal and apply them to the US. Maybe some will not be applied because they only work in a small relm or scope and cannot be enforced in a larger context. Because of this sometimes your frame of reference is not the same as mine or others from the US. That does not make us wrong or mean that US sailors are n ot in their right mind, as it IS NOT mandatory here.



> I don't know if it is mandatory in the US but nobody in its right mind will cross an Ocean or make a long passage without one


Many coastal sailors here do not have EPIRBS. In fact very few of the sailors I know personally have EPIRBS even though they sail in large bodies of water. ( I have both a boat beacon and personal ones)

In addition you state things like they are facts when in fact they are opinions. When asked for supporting documentation you are throwing it back on the questioner.

For instance you stated--


> I am quite sure that ships and fishing boats are not having more accidents but lesser, so if the numbers are increasing that can only mean more deep water pleasure boat accidents


.

When asked about how you arrived at this conclusion, whether there were facts supporting your speculation you now want me to disprove it with facts???? Disprove the wild speculation based on wrong assumnptions and reading of the data?

Ok....you stated that you were quite sure there were ships and fishing boats having less accidents...again based on what...your hunch????? Well I am not so sure this is the case. It would stand to reason that there are more ships and fishing boats than in the past, and the fleet gets older each year. more boats in decreasing good condition...so why would there be less accidents or SAR calls. In fact there may be more and oit would stand to reason there are morte, because there is now electronics to do it more.

The trend I find in your posts is that you post like the things you say are fact as opposed to saying IMHO or IMO. You have been challanged a few times on the validity of your facts and throw it back at the challenger and in a number of instances have been shown to have in error. The problem here is that some of the newbies may actually beleive what you are saying is factual which would give them a false sense of security or knowledge.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> ....By the way, I thought Bounty's fenders were too small, and they had the wrong brand of anchor. :laugher


Now, that right there is funny.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Paulo,
> 
> You keep refering to government bodies issuing mandatory requirements such as insurance and increasing compliance regulations. This must be something specific to Portugal or European countries.
> 
> ... Government regulations are not as intrusive it appears as in Portugal. It is far more diffocult to enforce laws/ policies in the United States than in a country the size of New Jersey or Florida like Portuagal is. Because of this many of your statements which you write down dont really apply to this country. They are not wrong...because they occur in Portugal, but what is wrong is that you ASSUME they occur everywhere else when in FACT they do not. ...
> ....


Jesus Dave, you get confusing things. I talked about laws issued by the European parliament that are mandatory not only in Portugal but in all members states and that is most of Europe.

I am not talking about insurance but laws that regulate safety requirements and crews requirements in ships and in fishing boats. Do you mean that US has not any? You are certainly kidding and I would bet that in the US those requirements 15 years ago were less demanding then what they are now. Maybe Nolatom or CapAaron can clarify this.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Regarding pleasure boats carrying an epirb offshore that is mandatory by law in almost all (I din't know if it is mandatory in the UK) European countries for more than 10 years. I don't know if it is mandatory in the US *but nobody in its right mind will cross an Ocean or make a long passage without one* so I guess those numbers are reliable in what regards an increase in accidents.


Actually, there are a few strongly principled voyagers out there who do just that - and they are most certainly of "a right mind", I can assure you... (grin)

I'm thinking of Tim and Pauline Carr, the remarkable couple who've cruised the waters south of the Antarctic Convergence and South Georgia for a decade or more...










Fully cognizant of the extreme risk of sailing such a part of the world, in such a boat, they intentionally decline to carry any means of calling for assistance - no EPIRB, no HF radio - feeling that it is their choice to sail those waters, and that it would be unfair to place any potential rescuer's lives in jeopardy in assisting them, in such a dangerously harsh and remote environment... Such a commitment, I find to be admirable in the highest degree, my respect for these people is boundless...

I've had the great honor of meeting Tim and Pauline on two occasions... First, when they were promoting their book ANTARCTIC OASIS during a fete at the Annapolis YC, and then several years later, when I finally made it to Grytviken myself...

One of my most prized possessions, an inscribed copy of ANTARCTIC OASIS... One of the most beautiful books ever published by cruisers, anyone interested in extreme voyaging/high latitude sailing - or, simply one of the most remarkable places on the planet - owes it to oneself to check it out...


----------



## PCP

Well, that is a possible attitude. Not one that somebody responsible should take if a crew or a family depends on him.

Anyway, nobody responsible would have sailed the Antartic seas with an old wooden boat like theirs if what was at stake has more then their own lives that they have decided to risk for the sake of adventure and the possibility to explore beautiful places. Given the circumstances and having a perfect notion that they were taken risks that they could avoid it is perfectly understandable that they think it was unreasonable to ask for someone to risk his life to safe them.

Anyway was you have said, a commendable decision and one that many that take unreasonable risks don't share.

The boat:










Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> I am not talking about insurance but laws that regulate safety requirements and crews requirements in ships and in fishing boats. Do you mean that US has not any? You are certainly kidding and I would bet that in the US those requirements 15 years ago were less demanding then what they are now. Maybe Nolatom or CapAaron can clarify this.


Actually, Paulo, they are one and the same thing and yes, the US, does. 

There is an overarching requirement for *all* commercial shipping travelling the waters of the world (including fishing boats), to comply with SOLAS or they simply cannot legally leave port. Part of the regulations require that these vessels be registered by one of the many classification bureaus including Lloyds Register (LR), BV, DNV, RINa and ABS - the American Bureau of Shipping. Each of these "authorities" carry their own set of rules and standards covering everything from hull construction and electrical wiring to the type of anchor they can use.

ABS isn't the toughest out there, but they're not too bad. Previous stuff posted here indicates HMS Bounty was registered with ABS and thus could be expected to meet all of their requirements - including the safety ones - which are all available on-line.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> ...I am quite sure that ships and fishing boats are not having more accidents but lesser, so if the numbers are increasing that can only mean more deep water pleasure boat accidents...





PCP said:


> Dave, a bigger safety record and lesser accidents with ships and fishing boats is a constant since XV century. On the last 15 years the nanny EC parliament and government bodies has issued a lot of regulations regarding mandatory safety requirements on boats, ships as well as more demanding mandatory qualifications for crews. It has also offered premium money incentives for fishermen to get ride of old boats. Due to all that the number of accidents have significantly diminished here...


These are weak, desperate arguments. You are "quite sure" that commercial and fishing accidents are down (despite not showing a bit of data to support this). Yet when presented with the RITA data that shows EVERY SINGLE METRIC improving, you claim it's not representative of deep sea recreational accidents. For some unexplained reason, you claim that recreational accidents in deep waters have not benefited from many of the same technological advances that have helped the commercial vessels and inland vessels. Placed in the inept hands of those silly recreational boaters, GPSs, EPIRBs, etc. are lethal weapons that only serve to embolden these incompetents to take foolish risks.

I guess we might as well go rip the seat belts and air bags out of our cars too.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> Yet when presented with the RITA data that shows EVERY SINGLE METRIC improving, you claim it's not representative of deep sea recreational accidents. For some unexplained reason, you claim that recreational accidents in deep waters have not benefited from many of the same technological advances that have helped the commercial vessels and inland vessels. Placed in the inept hands of those silly recreational boaters, GPSs, EPIRBs, etc. are lethal weapons that only serve to embolden these incompetents to take foolish risks.


The introduction of such statistical data into this discussion arose out of Mark's original contention that a comparison of such data from the 1970's, and today, would reveal a significant reduction *regarding "cruiser-type fatalities"*...

I'm sorry, but I'm seeing precious little information in the RITA and other data presented thus far, that would lead one to draw ANY meaningful conclusion about fatalities or accidents applicable to that particular subset of cruising sailors and distance voyagers... Much less, how those numbers may, or may not have, been influenced by technological advances such as GPS, electronic charting, and so on...

Let's look inside the numbers for 2010, for example, as presented by the US Coast Guard in their definitive annual report on recreational boating statistics:



> In 2010, the Coast Guard counted 4604 accidents that involved 672 deaths
> 
> Almost three-fourths of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, eighty-eight (88) percent were not reported as wearing a life jacket.
> 
> Eight out of every ten boaters who drowned were using vessels less than 21 feet in length.
> 
> Alcohol use is the leadding contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 19% of the deaths
> 
> Of the 672 deaths reported, 326 occurred on bodies of water described as "Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs, Dams, Gravel Pits"... Another 198 deaths occurred on "Rivers, Streams, Creeks, Swamps, or Bayous"... Only 53 fatalities occurred on the Ocean or Gulf of Mexico
> 
> 289 deaths were aboard boats or personal watercraft less than 16 feet. Another 295 lives were lost on boats between 16-26 feet... In comparison, only 45 died aboard boats between 26-65 feet...
> 
> Sailboats - both auxiliary and sail only - rank pretty far down the list of "Vessel Types" on which fatalities occurred, with a total of 23 deaths...325 lives were lost aboard Open Powerboats, and the categories of Cabin Motorboats, Canoes, Kayaks, Personal Watercraft, Pontoon, and Rowboats all posted higher fatality numbers than Sailboats...
> 
> In the category of "Activity Engaged In" at the time of the accident, *a grand total of SIX lives were lost during the actual act of SAILING*


I would submit that without access to the raw information the CG has in compiling these 'facts', they remain essentially useless for the purposes of extrapolating any meaningful conclusions about "cruiser-type fatalities", when fewer than 1 in 10 transpired upon the ocean or aboard boats over 26 feet, fewer than 1 in 20 took place upon a sailboat of any kind, and fewer than 1 in 100 happened during the operation of a vessel under sail...

People are free to read whatever they want into such a compilation of numbers, of course... But, absent of more relevant data applicable to cruisers and sailors, I think I'll stick with having my opinions regarding Technological Advances and Their Effects informed by what my own eyes and ears have been telling me since the 1970's, at least for the time being... (grin)


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> ... For some unexplained reason, you claim that recreational accidents in deep waters have not benefited from many of the same technological advances that have helped the commercial vessels and inland vessels. Placed in the inept hands of those silly recreational boaters, GPSs, EPIRBs, etc. are lethal weapons that only serve to embolden these incompetents to take foolish risks.
> 
> I guess we might as well go rip the seat belts and air bags out of our cars too.


What I am saying is that an Epirb will make a lot more easy for you to be rescued, it will not give you any help in learning how to sail a boat in bad weather.

What I am saying is that a GPS and a plotter will make it very easy to go from point A to point B, if you get good weather. If you get a storm while under way it will be as difficult as before. On big Ocean crossings that take several weeks even today's technology will not make you able to skip totally bad weather.

What I am saying is that because it is a lot more easy to go to point a to point b, if you got good weather, there are today much more inexperienced sailors attempting to do that thinking that Plotter and GPS will make it easy.

Those sailors if they had no plotter or GPS would have found it very difficult to do that and would have to get some real experience before attempting that.

But when the inexperienced sailors gets bad weather under way (that would not be a problem from an experienced sailor) they will find suddenly that after all it was not so easy and that they realy don't know how to cope with it.

Well, not a big problem, they have an Epirb and someone will pick them and the insurance will pay for the boat. They just have to say that they were making water and sink the boat when they are picked up. It is all very easy and risk free... very easy

Note that I am not saying that more people are dying. The Epirb made a SAR much more easy and effective, I am saying the the number of rescues in deep water have increased in what regards pleasure boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Can you imagine the number of deaths in sailboats from Sandy if their were no weather forecasts from this new fangled technology which some makes people take increased risks.

I have yet to see any real PROOF other than a few unsubstantiated opinions that more people are risking their lives because of the use of chart plotters. It is kind of like saying because you have a better chance of surviving an accident with a seatbelt we will all drive faster and risk more.

Statistics show the numbers are down...hard to justify people are taking risks you are speculating on. 

I think it's very cavalier to assume because they have EPIRBS they take greater risks. The reason people get them is because thy want to survive accidents. Remember in the US they are not required of recreational boaters. So you relly think people with EPIRBS take a risk f their lives r the boats because they think they can get rescued. You have very little faith or real world knowledge of people to assume this. Especially with data which says the opposite. 

Prove you assumption. Find ten people on on Sailnet with EPIBS. Then ask them if they risk their lives or boats more. Go ahead. Lets see if you can o that.

Dave


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> Statistics show the numbers are down...hard to justify people are taking risks you are speculating on.
> 
> Dave


I have only my own stats... In my 4 years and 1 circumnavigation I have not known anyone who has died. I do know four who have lost their boats but survived. These are actually people I know as in I have met. Nor friends of friends. Have heard of some on the Internet, but that's different.
So 4 years no deaths.

Now read any of the circumnavigator books from the 1970's and 80's and each of them knew someone who died cruising.
Lin and Larry Pardy met quite a number including 4 or 5 on a steel hull boat that was lost in the Indian Ocean.

So I think it's gotten much, much safer. And I agree with Dave I am not more reckless because I have an EPIRB, I am LESS reckless because I was anchored in a cyclone when I thought it was smart to risk the cyclone season... Now I all away sail in the correct season... Looking death in the face makes one more careful.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I have yet to see any real PROOF other than a few unsubstantiated opinions that more people are risking their lives because of the use of chart plotters. It is kind of like saying because you have a better chance of surviving an accident with a seatbelt we will all drive faster and risk more.
> 
> Statistics show the numbers are down...hard to justify people are taking risks you are speculating on.


 I am not deaf or blind and even if there are here many that have sailed much more than me I have been around for some decades and more than 20 000nm. 10 years ago it was very rare to hear a mayday call. In this season I head 5 or 6 and as you now the VHF range is pretty limited.

JonEisberg has a lot more experience and has much more sailing miles and shares the same opinion in what regards this.



chef2sail said:


> Statistics show the numbers are down...


The only statistics I know off that have direct relation with deep sea boat accidents are this ones and show an increase in marine accidents:










Regarding the others that were posted it was already explained that they are not specific to boat accidents, much less to deep water boat accidents. In fact boat accidents (all of them considered) are just a minority. I have post the British Coast guard map that shows on Britain the localization of all SAR. As you can see most happen on the shore not on deep sea. I could not find similar information relating to US coast guard but given the nature of the accidents a US map would probably show a much similar situation.










I am very interested in that new data that makes you say this:


chef2sail said:


> Statistics show the numbers are down...


 As you never speculate I am really interested in seeing that new data that allow you to say that.

This do not seem to makes sense to me and certainly it was not what I meant:



chef2sail said:


> ..So you relly think people with EPIRBS take a risk f their lives r the boats because they think they can get rescued. You have very little faith or real world knowledge of people to assume this. Especially with data which says the opposite. Prove you assumption. Find ten people on on Sailnet with EPIBS. Then ask them if they risk their lives or boats more. Go ahead. Lets see if you can o that.


I use an Epirps and everyone that sails offshore should use one and of course I am more confident going offshore on passage with one than without one, otherwise I would have not spend money on it and I guess this is common to all that use them.

It seems you didn't understood that what I said have essentially nothing to do with Epirps. I will repost the essential to make it clear to you:



PCP said:


> What I am saying is that an Epirb will make a lot more easy for you to be rescued, it will not give you any help in learning how to sail a boat in bad weather.
> 
> What I am saying is that a GPS and a plotter will make it very easy to go from point A to point B, if you get good weather. If you get a storm while under way it will be as difficult as before. On big Ocean crossings that take several weeks even today's technology will not make you able to skip totally bad weather.
> 
> What I am saying is that because it is a lot more easy to go to point a to point b, if you got good weather, there are today much more inexperienced sailors attempting to do that thinking that Plotter and GPS will make it easy.
> 
> Those sailors if they had no plotter or GPS would have found it very difficult to do that and would have to get some real experience before attempting that.
> 
> But when the inexperienced sailors gets bad weather under way (that would not be a problem from an experienced sailor) they will find suddenly that after all it was not so easy and that they realy don't know how to cope with it.
> ...


What I am saying is that an Epirb or a plotter will not improve your skills in bad weather. You certainly agree with this?

and I am saying that it is much easier to navigate a long passage or to cross an ocean with a GPS (and a plotter) than without GPS. You certainly agree with this too?

When there was no plotters or GPS, to do a long passage, or to cross oceans, it was a lot more difficult and demanded a much more experienced sailor. Many of the sailors that today cross oceans would not have crossed them if they had no GPS, simply because they lacked the knowledge. The knowledge needed to navigate an Ocean without GPS is not an immediate one, as with a plotter, it takes many years to learn and therefore no inexperienced sailor could cross an ocean.

Today I know of guys that go for crossings oceans or even bigger voyages without any significant experience. They do that because a GPS and a plotter makes easy for them the navigation and does not require years of practice that were needed to navigate without GPS or plotter, otherwise they would not be able to navigate.

The plotter, the GPS, makes the life very easy in what regards navigation but would no teach that guy anything about sailing in bad weather. If he was crossing without a GPS, the years of practice needed to do that you have provide him with experience regarding sailing in bad weather too.

No, don't confuse things. I Think the the plotter, the GPS and the Epirb are great and make the live easier to everybody, what I am saying is that modern technology, making navigation easy increased the number of non experienced sailors that attempt to make passages or cross oceans, simply because without GPS you could not navigate an ocean without being experienced and now you can. Certainly you will agree with this too?

That is essentially my point.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year


Here are the US statistics you fail to address and accept. Read the informnation. Incidents are down YTY, losses are down YTY. This blows a hole in your whole premise that things have gotten worse since 1985 with the advent of GPS. The data doesnt support you arguments.



> The question is, with the* increasing *number of idiots that have to be saved, for how much tine the tax payer will remain without saying: Why the well I am paying for idiots to be saved from their own stupidity?


Do you see where you assumption is wrong. Irs not increasing and you havent proved that the % of recreational boaters is increasing within these numbers either



> The point is that I consider that help makes many to consider that now it is easy to sail to any place and that can induce a false sense of security that leads unprepared sailors to attempt passage that they would not have tried if they had do not that help.


Unprepared sailors...what does that mean. No experience. A sailor who used to sail by charts...me now has the added advantage of having GPS and Chartplottrer to aid my charts. Some would say that makes me a better prepared sailor. Experience is a whole other matter. As you stated a chartplotter doesnt make you understand how to handle difficult weather.



> I am not deaf or blind and even if there are here many that have sailed much more than me I have been around for some decades and more than 20 000nm. 10 years ago it was very rare to hear a mayday call. In this season I head 5 or 6 and as you now the VHF range is pretty limited.


I respect your experience as well as many others like Jon. I have some also having sailed for over 40 years, two Atlantic crossings, numerous deliveries, trips, and sails from the Mid-Atlantic to the Carribean with well in excess of 40,000 nm. I also sail in an area which has a large number of sailing boats, and havent noticed an increase at all in CG or rescues. In addition I sail to New England up the coast every year. It is my opinion that the average sailor of today is much safer with the new electronics. Excluding power boaters it has been my observation that many sailors supplement their charts and available information with GPS as well as advanced radar today. This added information helps prevent them from sailing into shoals, sailing into danger sailing into oncomming weather. It is much better to sail when caught in fog with radar and a chartplotter tha without like in olden days. That does mean however because I have radar and a chartplotter I will set out into a dangerous area with a false sence of security. It means when mother nature throws unexpected conditions at me that I am better prepared to handle them and therefore less likely to have an accident.

The GPS position although not perfect gives continual updated information which can only be used as an advantage for the average sailor who wants to be more informed rather than less. Sailors for centureies have set out on voyages with little or not enough experience. Many on SN even laud their "dreams" of some people who have dubious credentials making passages to the Carribean frequently.

This is only one part of the equation when making a crossing or coastal voyage and certainly the technical sailing skill is the most important piece.



> No, don't confuse things. I Think the the plotter, the GPS and the Epirb are great and make the live easier to everybody, what I am saying is that modern technology, making navigation easy increased the number of non experienced sailors that attempt to make passages or cross oceans, simply because without GPS you could not navigate an ocean without being experienced and now you can. Certainly you will agree with this too?


To state that people with limited skills and experience just take off on coastal and crossings just because they have an EPIRB or a chartplotter is an unfounded and illogoical assumption again not based in fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though. There are plenty of idiots in the world. There are plenty of "experienced" captains ( Bounty/ Rule 62) who make wrong decisions which cost life or injury, this despite thier previious experience.



> But when the inexperienced sailors gets bad weather under way (that would not be a problem from an experienced sailor) they will find suddenly that after all it was not so easy and that they realy don't know how to cope with it.
> 
> Well, not a big problem, they have an Epirb and someone will pick them and the insurance will pay for the boat. They just have to say that they were making water and sink the boat when they are picked up. It is all very easy and risk free... very easy


You have got to be kidding. You think they go out offshore and have this attitude. You really thinkj they think because they have an EPIRB and insurance they will risk their lives. I dont hang around *ANY *sailors like this. Point one out to me who posts here on SN. Do you have sailkors like this where you sail in Portugal? If you doi I would stay far far away from them

To me chartplotters, EPIRGS, Weatherfax, Radar are addtional safety measures the modern sailor who travels offshore has today. It doesnt make you a better sailor,,,,just a better informed one. A better informed Captain has more information to make better risk/ reward decisions. Modern technology doesnt add or replace the technical sailing skill or experience of the Captain. It also doesnt take away from that skill either.

Maybe thats why the* RITA FACTS and FIGURES* show a* decrease * in incidents and deaths despite and obvious increase in the number of recreational as well as commercial vessels.

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Here are the US statistics you fail to address and accept. Read the informnation. Incidents are down YTY, losses are down YTY. This blows a hole in your whole premise that things have gotten worse since 1985 with the advent of GPS. The data doesnt support you arguments.
> 
> Do you see where you assumption is wrong. Irs not increasing and you havent proved that the % of recreational boaters is increasing within these numbers either
> ...
> Maybe thats why the* RITA FACTS and FIGURES* show a* decrease * in incidents and deaths despite and obvious increase in the number of recreational as well as commercial vessels.


Jesus Dave, how many times I have to say that this figures that you quote

RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

regards not only to deep water boat SAR but to all CG rescues and that the *huge majority* are beach or coastal rescues that has nothing to do with boating much less with deep water boating rescues?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Can you imagine the number of deaths in sailboats from Sandy if their were no weather forecasts from this new fangled technology which some makes people take increased risks.


Well, we can probably safely assume the number would still be at least 2...

Since you mention it, I would have to add what I often see as an undue amount of faith in the accuracy of modern forecasting/weather routing as another double-edged sword that SOMETIMES leads voyagers to take chances that a more prudent sailor would have been unlikely to do decades ago... Unquestionably, the greatly enhanced accuracy of modern forecasting, and the ease of access - both pre-departure, and while underway - that today's voyagers enjoy to weather information has made voyaging FAR safer today than in the past...

However, I still see many sailors today treating stuff like GRIB files as veritable _gospel_, and sometimes making precious little allowance for an ultimate variance in such forecasts... One only has to look at what happened with last fall's NARC rally between Newport and Bermuda to see an example of this... Those boats left despite an extremely narrow weather window open to them, and when that weather didn't pan out precisely as forecast by the rally's router, much of that fleet got hammered, and the resultant abandonment of boats, and the loss of one life... The resultant finger-pointing at Herb Hilgenberg in the aftermath was very unseemly (especially, given the fact that he had strongly cautioned against a departure from Newport to begin with), but seems to me a clear example of the tendency of some sailors today to look elsewhere for someone to "blame" when a forecast doesn't necessarily pan out as advertised, after having taken the risk of availing themselves of an extremely narrow window... I believe Mark alluded to such a situation as well, regarding a number of boats heading north from the Bahamas in spite of an unsettled weather pattern, obvious by simply reading the clouds, but in the hopes of catching a slight opening some forecasts might have hinted at...



chef2sail said:


> I have yet to see any real PROOF other than a few unsubstantiated opinions that more people are risking their lives because of the use of chart plotters. It is kind of like saying because you have a better chance of surviving an accident with a seatbelt we will all drive faster and risk more.


I'm sorry that you consider my opinions to be "unsubstantiated", as they are simply the results of what I have observed over a period of over 3 decades as a delivery skipper, and roughly 2 decades of cruising aboard my own boat... Be that as it may, I can assure you I am not alone in sharing some of these opinions, however... Would you consider the opinions of people like Don Street, or Steve Pavlidis, "unsubstantiated", as well?

I've tried to explain my reasons for believing why an over-reliance on electronic navigation was likely a major contributing factor in an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy... I'm not going to bother again, I've done so in my first-ever post here on Sailnet, I'd urge you once again to read it:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ed/69910-sinking-rule-62-a-23.html#post673266

Now, ask yourself the following: Do you think it was commonplace pre-GPS for cruisers not only to _attempt_, but to actually _plan ahead_ on transiting a reef passage like Belize's Ranguana Pass at night? Do you think Bahamian cruisers would navigate The Devil's Backbone in poor light, or during a modest rage condition, as I've seen them doing nowadays? Even in the late afternoon, sun in their face, completely blind in their ability to read the water, and simply relying upon the GPS track of the path laid down by the pilot from Spanish Wells who took them across to Harbour Island the first time? Do you think it's likely a skipper would have brought a yacht worth well in excess of $1 million through one of the most dangerous and remote reef passages in all of the Bahamas - the entrance to the Columbus Anchorage at Samana Cay - in the dark, without relying upon GPS, and the extremely accurate Explorer Charts? Or, do you simply not consider such a maneuver "risky"? Better yet, do you simply think I'm making these anecdotes up, in support of an otherwise unsubstantiated opinion?

Sorry, but if you believe such risks were routinely being taken by sailors 30 or 40 years, you're dreaming...

I mentioned Steve Pavlidis above, the highly regarded author of some of the best cruising guides available for the Bahamas and Caribbean... I'm not at home at the moment, so I don't have access to my copy, but... In his introduction to his CRUISING GUIDE TO THE NORTHWEST CARIBBEAN, he explains why he has decided to decline to provide anything more than a basic Approach Waypoint to reef passes along the northern shores of places like Guanaja, and Roatan... Basically, because he has come to believe that cruisers are nowadays relying on such information to an undue extent, and are tempted into making such passages through areas where VPR rules only should apply, and eyeball navigation in good light is the ONLY way such passes should be attempted...

He simply wants no further part in contributing to what he considers to be a very dangerous, unseamanlike trend among some cruisers today... Feel free, however, to dismiss his opinion as "unsubstantiated", as well... (grin)

Again, speculation as to why the skipper of RULE 62 attempted to enter the North Bar Channel that night will likely forever be just that - pure speculation... My hypothesis is simply what I consider to be most likely, based upon the above described _patterns of behavior_ I've observed over the years, and the extraordinary amount of trust ALL of us place in our ability to fix our positions today... I simply see a panicked, desperate captain, inexperienced in running inlets or cuts, who believed playing the video game on his chartplotter would lead him to safety... That's my hunch, nothing more...

You, however, have appeared to insist this could not possibly have been the case, and that this particular captain would have entered that cut in any event, whether he had such modern means of navigation at his disposal... I'll ask once again - how do you _KNOW_ that, to state it with such assurance?

30 years ago, that guy would not have been there, to begin with... Modern cruising rallies only came into existence after the advent of GPS, after all. It's hard to me to imagine that a skipper who obviously never mastered the simple art of heaving-to, would have mastered the far more complex art of celestial navigation which would have been required to have gotten him there to begin with...

My scenario presents the actions of an inexperienced, panicked captain, who made a VERY bad decision contrary to the most basic rules of seamanship... To accept your hypothesis, however, one needs to accept that he still would have entered that cut without the modern electronic tools available to him... That, armed only with a sketch chart clearly intended for daylight use only, in good light, and without knowing with any degree of real precision - off a dark, featureless coast bounded by reefs, absent any lit navigational aids whatsoever - either his own position, or the location of that cut... That he would have proceeded, in rage conditions, through such a passage anyway?

Hell, Dave - I'm only suggesting that the guy made an extremely poor decision based upon an inordinate amount of faith in modern technology... What you're suggesting, is akin to a belief that the guy must have been clinically INSANE... (grin)



chef2sail said:


> Statistics show the numbers are down...hard to justify people are taking risks you are speculating on.


Again, I sure wish someone could find statistics addressed specifically to "*cruiser-type*" fatalities or incidents, and not those inflated with numbers from rescue operations such as these:


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

> Would you consider the opinions of people like Don Street, or Steve Pavlidis, "unsubstantiated", as wel
> 
> I mentioned Steve Pavlidis ...
> 
> He simply wants no further part in contributing to what he considers to be a very dangerous, unseamanlike trend among some cruisers today...
> 
> ]


I call their opinions a load of old fashioned hogwash.
It's fools like those that use the fear of their own skill falling by technology's wayside to try and instill fear in the up takers of technology.

However as much as they pontificate the less the new generation listens.

Is total twaddle to not look forward, but look back

Those people sound like the Astronomer Royal who stymied the progress of chronometers in the English navy for DECADES. What a up himself moron.

Mark


----------



## Dean101

chef2sail said:


> Fortunately i can help you out.
> RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year
> 
> RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year
> 
> I am actually suprised. I though it would be more too. I guess that shoots the whole electrontics has lerad to more dangerous sailing taking more risks theory and costoing us more money.
> 
> Now whos the first one going to say these arent accurate or most events arent recorded?????


I wont argue the numbers. The same statistics running from 1964 to 2011 can be found on the U.S. Coast Guard's website under statistics. If we're talking about use of taxpayer dollars in compensating the CG for rescuing "irresponsible and inexperienced" sailors, then paid subscriptions to private rescue firms would not apply. It is my opinion that distance from land only affects time and cost. If you cast off the lines and sail 5 miles out, you still run the risk of requiring rescue for any number of events. The shorter distance will not elliminate cost/time, only reduce it. From what I gather from looking at the CG statistics, nearly every column shows a downward trend. My interpretation is that boating has become more safe, not less so.

I do agree that boat skippers should know there limitations and not operate on the "press button = get rescued" mindset but for professional mariners or powerboaters to say that sailing offshore in a small boat is burdening the CG and taxpayers needlessly is like the pot calling the kettle black. IMHO, mom and pop sailing to Europe for the first time with all the latest electronics and safety equipment is no more dangerous than the jackass in the cigarette boat flying through a crowded harbor trying to impress the girls or the container ship crossing the same ocean who nearly collides with mom and pop because the watch would rather catch a nap than maintain a proper watch.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Would you consider the opinions of people like Don Street, or Steve Pavlidis, "unsubstantiated", as wel
> 
> I mentioned Steve Pavlidis ...
> 
> He simply wants no further part in contributing to what he considers to be a very dangerous, unseamanlike trend among some cruisers today...
> 
> 
> 
> I call their opinions a load of old fashioned hogwash.
> It's fools like those that use the fear of their own skill falling by technology's wayside to try and instill fear in the up takers of technology.
> 
> However as much as they pontificate the less the new generation listens.
> 
> Is total twaddle to not look forward, but look back
> 
> Those people sound like the Astronomer Royal who stymied the progress of chronometers in the English navy for DECADES. What a up himself moron.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

So, you won't be using STREET'S TRANSATLANTIC CROSSING GUIDE on your passage over to the Med, one can safely presume? Nor any of the Imray-Iolaire charts he's created? Not to mention, his TransAtlantic Chart of Gnomic Projection? Too bad, it sounds pretty useful:



> It is amazing when looking at a course line of Gnomic Projection: Bermuda to the Azores, if you swing north to pick up the prevailing westerlies you discover you are very close to the southern limit of the ice bergs. On the face of this chart we will be showing the position of distinctive icebergs that have been recorded through the years. One of them almost reached Bermuda and a number of them have drifted down as low as 30°.
> Also on this chart are shown the major port to port courses, for going both eastwards and westwards across the Atlantic.
> 
> On the back of this chart you will find weather charts for May, June and July; October, November and December. We are only showing those months, as boats should not be trying to cross the Atlantic, sailing to or from the Caribbean outside those months. The weather charts will not only show roses for every 5° square, but it will also show the areas and frequencies where gales are expected, also areas and frequency where waves can be exptected of 12 feet or more. May, June and July weather information will show where the icebergs can be expected, and areas where the growlers have been recorded regularly.


Your post really should be preserved for posterity... Pavlidis and Street, 2 men probably as intimately acquainted with the breadth of the Bahamas and Caribbean as anyone alive, not to mention Street's 40+ years as an insurance broker in the yachting industry... And, as to their use of "technology", you obviously haven't the slightest clue as to how a guy like Steve Pavlidis creates his cruising guide's charts in the first place...

And yet, here we have the opinions of such "fools" deemed "hogwash" by a poster on Sailnet...

Freakin' _CLASSIC_...


----------



## chef2sail

> Again, speculation as to why the skipper of RULE 62 attempted to enter the North Bar Channel that night will likely forever be just that - pure speculation... My hypothesis is simply what I consider to be most likely, based upon the above described patterns of behavior I've observed over the years, and the extraordinary amount of trust ALL of us place in our ability to fix our positions today... I simply see a panicked, desperate captain, inexperienced in running inlets or cuts, who believed playing the video game on his chartplotter would lead him to safety... That's my hunch, nothing more...
> You, however, have appeared to insist this could not possibly have been the case, and that this particular captain would have entered that cut in any event, whether he had such modern means of navigation at his disposal... I'll ask once again - how do you KNOW that, to state it with such assurance?


Jon- mine is pure speculation just like yours. Nothing more nothing less. I just place less responsibility on the chartplotter than you. The Captain of Rule 62 was not some rube dock socializer and had a fair amount of experience. He had plenty of time to think through his fateful decision. He was respoinsibile for his crew. He had many times to divert and heave to. It was recommended to him to do so by the race organizers in one oif his last radio check ins.



> To put this in perspective every cruising guide published for the Bahamas says ' these cuts are impassable under 'rage' sea conditions.


Fault is the Captains...not the boat...not the chartplotter....it was the Captains decision just like the Bounty.



> Since you mention it, I would have to add what I often see as an undue amount of faith in the accuracy of modern forecasting/weather routing as another double-edged sword that SOMETIMES leads voyagers to take chances that a more prudent sailor would have been unlikely to do decades ago... Unquestionably, the greatly enhanced accuracy of modern forecasting, and the ease of access - both pre-departure, and while underway - that today's voyagers enjoy to weather information has made voyaging FAR safer today than in the past...


Totally agree about the two edge sword. But we arent going backwards here. Not using technology



> My scenario presents the actions of an inexperienced, panicked captain, who made a VERY bad decision contrary to the most basic rules of seamanship... To accept your hypothesis, however, one needs to accept that he still would have entered that cut without the modern electronic tools available to him... That, armed only with a sketch chart clearly intended for daylight use only, in good light, and without knowing with any degree of real precision - off a dark, featureless coast bounded by reefs, absent any lit navigational aids whatsoever - either his own position, or the location of that cut... That he would have proceeded, in rage conditions, through such a passage anyway?
> 
> Hell, Dave - I'm only suggesting that the guy made an extremely poor decision based upon an inordinate amount of faith in modern technology... What you're suggesting, is akin to a belief that the guy must have been clinically INSANE... (grin)


He was not thinking clearly all along. The last part of the act at night just piled on all the wrong decisions al along. He would have attempted this during daylight also proabably IMHO. He was driven to get releif ashore.

Thats where the learning comes in on this, not to throw away the chartplotter thats like saying if he didnt have an engine he wouldnt have attempted this. The learning is the demands placed by a tired sick crew on the captain and his inexperience or inability to deal with it in the safe way.



> I'm sorry that you consider my opinions to be "unsubstantiated", as they are simply the results of what I have observed over a period of over 3 decades as a delivery skipper, and roughly 2 decades of cruising aboard my own boat... Be that as it may, I can assure you I am not alone in sharing some of these opinions


I value you opinions...just dont agree with them in this particular case. You experience is vast and speaks for itself



> 30 years ago, that guy would not have been there, to begin with... Modern cruising rallies only came into existence after the advent of GPS, after all. It's hard to me to imagine that a skipper who obviously never mastered the simple art of heaving-to, would have mastered the far more complex art of celestial navigation which would have been required to have gotten him there to begin with


We cant live in the past. I doubt whether the celes nav I learned 30 years ago would do me much good now as I dont practice it often. Sailors back then with celestial nav were still wrecking their boats on the coast of North carloina. The answer isnt to go back to the old days here. We cant. The answer is to understand the limitations of your experience and how it realtes to the increased information we have now. I dont think my chartplotter gives me an increased sense of infalliabilty or causes me to take more risks, because I depend on it. Thats where I differ from your thinking.

I will bet we run our vessels similarly when offshore. I will bet you dont turn off the chartplotters on the deliveries you do. I will bet you dont chart your course through celestrail navigation 100% of the time. Ill bet you use charts, use the plotter, record your position and rely on your experience. Ill bet you watch the GRIB files anddont think they are more than 60% accurate. Ill bet you have confidence in your past experience to get you through the unknown conditions as well when they are thrown at you. Ill bet that has taught you to be cautious at all costs, because the pentalty for not...is life. I will also bet you like I have made mistake, but we recovered from them...as thats how we learn. I will also bet we wouldnt have decided to do what either the Bounty or Rule62 Capatins did. We would have hove to. We would have not come in at night. We would not have approached a shore during conditions like were preesent day or night.

Its important to know how much experience you have and when you are also overwhelmed by conditions and know you limitations personally, the limits of the boat, and the limits of the crew. This Captain got his false sens eof security not from the chartplotter IMHO, but from over stating his own qualifications to himself. There is also a false sense of security that they are traveling in a Rally. f course he didnt listen to the more experienced ally organizers and went off on his own.

Jon, I value your opinions greatly. They are based on your experiences, just like mine. I enjoy reading them. Much of the time they are congruent. When they are not it doesnt make either of us less than. Just two farts with differing opinions sharing them openly. Others can read and form their opinions from their own experiences or lack of them. Thats why I post mine, to help others as well as have others critiuqe mine so I can learn from them to become a better sailor myself. The better I can become the better decisions I will hopefully make. Like you there are times when I am responsible for others, especially offshore and the best decision will always be the best thought out with as much information input as possible for me.

Dave


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> We cant live in the past. I doubt whether the celes nav I learned 30 years ago would do me much good now as I dont practice it often. Sailors back then with celestial nav were still wrecking their boats on the coast of North carloina. The answer isnt to go back to the old days here. We cant. The answer is to understand the limitations of your experience and how it realtes to the increased information we have now. I dont think my chartplotter gives me an increased sense of infalliabilty or causes me to take more risks, because I depend on it. Thats where I differ from your thinking.


Sorry, but I remain completely baffled by my apparent inability to make myself understood on this matter...

OK, _One More Time..._

I am not suggesting some sort of wholesale "return to the past", or "throwing away our chartplotters", or any such dismissal of the use of today's technology... Someone, anyone, show me precisely where I have advocated such an approach, _please..._

I have tried to express that a chartplotter was a likely _CONTRIBUTING FACTOR_, not the sole _CAUSE_ of this incident... I don't know how many more different ways I can try to make that plain... Still, I think it was likely the decisive factor in the skipper's decision to go against the advice of the rally organizers and others, I simply cannot imagine he would have summoned the nerve to enter that cut, in those conditions, without such means of navigating/piloting at his disposal... On that, I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree...

One last time, let me shout it from the mountaintop: _I *LOVE* MY CHARTPLOTTER!_, and all the convenience, confidence and security it affords me... Definitely, some of the best money I've ever spent, almost on a par with my Sailomat windvane...

I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to return to the Good Old Days, or consign my electronic nav aids to the trash bin - nor am I encouraging anyone else to do so... I'm simply suggesting that this technology is often being _MISUSED_ by many sailors today, that is all...

Even, when it's doing its best to convince me not to believe my own lyin' eyes...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JonEisberg said:


> Pavlidis and Street, 2 men probably as intimately acquainted with the breadth of the Bahamas and Caribbean as anyone alive,


WERE. They WERE aquainted.

But time moves on. So has information.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> One last time, let me shout it from the mountaintop: _I *LOVE* MY CHARTPLOTTER!_, and all the convenience, confidence and security it affords me... ...
> I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to return to the Good Old Days, or consign my electronic nav aids to the trash bin - nor am I encouraging anyone else to do so... I'm simply suggesting that this technology is often being _MISUSED_ by many sailors today, that is all...
> 
> *Even, when it's doing its best to convince me not to believe my own lyin' eyes...*


I guess the problem of following blindingly a plotter has some similarities with people following blindly car GPS information. People believe in that even when obviously the information doesn't make any make sense and that is about what you are talking about. That blind trust that in a car is funny is dangerous on a boat. I will not tell you the many car GPS anecdotes I have saw or new about, I will tell you one with a plotter:

My wife, on the cabin, stars to scream at me saying I am almost hitting a rock. I am outside at the wheel, it is a clear day I am navigating having a look from time to time to the plotter, seeing the marks and dangers and then navigating by eye and compass.

I was a bit frightening with the panic that I could hear in is voice but mostly amazed. I know I am careful. So, because I was navigating with the outside plotter out (to save energy) after looking around and seeing that all the things and marks were where they were supposed to be, including a signalized small isolated rock (100m to port) and because my wife was becoming almost hysterical I went below to see what the hell she was talking about and to calm her.

To my surprise the rock that was 100m to port was almost hitting the boat and I found out it was very difficult to convince my wife that I knew more than the machine. I had to take her to the cockpit to show her where was the rock.

No it is the opposite, she looks at the information on the plotter with a lot of skepticism and is always cheeking to see if everything is right 

Information on the plotter is almost always correct but trust blindly on it and the first time it isn't you are done.

I guess that what you are talking about is about this kind of blind confidence even when obviously the plotter was not made for that. It is not a freaking game video and that is why any plotter when you light it up starts with a warning that warns precisely about that blind trust.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> WERE. They WERE aquainted.
> 
> But time moves on. So has information.


Wow, you don't have the slightest clue who Steve Pavlidis is, or what he does, do you?

And, if Don Street's knowledge is no longer relevant to the Caribbean, then why do his Imray-Iolaire charts remain the Gold Standard of charts of the Greater and Lesser Antilles today? Which charts have superseded them? Which charts does your own electronic nav software use, that might be so far superior, and left Street's so far in the dust?

From Landfall Navigation's site:



> Before the development of the Imray-Iolaire chart series, navigation information for the Eastern Caribbean had been generally poor with chart coverage haphazard and no single authority providing complete coverage of harbors and anchorages suitable for cruisers. Most official charts are based on nineteenth century surveys and have too little updated information. The Imray-Iolaire series meets the growing demand for a standardized series of charts for the Caribbean Sea.
> 
> For this Caribbean series, Imray has enlisted the aid of the well known Donald Street Jr. who has spent over thirty years chartering, cruising and exploring in Iolaire, his 93 year old engineless wooden Yawl. He has taken his unique knowledge of the passages, harbors, and anchorages, from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgins in the north to the Venezuelan coast in the south, and applied it to these charts. His cruising guides are the definitive text for cruisers in the area.


----------



## chef2sail

> guess the problem of following blindingly a plotter has some similarities with people following blindly car GPS information. People believe in that even when obviously the information doesn't make any make sense and that is about what you are talking about. That blind trust that in a car is funny is dangerous on a boat.PCP


Of course. This goes without saying. Common sense.o That *IS* why the warning appears when it turns on. There is a little sign on side mirrors in car reminding someone everythime that objects appear further.... So what.

Most of us know not to trust the chartplotter blindly....We are not children, we can read....most of us have imnstances where they have been off....so what, we know that........ Next issue.

Jon,

Soooooo,,,what causes a Captain of a boat, with more than just casual dockside experience to run toward a shallow narrow channel, in 40 knot winds opposing tide conditions, large ocean swells and breaking waves, experienced for hours on end, 2 members of the crew too sick to stand watch, pleading with the captain, broken autopilot, obvious rage conditions during daylight hours. Why the chartplotter of course.

Sooooo what causes a Captain, 500 ton Master liscence, 30 years offshore experience to leave port in a wooden boat used as a movie prop and head toward a developing hurricane, new fangled pumps necessary to keep the boat dewatered ( no old fashioned manual pumps), differing stories on maintainence condition of the vessel. Why the pumps of course were contributory to the boats sinking. They gave the Captain a slase sense of security he would be able to keep the boat dewatered. The pumps were a contributory cause.

Thats your argument

In both cases it is the Captain who exercised poor judgement in putting his boat in compromising positions in the first place. Walbridge on Bounty for sailing into a hurricane, and Ross on Rule62 for sailing toward the Bahamas. We know Ross had been tried to be dissuaded from doing this, he continued on for a day and a half putting his boat further and further in jeopardy when he could have turned away or hove to. Walbridgre could have sought port or shelter but kept sailing on. Even* IF* and Jon must assume this *IF* Ross;s chartplotter was working and* IF*he used it to try and navigate at night. It is clear in broad daylight for hours he was fine with the decision to run the rage to allieviate his crews...and maybe even his self imposed desperate condition. At any time, any time he could have just hove to and mitigated the motion on the boat and waited for the rage or conditions to eventually subside. The Captain placed the boat near the Bahamas where the danger was awaiting, just like the Captain sailing close to the hurricane where the danger was waiting. Similarly they are both help responsible for the actions. The use of the chartplotter if we beleive it worked to run at night was just a side reference as he never would have been there had the Capatin not run the boat to the shallow Bahamas and shore.


----------



## PCP

Something that was not posted here. I don't know how I have missed it since it was published on Sail-World, a web page that I normally read. Well, better late than never:

Quote:

"Michael Tougias, an expert on deadly sea tragedies the author of five nonfiction books chronicling heroic and dramatic sea incidents, was interviewed on an American television show about his work.

The Herald Sun reported that when asked by the announcer if any ships would venture out in Hurricane Sandy, his answer was, 'No way,'' and he continued, 'Only large ships like aircraft carriers can manage that kind of storm in that area. I was so surprised when the news flashed about the Bounty.'

'You don't want to be anywhere near the merging currents in a storm,' Tougias was reported as saying. 'There are a whole lot of reasons not to be out there.'

He said the Bounty's captain and owner had ample notice of the impending hurricane and its scope, Tougias said.

'I think he had a schedule and was trying to outmaneuver the storm,' Tougias said. "

Sail-World.com : Search for HMS Bounty's Captain called off - investigation begun


----------



## chef2sail

> The Herald Sun reported that when asked by the announcer if any ships would venture out in Hurricane Sandy, his answer was, 'No way,'' and he continued, 'Only large ships like aircraft carriers can manage that kind of storm in that area. I was so surprised when the news flashed about the Bounty.'


The US Navy sent many ships out to sea from Norfolk smaller than aircraft carriers



> 'I think he had a schedule and was trying to outmaneuver the storm,' Tougias said. "


This quote is conjecture obviously a nd should be discounted

Two mistakes in one

Anyway we all agree the Captain should not have sailed.


----------



## xymotic

chef2sail said:


> The US Navy sent many ships out to sea from Norfolk smaller than aircraft carriers


Yes, but it should be noted that he said 'manage a storm' not ride out, and the navy ships that put to sea:

**LEFT** (at 20 or 30 knots)

They didn't head to Hatteras


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Jon,
> 
> Soooooo,,,what causes a Captain of a boat, with more than just casual dockside experience to run toward a shallow narrow channel, in 40 knot winds opposing tide conditions, large ocean swells and breaking waves, experienced for hours on end, 2 members of the crew too sick to stand watch, pleading with the captain, broken autopilot, obvious rage conditions during daylight hours. Why the chartplotter of course.
> 
> ...
> 
> Thats your argument


Right from the get-go, I have referred to the RULE 62 tragedy as a *"GPS-enabled incident"*... Check my initial post on the matter again, should you still have any doubts...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ed/69910-sinking-rule-62-a-23.html#post673266

Unless my understanding of the English language is fundamentally flawed, "enabling" is not the equivalent of "causation"...



> en·able
> transitive verb \i-ˈnā-bəl\
> en·ableden·abling
> Definition of ENABLE
> 1
> a : to provide with the means or opportunity - _training that enables people to earn a living_
> b : to make possible, practical, or easy - _a deal that would enable passage of a new law_
> c : to cause to operate - _software that enables the keyboard_
> 
> Synonyms: allow, empower, let, permit


We can only speculate what _CAUSED_ Ross to attempt to enter that cut that night... I suspect it was a combination of many factors - panic, exhaustion, desperation, inexperience, a profound ignorance of the risks involved, an overwhelming desire to simply get himself and his crew off that damn boat which trumped all reason, lack of mastery of the technique of heaving-to, a total disregard for the most elemental caution against entering unknown harbors at night, sheer stupidity, the unawareness of other relatively nearby safe havens, an intense craving for a Bahamian rum drink or ice cream cone, or who knows what else...

All I am suggesting is that it was the extraordinary _precision and accuracy_ which electronic charting would have afforded him, likely _CONTRIBUTED_ to his decision to proceed, and that an attempt to enter that cut in those conditions made any sense whatsoever...

I always endeavor to express myself in these discussions clearly, and with precision.... Again, I invite you - or anyone else - to show me something I've written which implies I believe the chartplotter aboard RULE 62 to be a direct _CAUSE_ of that tragedy, or would absolve the captain of any responsibility in the slightest degree... If I believed a chartplotter was the "cause" of the tragedy, I would have said so... Thus, my use of the word "enabled", instead...

Where we appear to disagree, is in your belief that he would have entered that cut in any event, he was so determined to do so he would have done so even without the help of the pinpoint accuracy of a GPS, or today's state of the art e-charts... I simply doubt that, and believe he would not have been emboldened to attempt that cut - especially, at night - without those particular tools to _enable_ him to do so... That's just my hunch, and I think it's one that is reasonably substantiated by what I've witnessed over the years, but we'll never know for certain, of course...

It's been fun, Dave - but I'm gonna have to call it quits on this issue... If I haven't been able to make myself plainly understood by now, chances are I'll never be able to do so...


----------



## chef2sail

JOn .

He was on a mission, He made the bad decision when he entered turned the boat toward the Bahamas into shallow water against advice from the rally organizers. He had plenty of time to heave to, continue on and instead against advice and logic he chose to head for shore and shelter.

Wether you want to quibble over the word enable or cause makes no difference really. Decisions get traced back to the Captain. You asked for an example of implication and you statement below for instance I believe you give a mixed message here when you embolden the Cause word. Unless you are using invisable ink I see the word caused not enabled and I see it emboldened in caps.



> We can only speculate what CAUSED Ross to attempt to enter that cut that night -


In the spirit of carefully posting these read differently, especially from a person with your obvious credentials

Maybe you meant to write it this way

We can only SPECULATE what enabled Ross to attempt to enter the cut that night



> I always endeavor to express myself in these discussions clearly, and with precision.... Again, I invite you - or anyone else - to show me something I've written which implies I believe the chartplotter aboard RULE 62 to be a direct CAUSE of that tragedy, or would absolve the captain of any responsibility in the slightest degree... If I believed a chartplotter was the "cause" of the tragedy, I would have said so... Thus, my use of the word "enabled", instead...


I agree this thread has run its course. There are other tragedies happening for the SN comment on. All we can do now is wait for the results of the inquirey which will give us insight into any of the factors which enabled/ caused the sinking of the Bounty once she arrived ibn the teeth of the storm


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> .......All we can do now is wait for the results of the inquirey which will give us insight into any of the factors which enabled/ caused the sinking of the Bounty once she arrived ibn the teeth of the storm


Other than for trivial value to know about her final hours, I don't see how that information will shed any light on this tragedy. I would like to see the results of their interviews on the departure decision.


----------



## chef2sail

> Other than for trivial value to know about her final hours, I don't see how that information will shed any light on this tragedy. I would like to see the results of their interviews on the departure decision.


For the same reason in your industry they reconstruct the final minutes of an airplane crash. There could be things which should have been inspected or design flaws which became apparent. Maybe there will be an enlightenment as to why they chose not to seek shelter as they sailed down the coast. These need to come out in the inquirey as maybe there will be a tightening of inspection. Why did the pumps fail? What about the backups. etc.

Actually I dont really care why they left, unless they were forced to by the company or the port master. It has already been determined here that the Captain is at fault for leaving. Why each of the 15 crew members individual decisions why they left is for soap operas or some future movie. I am sure their individual lawyers have prepped them well what to say by now.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> The US Navy sent many ships out to sea from Norfolk smaller than aircraft carriers
> 
> This quote is conjecture obviously a nd should be discounted
> 
> Two mistakes in one
> 
> ....


Dave, all opinions are conjectures and its value depends mostly on the credibility of the one that is issuing them. The fact that I am posting it don't means necessarily that I am agreeing with it but that I found it relevant. he opinion of Michael Tougias was relevant for a TV news channel and to the editor of Sail-World and I think it is relevant here.

I guess you did not understood what Michael Tougias said :

*'Only large ships like aircraft carriers can manage that kind of storm in that area. I was so surprised when the news flashed about the Bounty.'*

For managing the storm he is not talking about running away from it, sailing in the opposite direction of the Bounty, but about sailing it, like the Bounty had tried to do.

He is talking about managing a storm (that's what the Bounty tried to do), not about running away from it, I mean like have done all those ships US Navy sent out to sea from Norfolk (and that have sailed on the opposite direction, regarding the Bounty's course).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> ....Why each of the 15 crew members individual decisions why they left is for soap operas or some future movie. I am sure their individual lawyers have prepped them well what to say by now.


The USCG would have interviewed them as they returned to land, so I doubt they were lawyered up already.

The scenario, however, is the learnng opportunity in my opinion. Why did they go, why did they agree, we're they fully processing the danger, etc. None will change ultimate responsibility, but will allow others to see it coming.

If poor maintenance ultimately caused the pump to fail, it won't impact the responsibility or teach anything about why they should not have found themselves exposed to that failure or expose the USCG to have to rescue them in those conditions.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> JOn .
> 
> He was on a mission, He made the bad decision when he entered turned the boat toward the Bahamas into shallow water against advice from the rally organizers. He had plenty of time to heave to, continue on and instead against advice and logic he chose to head for shore and shelter.
> 
> Wether you want to quibble over the word enable or cause makes no difference really. *Decisions get traced back to the Captain.*


Once again, I am in complete agreement on that, and I'd be curious to see whatever I've written that woud indicate I believe otherwise...

I disagree that his decision to divert to the Bahamas was fundamentally flawed, I don't necessarily see anything "bad" in that... Seems obvious he was saddled with a crew that wasn't up to completing the trip to Tortola, from his position along the rhumb line, the Bahamas were the obvious bail-out option... Once the decision to abandon the rally was taken, seems like a sensible choice to me, and I'm a bit mystified why the rally organizers might have thought it was inherently foolhardy...

Of course, the decision to make for a landfall in the Abacos, however, was the fateful one... That turned out to be an astoundingly poor decision. If he had simply laid a course for the NE Providence Channel, and after only a few more hours of sailing, he could have tucked in behind Hole in the Wall, for instance, for a bit of rest... Then, proceeded for the easy, safe approach to a place like Spanish Wells, or on to Nassau... I wish we had access to some transcript (no such thing likely exists, of course) of the radio communications between the organizers and RULE 62, it would be interesting to see whether such considerations were at any point made clear to him...

Of course, it's another one of my "hunches" that the likely lack of having a large scale paper chart spread out before him in the planning stages of his landfall, instead of panning and zooming all over a computer or plotter screen one foot square, might have contributed mightily to his apparent blindness to The Bigger Picture, and those far better options... (grin)


----------



## Minnewaska

Oh, I've tried to avoid a prolonged discussion over how the NTSB investigates aircraft accidents. Most are aware of the high profile investigations, where the NTSB has near actors and actresses as spokespeople. However, many investigations simply end in "pilot error" or assign a most likely cause, since there may not be anyone to interview. Something to the effect of "pilot failed to maintain control of aircraft". No kidding. Official investigations are not necessarily the end all. I will say, what they can learn from wreckage is amazing.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ..
> 
> He was on a mission, He made the bad decision when he entered turned the boat toward the Bahamas into shallow water against advice from the rally organizers. He had plenty of time to heave to, continue on and instead against advice and logic he chose to head for shore and shelter.
> 
> ...


The point here is that it is being discussed is that he had done it at night. All of us that were used to navigate at night without a plotter know that today we do navigation at night with a plotter that would not have attempted without one and I don't think this is speculation but a fact that will be recognized by all of us.

I am not talking about a risk passage in bad weather like the one that was attempted by Rule 62 Captain but about passages in good weather on less complicated or dangerous spots (difficult navigation stuff) that even so would only be attempted in the old days by daylight, at least by a prudent sailor.

It seems to me very unlikely that any sailor would have attempted a narrow and difficult passage at night without the accuracy of a GPS. For that it would be necessary that the Rule 62 Captain was not only imprudent but absolutely mad.

Even if we can do now, with a plotter, with a reasonable safety at night some passages that would be unreasonably dangerous without a GPS (and I am talking about difficult navigation not sailing through dangerous spots) all will agree that even so they would be even safer with a plotter at day light.

That is specially true to a passage that could, given the conditions, be unreasonable to make even at day light with a plotter, like the one that was made at night by Rule 62.

If he would have waited for the day he would have seen better the sea conditions and we do not know if he would have attempted that passage then or even if he had attempted it he would have been able to make it.

We only know that he had attempted it by night having has reference the boat position on his plotter. I guess that we can safely say that if he had not a plotter it would be almost certain that he would not have attempted that at night.

Nobody is saying that navigation with a plotter is unsafe than navigation without a plotter (quite the contrary), just that the blind confidence on a plotter is a dangerous thing. Our eyes are still the best navigation instrument and at night they work very badly.

That is what Jon is saying when using the word "enable" to refer to the role a plotter and blind confidence of a Captain on it had on that accident.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Flatballer

My father, a marine diesel mechanic (who is much more qualified to be the engineer on that ship than the actual "engineer" was) suspects it was the first real weather they'd been in in a long time. The waves stirred their tanks and clogged their fuel filters, which killed the generator and engines. After that it isn't long until the pump uses up whatever battery power they have left. Pump may have even been clogged by stuff in the bilge that got stirred up by the waves.

Probably could've saved the ship with a couple fuel filter changes.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Flatballer said:


> The waves stirred their tanks and clogged their fuel filters, which killed the generator and engines. ...
> 
> Probably could've saved the ship with a couple fuel filter changes.


They still would have come a cropper. The channel they were heading for was 4 meters deep with 10 meter waves. metric or imperial those figures done work.



JonEisberg said:


> .. That turned out to be an astoundingly poor decision. If he had simply laid a course for the NE Providence Channel, and after only a few more hours of sailing, he could have tucked in behind Hole in the Wall, for instance, for a bit of rest...


Finally a portion of a post of yours i agree with. 
It was only an extra 30 nms to go to be protected for the waves, that's what was making them sick.
I made the suggestion on some forum at the time, but no one seemed to see how significant it was. 30 miles to safety, but a seasick crew, added to tiredness fuzzed up their brains.

Of course nothing to do with paper charts or ECN. A fool using either will get into strife.

Mark


----------



## chef2sail

> All of us that were used to navigate at night without a plotter know that today we do navigation at night with a plotter that would not have attempted without one-PCP.


No my friend not* ALL *of us do that. That is highly risky and quite frankly sets a bad example for any newbie here. You and others have intimated that chartplotters are not accurate. In fact you related an experience about a rock with your wife, that only sight or chart reconning would identify.

Why would you


> do navigation at night with a plotter that would not have attempted without one


 when it is not accurate. Why would you risk you life, the people with you and your boat doing something at night using a piece of equipemnt you do not trust and has shown to be inaccurate by your own eyes? Why would you go ANYWHERE at night you couldnt wouldnt attempt without the chartplotter?

You are confusing, on one hand you point out we rely on the chartplotters and shouldnt, then on the other hand state you go places at night you wouldnt have attempted without a chartplotter. ( Isnt this waht JOn is claiming the Captain Ross did)

Our modern sophisticated chartplotter is and *aide* to navigating not the navigator. I would go no where, at night or in the day that I would put at risk my safety if the chartplotter was wrong or it failed while using. I do NOT trust it by itself implicitly

Captain Ross tuned away from the Rally in daylight,
Captain Ross headed for the North Bar Channel in daylight, 
Captian Ross was warned by Rally organizers not to go on there, 
Captain Ross chose to come in this entrance vs heaving to or taking a different passage which was more protected.
Captain Ross *CHOSE* to enter the Rage area in daylight ( sound familiar with sailing into a hurricane)

He had made his decision and he was going to carry it through. He had eschewed all information and recommendations from others, he violated a number of common sense rules like coming in an unfamiliar inlet at night ( chartplotter or not), as well as sailing directly into a rage, as well as heading for shallow rougher water ( like Hatteras) in the midst of 50 knott wibnds and opposing current and sea. It is the human who is at fault.



> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> .. That turned out to be an astoundingly poor decision. If he had simply laid a course for the NE Providence Channel, and after only a few more hours of sailing, he could have tucked in behind Hole in the Wall, for instance, for a bit of rest...


So true, you are 100% right here. The chartplotter didnt coerce or enable him to choose the North Channel He screwed up, 30 more miles as Mark and you have said hed have been in less wave action and easier seas. He made the wrong choice..he headed for the North Channel....kind of like Captain Walbridge did...he headed into danger instead of away from it.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> I guess the problem of following blindingly a plotter has some similarities with people following blindly car GPS information. People believe in that even when obviously the information doesn't make any make sense and that is about what you are talking about. That blind trust that in a car is funny is dangerous on a boat. I will not tell you the many car GPS anecdotes I have saw or new about, I will tell you one with a plotter:
> 
> My wife, on the cabin, stars to scream at me saying I am almost hitting a rock. I am outside at the wheel, it is a clear day I am navigating having a look from time to time to the plotter, seeing the marks and dangers and then navigating by eye and compass.
> 
> I was a bit frightening with the panic that I could hear in is voice but mostly amazed. I know I am careful. So, because I was navigating with the outside plotter out (to save energy) after looking around and seeing that all the things and marks were where they were supposed to be, including a signalized small isolated rock (100m to port) and because my wife was becoming almost hysterical I went below to see what the hell she was talking about and to calm her.
> 
> To my surprise the rock that was 100m to port was almost hitting the boat and I found out it was very difficult to convince my wife that I knew more than the machine. I had to take her to the cockpit to show her where was the rock.
> 
> No it is the opposite, she looks at the information on the plotter with a lot of skepticism and is always cheeking to see if everything is right ..


You seem to use this as an example of how a chartplotter makes you less safe. But the real irony here is your own example demonstrates that the chartplotter made you MORE safe, not LESS. You had a false alarm because the chartplotter had a 100 meter error. So as a result, you double-checked to make sure your ded reckoning position was correct. You had two sources of information that weren't agreeing, so you gave it some additional attention to resolve the discrepancy. This made you safer, not less safe.

Traditional navigational techniques using DR are not perfect either. In many cases, the chartplotter is far more precise than DR, especially if the landmarks that you are using are miles away. It's pretty simple trigonometry to show that an error of 5 degrees on your pelorus gives a 193 meter error on a landmark that's 1 nautical mile away. So you might just want to keep that chartplotter on!

I suspect that anybody who has ever graded the ASA 105 exam can tell you that there is an allowed range of correct answers to all the plotting test questions, because of the fact that parallel rules and dividers have some slop in their tolerances. On some charts, the width of your pencil is more than 100 meters!

Blind trust in any one method can lead to catastrophic results. More information is better, especially information that is accurate over 99% of the time (like GPS).


----------



## chef2sail

> Blind trust in any one method can lead to catastrophic results. More information is better, especially information that is accurate over 99% of the time (like GPS). TakeFive


Totally agree


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> .


I am not sure if I understand you but anyway what you say makes no sense. I don't know if you used to navigate at night without a plotter and if you would do so I don't understand what is your doubt. As I hope you know navigation without a plotter use triangulation and azimuths to find your position in a chart.

At night many times you simply lack references to get a good fix and even navigation lights on the shore can be difficult to sort out from the middle of other lights and that could on coastal navigation make things difficult if you have to avoid some rocks or any other obstacles. Sometimes the precision you could get sometimes regarding your position was rather poor and I am talking about several miles. That could make things dangerous and therefore it would be better to wait for day light.

With a plotter sometimes you get an error (that is due not to the GPS imprecision put mostly to different chart projections systems that not always are a match to the one used in the chart on the plotter) but is never an error superior to a mile and most of the time is an error not superior to 300m. If you can navigate giving always a berth of more than one mile regarding your position on the plotter regarding any obstacle (rocks) you will not have any problem. Off course that does not dispense the corroboration of the plotter information by the information given by the different navigation lights.

So yes, today with a plotter I can do with a sufficient safety margin night navigation that without a plotter (given the bigger incertitude) I would not have attempted.

I am really baffled that you cannot understand this. Do you sail and cruise at night?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> You seem to use this as an example of how a chartplotter makes you less safe. But the real irony here is your own example demonstrates that the chartplotter made you MORE safe, not LESS. You had a false alarm because the chartplotter had a 100 meter error. So as a result, you double-checked to make sure your ded reckoning position was correct. You had two sources of information that weren't agreeing, so you gave it some additional attention to resolve the discrepancy. This made you safer, not less safe.


I don't understand your logic. I am talking about guys that have a blind faith on the absolute precision of the plotter, like the captain of rule 62. If I was one of those and if I was navigating at night and blindingly trusted the plotter without giving a big berth to its information and was passing 100m at starboard of that rock I would have hit it.

I am not saying that the plotter is not very useful. See my previous post. I am saying that the plotter can be very dangerous for the ones that trust blindly its information and I am quite sure the Captain of Rule 62 is not the only one.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Flatballer

MarkofSeaLife said:


> They still would have come a cropper. The channel they were heading for was 4 meters deep with 10 meter waves. metric or imperial those figures done work.
> 
> Mark


You guys are so far off topic you don't even recognize it when you see it. I was clearly talking about the Bounty, not Rule 62.


----------



## JonEisberg

Flatballer said:


> My father, a marine diesel mechanic (who is much more qualified to be the engineer on that ship than the actual "engineer" was) suspects it was the first real weather they'd been in in a long time. The waves stirred their tanks and clogged their fuel filters, which killed the generator and engines. After that it isn't long until the pump uses up whatever battery power they have left. Pump may have even been clogged by stuff in the bilge that got stirred up by the waves.
> 
> Probably could've saved the ship with a couple fuel filter changes.


I think it's a bit unlikely that a greater reserve of fuel filters would have prevented the loss of the BOUNTY. They would have been experiencing conditions sufficient to stir up their tanks well in advance of their final day. Certainly possible, of course, but this is one of those things an official investigation should be able to clarify...

I think your supposition about debris in the bilge, however, appears to be a very likely possibility... Especially, since the BOUNTY had recently undergone major re-planking and other hull work in Boothbay... There was an interesting post on Sailing Anarchy that speaks to this issue:



> I talked to someone who used to crew on the Bounty. He explained the pump system to me, and I may not get it exactly right. The pumps and engine room were essentially on the same level, and there were no bulkheads that would keep water from sloshing from one end of the bilge to the other.
> 
> *Additionally, he said that any time they did a yard revolution involving any kind of plank work or ribs, they would spend days cleaning out the culch that accumulated from working with lumber - sawdust, scrap wood, everything. It took a full crew to do it, it was horrible work, and more often than not they wouldn't get it all and the first time they took on significant water (which was whenever they went out, really), the pumps would clog. they'd clean that out, and then they'd run the pumps again until they clogged again.*
> 
> He said the last line of defense was a diesel pump with I believe a 4" pipe located just below the weather deck that was capable of dewatering the entire ship if necessary - however that depended on it getting started in the first place.
> 
> The Official Trash the Bounty thread . leave the Sandy thread for stor - Page 5 - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> I don't understand your logic. I am talking about guys that have a blind faith on the absolute precision of the plotter, like the captain of rule 62. If I was one of those and if I was navigating at night and blindingly trusted the plotter without giving a big berth to its information and was passing 100m at starboard of that rock I would have hit it.
> 
> I am not saying that the plotter is not very useful. See my previous post. I am saying that the plotter can be very dangerous for the ones that trust blindly its information and I am quite sure the Captain of Rule 62 is not the only one.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


This goes back to the well known principle of never trusting one nav device. I have noticed errors in chartplotters that would have me navigating on pavement. As noted above, this is due to many different factors. In reality, all navigation relies on a number of inputs. The plotter is a great tool and added to the other inputs, certainly makes life easier but I would not blindly trust it, especially at night when even more attention needs to be paid to light patterns, atmosphere, depth, and even sound.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> .. That turned out to be an astoundingly poor decision. If he had simply laid a course for the NE Providence Channel, and after only a few more hours of sailing, he could have tucked in behind Hole in the Wall, for instance, for a bit of rest...
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a portion of a post of yours i agree with.
> It was only an extra 30 nms to go to be protected for the waves, that's what was making them sick.
> I made the suggestion on some forum at the time, but no one seemed to see how significant it was. 30 miles to safety, but a seasick crew, added to tiredness fuzzed up their brains.
> 
> *Of course nothing to do with paper charts or ECN. A fool using either will get into strife.*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

I'm merely asserted - in an effort to identify the likely causes of the obvious failure of Ross to appreciate the bigger picture - that the lack of a larger paper chart at his disposal could have been a reasonable, probable explanation... I'm certainly not alone in viewing the ability of plotters and e-charts alone to appreciate The Big Picture as one of their principal limitations... Again, try to remember that not every user of such things may not be as adept with a cursor or mouse as you are... (grin)

I don't see how anyone who was not aboard that boat, or has no knowledge of the tools available to the skipper or what he was thinking, can so unequivocally and categorically eliminate such a scenario/explanation as being within the realm of possibility...


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Well, we can probably safely assume the number would still be at least 2...
> 
> Now, ask yourself the following: Do you think it was commonplace pre-GPS for cruisers not only to _attempt_, but to actually _plan ahead_ on transiting a reef passage like Belize's Ranguana Pass at night? Do you think Bahamian cruisers would navigate The Devil's Backbone in poor light, or during a modest rage condition, as I've seen them doing nowadays? Even in the late afternoon, sun in their face, completely blind in their ability to read the water, and simply relying upon the GPS track of the path laid down by the pilot from Spanish Wells who took them across to Harbour Island the first time? Do you think it's likely a skipper would have brought a yacht worth well in excess of $1 million through one of the most dangerous and remote reef passages in all of the Bahamas - the entrance to the Columbus Anchorage at Samana Cay - in the dark, without relying upon GPS, and the extremely accurate Explorer Charts? Or, do you simply not consider such a maneuver "risky"? Better yet, do you simply think I'm making these anecdotes up, in support of an otherwise unsubstantiated opinion?
> 
> Sorry, but if you believe such risks were routinely being taken by sailors 30 or 40 years, you're dreaming...


There is more at work than just the dependence on electronic navigation and weather services. It seems to me that there are more million dollar rigs on the water now then back before dead reckoning was the only nav method. There are just more people with money to burn who decide they are going to buy an expensive boat and be sailors. Many, not all, are really not suited to an activity like sailing. What works in a cubicle does not translate to what works on a sailboat. Judgement, respect for the sea, mechanical ability in a pinch; experience can't be bought. Sailing goes back to some basic skills with which many executive sailors have no connection. They pay their insurance premium and off they go. We get stuck with the bill eventually in increased insurance costs. So, stupid decisions to try to navigate tricky passages in crappy conditions are probably more directly related to hubris and money than to reliance on plotters.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> There is more at work than just the dependence on electronic navigation and weather services. It seems to me that there are more million dollar rigs on the water now then back before dead reckoning was the only nav method. There are just more people with money to burn who decide they are going to buy an expensive boat and be sailors. Many, not all, are really not suited to an activity like sailing. What works in a cubicle does not translate to what works on a sailboat. Judgement, respect for the sea, mechanical ability in a pinch; experience can't be bought. Sailing goes back to some basic skills with which many executive sailors have no connection. ... So, stupid decisions to try to navigate tricky passages in crappy conditions are probably more directly related to hubris and money than to reliance on plotters.


This has nothing to do with money but with experience and knowledge. You can make stupid mistakes with a million dollars boat or with a 30 000 dollars boat. Today chartplotters are not expensive and all that navigate for a significant time have them.

Regarding knowledge in what regards navigation you can learn it by yourself but the learning is much slower and incomplete than if you do it on a formal way with a teacher that is a professional Captain that has many years of experience. That Captain had also formal teaching and he had benefited from all knowledge that had been recovered from the experience of thousands of experienced sea Captains. Of course, experience on the sea is also necessary but having a formal good preparation is a big help.

What take five said to professional sailors apply also to pleasure Captains:



TakeFive said:


> Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent.
> 
> In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence.
> 
> It is absurd to suggest that licenses and training have little correlation with competence. It is simply not true. The correlation is not 100% perfect, but it is a very strong correlation.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## souljour2000

at the end of this post on page91 of this thread " Chef to Sail "wrote:



> There are other tragedies happening for the SN comment on. All we can do now is wait for the results of the inquirey which will give us insight into any of the factors which enabled/ caused the sinking of the Bounty once she arrived ibn the teeth of the storm


.....

I agree..afterall...someone died a couple days ago on a commercial snorkel charter out of pompano beach as they tried to enter Hillsboro inlet...alot less background and drama here than a antique sailing ship or a frantic dash for safety from a sailboat in a race/rally...but one dead and almost two dozen in the water on a nice afternoon in Pompano...started a thread on this topic..it likely won't get near 91 pages long hopefully but it's just as devastating to all involved and as worthy of scrutiny as more publicized accidents...alot of us or our families have probably been on one these "super-pontoon" type tourist boats ...

P.S.-You may now carry on.. almost to a hundred pages here afterall!!

The Medical Examiner on Friday ruled the Thanksgiving Day death of a diver aboard a capsized boat a drowning. - Page 2 - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> This has nothing to do with money but with experience and knowledge. You can make stupid mistakes with a million dollars boat or with a 30 000 dollars boat. Today chartplotters are not expensive and all that navigate for a significant time have them.
> 
> Regarding knowledge in what regards navigation you can learn it by yourself but the learning is much slower and incomplete than if you do it on a formal way with a teacher that is a professional Captain that has many years of experience. That Captain had also formal teaching and he had benefited from all knowledge that had been recovered from the experience of thousands of experienced sea Captains. Of course, experience on the sea is also necessary but having a formal good preparation is a big help.
> 
> What take five said to professional sailors apply also to pleasure Captains:
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I can only relate what I've seen in the fields of first responder, construction, and teaching. Getting the certificate proves only one thing: that you've been presented with information and have passed some sort of test(s). From many examples, I say that these courses of study do NOT have a direct correlation to ability in the real world. This is true in any of these fields and, I suspect, ALL fields. The real test is in the actual work situation. If anything, these "qualification" procedures are often very misleading and downright dangerous in some cases (as when applied to doctors, first responders, etc.) Not only that but they often become politicized, watered down by academics, unions, lawyers, etc, until they have NO connection with anything actually useful. Maybe they serve to filter out some of those who have made a mistake in choosing a field of endeavor, but not many. I'm not going to go into anecdotes but I have many.

After presentation of the information and whatever testing, RETENTION of useful knowledge is largely absent except on a very shallow level. Retention only comes from repeated, real-life usage: experience. The experience needs to be under the long-term tutelage of people with experience-on the job. These people usually do not want to be teachers because they can actually do the job. We used to have apprentice programs but academic bullies have all but eliminated them. The ones that still exist often stagnate and become ineffective because not much formal attention is given to them.

I will concede that the knowledge and information aspect of performing a job is, in the first place, essential but jumping through a maze of hoops is not necessary to acquire basic factual information. If you can read, you can learn the basic info. "Certification" programs, not all of them, often are expedited or lose sight of what is actually important. Schools that essentially print degrees on demand for anyone who can spell their name are becoming commonplace.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> I can only relate what I've seen in the fields of first responder, construction, and teaching. Getting the certificate proves only one thing: that you've been presented with information and have passed some sort of test(s). From many examples, I say that these courses of study do NOT have a direct correlation to ability in the real world. This is true in any of these fields and, I suspect, ALL fields. ...


I don't agree with you and I think that what you say does not have much sense. If it was so we would have not trained and qualified professional engineers, Doctors, Airplanes pilots, Architects or Sea Captains. We would only have handy men in all professions.

I think Takefive nailed it when he said: *"Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent. In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence"*.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> I don't agree with you and I think that what you say does not have much sense. If it was so we would have not trained and qualified professional engineers, Doctors, Airplanes pilots, Architects or Sea Captains. We would only have handy men in all professions.
> 
> I think Takefive nailed it when he said: *"Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent. In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence"*.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


OK, let's just not agree. Next topic


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> OK, let's just not agree. Next topic


That's Ok with me

Let me Clarify: Regarding the knowledge you have to have I do not defend that you have to take courses to get it.

what I defend is that you have to show that you have the knowledge. You should have the right to do the same tests as the ones that had a formal training are required to do to have a licence. If you pass the tests and the sea prove you have as right at your certification as they have. Of course this, even for someone that has sea experience, implies a lot of study and a lot of books to learn but it is not impossible.

I had all my licences taken that way till Coastal Captain (200Nm out of shore) and there are several other mandatory licences till you reach that one. I just inscribed myself for the examination (with all the other guys that had taken a full course) made the tests, passed them and made the sea proves as well. Only for an unlimited licence I have taken a full course.

I defend the right of anybody to be tested for a certification, course or not, but I also defend the necessity of confirmation that any guy that exercises a profession or an activity that demands special knowledge and involves risks to others to be submitted to testing that confirms at least that he has the needed knowledge.

Of course as TakeFive has said: *"Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent. In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence".*

Regards

Paulo

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Certification in a field is not a gauentee of competancy. It does mean however you have the ability to 1- take a standardized test and 2- regurgitate the information the certifying agency has deemed important on the test. It does not have any correllation to retaining other than the day of the test what was on the test. It does not necessarily reflect what is needed in real life situations therefore the material is not always relevant. Some times these tests are created to satisfy a governement agency, to make money for the industry, or keep too many people from being able to compete for jobs. This does not minimize the importantce of testing. Many certifications also have an experiencial component connected with them. 

In the marine industry all this testing doesnt assure that the people certified make proper decisions 100% of the time. We are humans, that is not possible. The alternative not to have or require testing is not palatable though. The Bounty Captain was tested and certified, so was the Titanic. Mistakes and errors in judgement will always be made.

We also know that many decisions are made from common sense. Having a degree or certification we all have found doesnt mean a person pocesses common sense. Check out the professional Captains of the Bounty and Titanic 

All this does is maximize the potential to make a correct decision, not gauerentee it.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Certification in a field is not a gauentee of competancy. ....
> 
> All this does is maximize the potential to make a correct decision, not gauerentee it.


Yes I agree with that. It is just what I am saying. As I have said in my opinion Takefive nailed already the subject:



TakeFive said:


> Having a certification does not guarantee full competence in any field. However, a person who lacks the ability or persistence to pass the certification requirements is almost certainly not fully competent.
> 
> In other words, certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence.
> 
> It is absurd to suggest that licenses and training have little correlation with competence. It is simply not true. The correlation is not 100% perfect, but it is a very strong correlation.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

This thread has run its course till the investigation concludes or there is new info, but fret not there is another tragedy thread started to comment on....Its the catamnaran dive boat running the inlet....let the speculations begin!!!!! \

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> The Medical Examiner on Friday ruled the Thanksgiving Day death of a diver aboard a capsized boat a drowning. - Page 2 - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
> 
> Might as well start speculating here. Only one less death than the Bounty and the same as Rule 62. I am sure there is something to be learned from this for the future?
> 
> Was the Captain at fault comming in on wind and current opposition? Why didnt he respect the new sandbar formed? Were the wearung PFD.s? Did he try and use his chartplotter to navigate the inlet?
> 
> Let me go pop some popcorn.
> 
> Dave


----------



## JonEisberg

smurphny said:


> There is more at work than just the dependence on electronic navigation and weather services. It seems to me that there are more million dollar rigs on the water now then back before dead reckoning was the only nav method. There are just more people with money to burn who decide they are going to buy an expensive boat and be sailors. Many, not all, are really not suited to an activity like sailing. What works in a cubicle does not translate to what works on a sailboat. Judgement, respect for the sea, mechanical ability in a pinch; experience can't be bought. Sailing goes back to some basic skills with which many executive sailors have no connection. They pay their insurance premium and off they go. We get stuck with the bill eventually in increased insurance costs. So, stupid decisions to try to navigate tricky passages in crappy conditions are probably more directly related to hubris and money than to reliance on plotters.


Well, _DUH_... (grin)

Yeah, the RULE 62 deal certainly has all the earmarks of the phenomenon you describe...

Still, I'll repeat it again... GPS is the primary "enabler" of this phenomenon... RULE 62 would not have been sailing in the Caribbean 1500 if it were not for GPS... Hell, rallies like the 1500 have been enabled by GPS, why did they not exist prior to the advent of the accuracy of position fixing afforded by electronic navigation?

Hanging around the docks for the week or so prior to the departure of something like the 1500 can be an eye-opening experience, for some... Seeing arriving crew dragging freakin' _SUITCASES_ down the docks towards a Hylas 56, it becomes pretty apparent some of these folks likely don't have a _CLUE_ what they might be in for...

Examples abound, of folks headed out there now who have a good deal more money, than sea-sense, or experience...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Jon, you can't turn back the clock.


----------



## chef2sail

> Hanging around the docks for the week or so prior to the departure of something like the 1500 can be an eye-opening experience, for some... Seeing arriving crew dragging freakin' SUITCASES down the docks towards a Hylas 56, it becomes pretty apparent some of these folks likely don't have a CLUE what they might be in for...JonEisenberg


Hell thats probably what the clipper ship capitains and crew were saying in Southhampton England as people boarded the tourist ship called the Titanic,

John I dont completely disagree with what you are saying, but how do you propose changing what you see?


----------



## therapy23

I am staying subscribed to this thread to find out more about the BOUNTY.

It sure is tiring to hear all the BICKERING about some other boats and chartplotters and inlets and rocks and........

SHUT THE FU*K UP!


----------



## PCP

On this link that Sal posted and that is a recent article there are some interesting new statements and information:

Quoted:

"The ship .. was "built as a movie set, not an ocean-going ship," said longtime tall ship designer and naval architect Andrew Davis, president of Tri-Coastal Marine in California....The Bounty was nearly twice as long as the original vessel, lengthened to accommodate movie crews....

Barksdale's knowledge of engines, motors and things mechanical qualified him to be the Bounty's engineer. But he spent his first three weeks of his six-week experience on the Bounty while the ship was in dry dock in Maine getting its hull caulked with oakum. Sailing aboard a tall ship ..."It was a chance to do something in a way it was done 200 years ago, to go to sea and just step back in time," Barksdale said.

In Nelson, he operates a home-repair company called the Honey-Do Handyman, a name suggesting he's not unaccustomed to taking orders.

Barksdale, a novice at sea...was finding it increasingly difficult to do his job. Working in the engine room, Barksdale encountered high temperatures in cramped quarters, surrounded by two couch-size generators and twin 375 horsepower diesel main engines. He could barely afford to let go of something secure.

"All of our hands were numb from having to hold on to something," he said. "It took a death grip to hold on."...

Barksdale said the ship was being hit by 70 mph winds and 30-foot seas. Over the next several hours, the main engines failed, leaving the boat without propulsion and without the hydraulic pumps. It became impossible to fight the water level inside the boat's hull, which was rising about 2 feet each hour, Barksdale acknowledged.

"It was clear the boat was filling with water but I don't understand entirely why that happened and I'm not going to speculate. We were taking on more water than we were pumping out." The second generator was the last to fail...

Barksdale was being overwhelmed in the engine room and other crew members, including Walbridge and Svendsen, rushed to spell him, trying to keep the pumps free of clogging debris.

"I couldn't take more than an hour at a time in there," Barksdale said, describing how he was becoming increasingly seasick, drained by the 100-degree heat and battered as the ship twisted and turned in the waves and wind.

"Some of the real heroes of all this are the crew members who climbed the rat lines, got up in the rigging and were able to furl the sails," he said.

Barksdale said he and the rest of the crew had been able to get only a few hours sleep in the previous two days.

"You had to hold on to something solid with one hand and try to clear the pumps with the other, trying not to bang your head or crash against something the whole time. I was just exhausted and so was everyone else," Barksdale said.

Questions persist about the loss of a ship and two lives far at sea - Richmond Times-Dispatch: News:

The rest is already been told in other article even if this one is the best I have read.

Some new things. Barksdale confirmed my conviction that the boat was not being sailed but relied only on its engines and at the end only in one.

It seems also that Flatballer was right in what regards problems with debris clogging the pumps.

....


----------



## PCP

therapy23 said:


> I am staying subscribed to this thread to find out more about the BOUNTY.
> 
> It sure is tiring to hear all the BICKERING about some other boats and chartplotters and inlets and rocks and........
> 
> SHUT THE FU*K UP!


Jesus, therapy...you need to calm down

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> Barksdale confirmed my conviction that the boat was not being sailed but relied only on its engines and at the end only in one.


I must have missed seeing this , where did it say it didnt sail at all, just motored thw whole time

Barksdale also shoots a hole into the theory that the Captain was some A hole unqualified, blowhard who was followed blindly by a crew of cultists like who followed Jim Jones as was speculated by some in this thread


----------



## chef2sail

Therapy...now that was the most intelligent post you have ever done.
Keep up the good work.

Good god man its only the internet...if it torments you so you dont have to read the stuff you know.

Dave


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> Jesus, therapy...you need to calm down
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Damn it. I was going to say that.

It's very difficult to be witty after two others have.

Therapy, go get a couch.


----------



## chef2sail

> therapy, go get a couch


lmao


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> On this link that Sal posted and that is a recent article there are some interesting new statements and information:
> 
> Quoted:
> 
> dry dock in Maine getting its hull caulked with oakum.
> 
> "It was clear the boat was filling with water but I don't understand entirely why that happened and I'm not going to speculate. We were taking on more water than we were pumping out."
> 
> trying to keep the pumps free of clogging debris.
> 
> increasingly seasick, drained by the 100-degree heat
> 
> I was just exhausted and so was everyone else," Barksdale said.




I've always thought that its more than one problem that makes a catastrophe.

Does anyone know if new caulking can be a problem? Or if its new its gunna be great? I would have thought that if its not put in right, and its not so simple to do, then if a whole lot comes out that could explain it. But I still prefer the sprung plank theory.

Sea sickness, exhaustion and then something so "simple" as crap in the bilge pumps strainer. I know mine clogs and in an emergency I am just flicking the mesh. Perhaps I will put in a raw water type strainer which one can clean pretty well instantly... And can hold a lot more debris.

I have no doubt the mechanic was as courageous as the crew that went up the rigging. Being below the waterline in that mess in a leaking ship, seasick and exhausted must have been terrible.


----------



## therapy23

chef2sail said:


> Therapy...now that was the most intelligent post you have ever done.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Good god man its only the internet...if it torments you so you dont have to read the stuff you know.
> 
> Dave


I want to know about the BOUNTY.

Not about chartplotters and how inaccurate (or accurate) they are.

Get it?


----------



## therapy23

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Damn it. I was going to say that.
> 
> It's very difficult to be witty after two others have.
> 
> Therapy, go get a couch.


I am on the couch.

They keep changing the channel. 
:hothead


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...
> Does anyone know if new caulking can be a problem? ....


Yes Mark. I had a wooden boat

When the boat has new caulking the boat has to be on the water for a considerable time for the wood to swell and press the caulk preventing the water ingress. In the time wooden boat building was a big industry in the place I live, smaller boats when they were repaired were sometimes sunk purposely to be fully immersed on water to accelerate the process. A boat with a new caulking makes always some water and his more prone to movement on the planks since they are not yet fully compressed by the wood swelling.

Regards

paulo


----------



## Classic30

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Does anyone know if new caulking can be a problem? Or if its new its gunna be great? I would have thought that if its not put in right, and its not so simple to do, then if a whole lot comes out that could explain it. But I still prefer the sprung plank theory.


If caulking isn't done right then, yes, it could have worked out. Yes, a plank or two might have sprung.. but unless they send a dive team down, it's more likely that no-one will ever really know.

I guess the point is that, as quoted, just like sinking of the 'Titanic', for whatever reason "there was more water coming in than could be pumped out".


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I must have missed seeing this , where did it say it didnt sail at all, just motored the whole time


I did not have said that they had motored all time, I said that it seems that the boat was not being sailed at the time of the accident, when they had no engines left. The "Engineer" says that they had furled the sails. These ones are not like the genoa in your boat that can be furled partially. You furl them or unfurled them. Besides in the photos of the boat lying on the sea you cannot see any sail.



chef2sail said:


> Barksdale also shoots a hole into the theory that the Captain was some A hole unqualified, blowhard who was followed blindly by a crew of cultists like who followed Jim Jones as was speculated by some in this thread


That is a strong one Dave

We all know what Braksdale and all the crew thought about the Captain. They valued him so much that have followed him to the pass of an Hurricane without any question. His opinion or the opinion of the rest of the crew is irrelevant to asses if he was a good Captain or not. A good Captain does not make gross judgment errors and put all his crew in danger in the face of predictable events.

I have already said that the Captain was a great sailor, had certainly a lot of charisma and was probably a nice guy. That does not make him necessarily a good Captain.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

therapy23 said:


> I want to know about the BOUNTY.
> 
> Not about chartplotters and how inaccurate (or accurate) they are.
> 
> Get it?


Well, looks like you're gonna have to wait until the results of the official investigation...


----------



## TakeFive

therapy23 said:


> I want to know about the BOUNTY.
> 
> Not about chartplotters and how inaccurate (or accurate) they are.
> 
> Get it?


Sorry, pal, I think you're in the wrong place.

If it's facts that you're looking for, I'm not sure this (or any Internet message board) is the place. There just aren't a whole lot of facts right now. You might want to monitor the USCG's Incident Investigation website, and traditional hard news websites. You can probably set up an automated alert to be notified when some actual reports emerge.

If, OTOH, you're looking for speculation of experienced sailors who have some keen insights, this is your place. But part of that speculation will have to include chartplotters and other navigational tools, since their speculation includes technology as enabling factors in this and other accidents.

Sorry, I think your expectations are unreasonable.


----------



## chef2sail

> Some new things. Barksdale confirmed my conviction that the boat was not being sailed but relied only on its engines and at the end only in one PCP.


really means



> I said that it seems that the boat was not being sailed at the time of the accident, when they had no engines left.PCP


Ok I get it. I asume you mean the accident being at the end of the voyage. I was wondering bevause That boat would have really suprised me motoring to get to that position, when previous reports said the motor was barely able to power the boat.

Riddle me this I cant seem to grasp this...one one hand you say refering to Barksdale:



> His opinion or the opinion of the rest of the crew is irrelevant to asses if he was a good Captain or not.PCP


then on the other hand you say



> The rest is already been told in other article even if this one is the best I have read.PCP


His opinion is irrelevant to asses but I will quote what he said and find it the best statement I have read, but I also quote the gCaptain bloggers too.

So is his opinion and statement relevant or not?

BTW To answer your question...I do sail quite frequently at night. I have done many miles of blue water sailing at night also. I also sail in the Chesapeake at night where there are visable buoys, but not in all locations. Do I trust my chartplotter at night? I ALWAYS run my digital radar concurrently on my boat Lets just say that if I use it to navigate I run a secondary GPS instrument ( AID/ GPS/ DSC VHF as well as an I Pad and Droid phone to insure that what I see has a backup as I dont completely trust the chartplotter. When offshore I assume its off 1 mile ( way more than the tolerances). In additon I would never enter an inlet, shoal area, channel in a rage at night using just a chartplotter. I have the sense/ experience to stand off, heave to and wait for daylight. I have been put in situations before during deliveries as well as my own coastal cruising where I have stood off entering until daylight. Better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Jon, you can't turn back the clock.


Yeah, I keep forgetting - this is the 21st century, and now a Kinder, Gentler Ocean will graciously forgive such stowage of a tender on passage... (grin)



chef2sail said:


> Hanging around the docks for the week or so prior to the departure of something like the 1500 can be an eye-opening experience, for some... Seeing arriving crew dragging freakin' SUITCASES down the docks towards a Hylas 56, it becomes pretty apparent some of these folks likely don't have a CLUE what they might be in for...JonEisenberg
> 
> 
> 
> Hell thats probably what the clipper ship capitains and crew were saying in Southhampton England as people boarded the tourist ship called the Titanic,
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure of the relevance of the comparison between being one of 6 crewmembers for an ocean passage on a 56' yacht, and being one of a couple of thousand passengers aboard an ocean liner...



chef2sail said:


> John I dont completely disagree with what you are saying, but how do you propose changing what you see?


Well, people learning to first sail aboard more sensibly sized boats might be a start...

Among the boats I delivered this year were a Gozzard 44, and a Cabo Rico 42, to new owners... In each case, they were the FIRST boat - _of any size or kind_ - that either one had ever owned...

On the CR, I could hardly see around the plotter... (grin)


----------



## chef2sail

Damn Jon,

Almost looks like mine without the side wings. My plotter is 9 inch for my getting older eyes.










I agree John. Actually I always tease my wife that her very first boat was a C&C 35. We married 7 years ago and I have had bher for 15 years. That most of us learned on sailfish, hobie, lightening and progressed to bigger keelboats. She started with a large boat. In teaching her and with people on their first
boats all the electronics dependence can not be always a good thing as you have pointed out before, which I generally agree with.

Where we may part ways is that it is fact and here to stay so it doesnt do well and you wont be able to convince especially the younger sailors who have been brought up with computers and gagets to make things easier by only speaking against it. There has to be a positive way to convince them to embrace the old with the new vs the old and the new. They are a great second reference point. And we have to get them to understand their limitation...just like a chart has them, This concept for them will be difficult.

Annecdotally I will tell you that I learned with charts, crossed the Atlantic with charts twice, and have embraced the new electronics as a great addition to the other knowledge. When teaching my wife about reading charts , not sure its because of her lack of spacial orientation in life ( cars maps included) or just her, but she struggled. She struggled understanding course plotting, current vectors etc. When I taught her using a chartplotter she learned it right away and could go back and apply it to charts. There are many others like this also.

I love those Gozzards. Not sure about the set up with the moveable settees in the salon whether I would like that, but the 44 is certainly big enough wed never have to sleep there. Do they sail well ? Never been on one except at the Annapolis Show.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> ...Barksdale also shoots a hole into the theory that the Captain was some...


I don't see much of a hole.



> ...A hole...


We've all agreed, including you, that he is fully responsible for setting out toward a hurricane and the unnecessary death of an inexperienced crew member. You pick the descriptor. This one will stick for many.



> ...unqualified,...


A reasonable debate about whether passing a test and spending time on the water to get your ticket makes you as qualified as all who did the same. Personally, I think 17 years on the same vessel made him complacent and his ticket, despite how hard it is to achieve, didn't stop him from making an extraordinarily bad decision.



> ...blowhard...


Now this is just in irrefutable evidence. Whether we are to believe what he said on the Youtube video or not, he was being a blowhard. Deck doesn't move in 70ft waves, chases hurricanes, no such thing as bad weather.... It's in his own recorded words.



> ...who was followed blindly by a crew of cultists like who followed Jim Jones as was speculated by some in this thread...


The analogy is crude and emotional, but the concept is sound. It is in evidence that they knew of the incoming storm. Either by reputation or action, he had to give the crew the confidence to take it on. Its clearly too far to suggest he was on a suicide mission, but the culpability of a strong leader to get people to do things they would never do on their own is fair in my book.

I thought you declared this thread closed a few posts back.


----------



## chef2sail

> I thought you declared this thread closed a few posts back- Minniewaska


New informatuion with Barksdale interbiew


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> boats all the electronics dependence can not be always a good thing as you have pointed out before, which I generally agree with.
> 
> Where we may part ways is that it is fact and here to stay so it doesnt do well and *you wont be able to convince especially the younger sailors who have been brought up with computers and gagets to make things easier by only speaking against it.* There has to be a positive way to convince them to embrace the old with the new vs the old and the new. They are a great second reference point. And we have to get them to understand their limitation...just like a chart has them, This concept for them will be difficult.


I am in complete agreement... So, why do you continue to insist that I "am ONLY speaking against" modern technology???

How many more times need I post something like this to convince you otherwise?

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/952295-post893.html



chef2sail said:


> I love those Gozzards. Not sure about the set up with the moveable settees in the salon whether I would like that, but the 44 is certainly big enough wed never have to sleep there. *Do they sail well ?* Never been on one except at the Annapolis Show.


I don't know, I've yet to actually sail one... This one was a motor job to the Great Lakes the entire way:










My guess is that they need quite a bit of breeze to go, and can't imagine it would have been a very stellar performer to windward...

Thing that bugged me most about that boat, was the island galley/sink arrangement... I have never seen a galley aboard that size of boat, with such an amazing lack of usable counter space... Virtually the only surface of any size was either over the stove, or refrigerator lids... Even finding a space to dry dishes was problematic, one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, I'd imagine it would drive someone who actually likes to cook insane...

All I ever need to do is make coffee or a sandwich, and that galley arrangement even drove me nuts...


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> If, OTOH, you're looking for speculation of experienced sailors who have some keen insights, this is your place. But part of that speculation will have to include chartplotters and other navigational tools, since their speculation includes technology as enabling factors in this and other accidents.


I'm really perplexed why some appear to so strenuously reject the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62...

A cruiser today who chooses to transit a reef passage such as Ranguana in Belize at night, for example... If it is not GPS and a set of waypoints that "enables" him to do so, what IS it, then? The charts remain the same, still based upon hopelessly outdated British Admiralty surveys, and no navigational aids have been added...

A bigger set of balls than the cruiser of a few decades ago? Or, a smaller brain? Pure, dumb luck?

Or, is it only a _successful, uneventful_ such passage which should be considered to have rightfully been "enabled" by electronic navigation? But, in the event it would have gone pear-shaped, and the boat wound up on the reef instead, the navigator's reliance on GPS should therefore be disqualified as a contributing factor to such a mishap?

When we routinely see sailors now taking chances in waters where "visual piloting rules only" previously applied, then exactly _what is it_ - if not modern technology - that is allowing them to do so?


----------



## aeventyr60

hen we routinely see sailors now taking chances in waters where "visual piloting rules only" previously applied, then exactly what is it - if not modern technology - that is allowing them to do so?

A stupid sense of false security that money buys them. Sorry, just back form the Nepal Himalaya, and saw all the stupid cruiser tricks that the dirt dwellers want to apply to high altitude mountaineering....Great money for you to lead the moneyed into the cruising world, hope you won't have to be with them too long, geezzz what a horrible endeavor you have to endure to make your crust.


----------



## aeventyr60

chef2sail said:


> Damn Jon,
> 
> Almost looks like mine without the side wings. My plotter is 9 inch for my getting older eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree John. Actually I always tease my wife that her very first boat was a C&C 35. We married 7 years ago and I have had bher for 15 years. That most of us learned on sailfish, hobie, lightening and progressed to bigger keelboats. She started with a large boat. In teaching her and with people on their first
> boats all the electronics dependence can not be always a good thing as you have pointed out before, which I generally agree with.
> 
> Where we may part ways is that it is fact and here to stay so it doesnt do well and you wont be able to convince especially the younger sailors who have been brought up with computers and gagets to make things easier by only speaking against it. There has to be a positive way to convince them to embrace the old with the new vs the old and the new. They are a great second reference point. And we have to get them to understand their limitation...just like a chart has them, This concept for them will be difficult.
> 
> Annecdotally I will tell you that I learned with charts, crossed the Atlantic with charts twice, and have embraced the new electronics as a great addition to the other knowledge. When teaching my wife about reading charts , not sure its because of her lack of spacial orientation in life ( cars maps included) or just her, but she struggled. She struggled understanding course plotting, current vectors etc. When I taught her using a chartplotter she learned it right away and could go back and apply it to charts. There are many others like this also.
> 
> I love those Gozzards. Not sure about the set up with the moveable settees in the salon whether I would like that, but the 44 is certainly big enough wed never have to sleep there. Do they sail well ? Never been on one except at the Annapolis Show.


Do you guys ever looks the water? what a horrible console to look at. Did you ever leave the office?


----------



## aeventyr60

Bottled water?


----------



## TakeFive

TakeFive said:


> ...If, OTOH, you're looking for speculation of experienced sailors who have some keen insights, this is your place. But part of that speculation will have to include chartplotters and other navigational tools, since their speculation includes technology as enabling factors in this and other accidents...





JonEisberg said:


> I'm really perplexed why some appear to so strenuously reject the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62...


Good grief, you're really too sensitive about this.

I did not "strenuously reject" your "simple notion". I actually agreed with it. But there are no hard facts on Rule 62 accident, since no formal investigation was done. Therefore: simple notion = speculation

So I acknowledged your "keen insights" in my message, but apparently that's not good enough? I'm "sipping the Kool Aid," but you want me to drink it from a fire hose? uke

I completely, 100% buy into " the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62." But your choice of the word "might" is revealing. By using the word "might," I think you subconsciously acknowledged that your notion is speculation. So deep down, I think you agree with me more than you're willing to admit.


----------



## chef2sail

> Do you guys ever looks the water? what a horrible console to look at. Did you ever leave the office? aeventyr60


I make no apologies for the console. I also have no problem seeing the water or the sails in my sailing. The electronics ( chartplotter, depthfinder ) serve as aides to navigation to make our sailing safer and the autopilot located on the navpod serves to spell us on long passages offshore when we do costal cruising so we dont tire unecessarily and stay alert. If you chose not to go the same route as I do, that doesnt make you a better or worse sailor.

However your appparent intolereance for others who see the world different than you and your inability to discuss items rationally with fellow humans leads me to beleive its a good thing you are in the South China Sea and exploring Nepal. Getting along with others who are not the same as you must create huge social anxiety in you that you need to lash out. Lets us know if you intend on entering the USA so I can alert homeland security



> Bottled water? aeventyr60


We refill about 20 of these bottles from a 5 gallon container as they store more easily in our refrigeration and reuse them for months

Thanks for your concern.

Two critical remarks with nothing positive to say. Thanks for your contribution to the community of sailors. ukeuke


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Riddle me this I cant seem to grasp this...one one hand you say refering to Barksdale:
> 
> *Quote PCP:
> His opinion or the opinion of the rest of the crew is irrelevant to asses if he was a good Captain or not.PCP
> *
> 
> then on the other hand you say
> 
> *Quote:
> The rest is already been told in other article even if this one is the best I have read.PCP*
> 
> His opinion is irrelevant to asses but I will quote what he said and find it the best statement I have read, but I also quote the gCaptain bloggers too.
> 
> So is his opinion and statement relevant or not?
> 
> ...


it seems pretty obvious to me but I will try to explain better.

Yes, this article is the better I have read since it makes the most complete resume of all incident, joining sequentially (regarding the accident) facts that have been cited in several other articles and joining some new information given by the boat "engineer".

The statement of the "engineer" is important since it shed some some light over the ship conditions and about facts regarding the accident. It is irrelevant in what respects Captain's responsibility in what regards having sailed the boat to the pass of a Hurricane knowing that he was there. His opinion regarding that irresponsible act is as irrelevant as the ones of the rest of the crew or the Bounty people.

It is already well established that Bounty's Captain committed a gross error of judgment sailing the boat to the path of an Hurricane, an error that is unacceptable in a professional Captain. What is to be established is not his responsibility in that but why the crew had followed him blindly on a foolish and very dangerous attempt to maneuver an hurricane.

Regarding this the Barksdale statement shades no more light than what was known before regarding the high esteem all the crew and all the Bounty people had for him, personally and as a Captain.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> What is to be established is not his responsibility in that but why the crew had followed him blindly on a foolish and very dangerous attempt to maneuver an hurricane.
> 
> Regarding this the Barksdale statement shades no more light than what was known before regarding the high esteem all the crew and all the Bounty people had for him, personally and as a Captain PCP


I agree about his responsibility

I think your opinions of the members of his crew who you have prejudged predispose you to rejecting any comments about the Captain professionally. For some reason you sitting 3000 miles away can better determine the Captains qualifications and make comments and speculate on the why they followed him, then the first hand statements of one of the people on board. As I read Barksdales complete interview I came away with the impression it was fairly well thought out.

It didnt strike me as the musings of some groupie cult member who blindly followed him. Foolishly maybe...blindly no. In fact from the scenario he portrayed he spoke with all of the crew members and specifically gave them the option of staying. Did he cut them off from obtaining weather information....no. Did he corece them to go....doesnt appear so. Did he threaten them with actions if they didnt go...doesnt appear so, Did he drug them....probably not. So who fault was it that they went along not understanding the danger. I say they also made a bad choice. They trusted him too much. History is full of examples of this, that doesnt make them cult members.

This is why I asked before what would you do if you were presented with this situation? Call out the Captain? Call the owner? calll the CG? Call the Press?

Personally I wouldnt have gone, the danger and risk /reward was stacked against them big time. They made their own choices it appears, and they made incorrect ones. Hopefully they learned from this. The two who cant learn are the Captain and the female crew member who died.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JonEisberg said:


> I'm really perplexed why some appear to so strenuously reject the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62...


With both the Bounty and Rule 62 it had been cloudy for days so neither would have had a position for days using your technology.

The old stuff just doesn't hack it in the modern world.


----------



## aeventyr60

chef2sail said:


> I make no apologies for the console. I also have no problem seeing the water or the sails in my sailing. The electronics ( chartplotter, depthfinder ) serve as aides to navigation to make our sailing safer and the autopilot located on the navpod serves to spell us on long passages offshore when we do costal cruising so we dont tire unecessarily and stay alert. If you chose not to go the same route as I do, that doesnt make you a better or worse sailor.
> 
> However your appparent intolereance for others who see the world different than you and your inability to discuss items rationally with fellow humans leads me to beleive its a good thing you are in the South China Sea and exploring Nepal. Getting along with others who are not the same as you must create huge social anxiety in you that you need to lash out. Lets us know if you intend on entering the USA so I can alert homeland security
> 
> Yep, rings on her fingers and a dodgy c clip on your aft life line...sure all the great screens in front of your face...wonder what else your missing? different route for sure? No intolerance, just pointing out some discrepancies, and some noted by other sailors too, gonna enter that reef entrance at night with all your electronic gadgets, or do you have the fortitude or know how to heave to for the night? something tells me you'll be explaining how you thought it was safe, all the gizmos were right on...or maybe you have a secret connection to the Bounty captain? Maybe if your take your heart off your sleeve you'll see that it is not lashing out, just pointing out some flaws. Yes, I'm sick of the damn water bottles. and I don;t care if you refill them a hundred times, still bad for your health and the environment. Bring on the DHS..what a worthless bunch of ****bags, still depending on them for your, so called "security"
> 
> So you survived "Sandy" good on you, I would of done the same. maybe you could add an MOB pole to your stern so somebody can find you too.


----------



## TakeFive

Troll alert :spam

Please don't feed the seagulls.


----------



## aeventyr60

MarkofSeaLife said:


> With both the Bounty and Rule 62 it had been cloudy for days so neither would have had a position for days using your technology.
> 
> The old stuff just doesn't hack it in the modern world.


Yes, and his reliance on all the modern technology made him forget to look at the barometer, forget to use a 'walker log" or even count knots, not notice the swell, change in wind, humidity, birds heading for land, moisture or dew on the sails, a ring around the moon, mariners tails, ground swell, marking an ELP, DRP or any other basic sea man like skills? Wonder if he had Bowditch onboard? Do you think his crew could "box the compass" while on watch. A little far fetched for this guy to have "missed" all the warning signs.....with all that great technology at hand.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I agree about his responsibility
> 
> I think your opinions of the members of his crew who you have prejudged predispose you to rejecting any comments about the Captain professionally. For some reason you sitting 3000 miles away can better determine the Captains qualifications and make comments and speculate on the why they followed him, then the first hand statements of one of the people on board. As I read Barksdales complete interview I came away with the impression it was fairly well thought out.
> 
> It didnt strike me as the musings of some groupie cult member who blindly followed him. Foolishly maybe...blindly no. In fact from the scenario he portrayed he spoke with all of the crew members and specifically gave them the option of staying. Did he cut them off from obtaining weather information....no. Did he corece them to go....doesnt appear so. Did he threaten them with actions if they didnt go...doesnt appear so, Did he drug them....probably not. So who fault was it that they went along not understanding the danger. I say they also made a bad choice. They trusted him too much. History is full of examples of this, that doesnt make them cult members.
> 
> This is why I asked before what would you do if you were presented with this situation? Call out the Captain? Call the owner? calll the CG? Call the Press?
> ...


I have already replied to your question. not only I would not have sailed to an Hurricane as I would have tried the others to do that.

Regarding the Captain I don't pre-Judge nothing. I have heard him saying foolish things about his ship and sailing conditions and I know that he took unacceptable risks with his ship (and not only now), that in the end lead to the ship lost and lost of lives. I guess he was a nice person and a good sailor but that has no relevance in what regards his decisions in what concern the safety of his crew and ship that should be always the first concern of any captain. A captain that takes wrong decisions about that or that does not take that as is first priority is not a good Captain.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> Yep, rings on her fingers and a dodgy c clip on your aft life line...sure all the great screens in front of your face...wonder what else your missing? different route for sure? No intolerance, just pointing out some discrepancies, and some noted by other sailors too, gonna enter that reef entrance at night with all your electronic gadgets, or do you have the fortitude or know how to heave to for the night? something tells me you'll be explaining how you thought it was safe, all the gizmos were right on...or maybe you have a secret connection to the Bounty captain? Maybe if your take your heart off your sleeve you'll see that it is not lashing out, just pointing out some flaws. Yes, I'm sick of the damn water bottles. and I don;t care if you refill them a hundred times, still bad for your health and the environment. Bring on the DHS..what a worthless bunch of ****bags, still depending on them for your, so called "security"
> 
> So you survived "Sandy" good on you, I would of done the same. maybe you could add an MOB pole to your stern so somebody can find you too.


Wow now take a swipe at my wife too..A nurse who helps save people lives? Notice she was smiling...having a good time/ Jealous????? You exude major classlessness. You sound somewhat bitter and lonely. I am so sorry you live such a banal existance you have to criticise those around you. Maybe if you worked harder instead of wandering aimlessly things would look up for you. You wouldnt be so angry and have some feeling of self worth so it woudnt be necessary to look at what others have and make comments.

I have no problem heaving to, would never enter a rage, actually never would have headed to the Bahamas. I fact I didnt. I have as much skill navigating and sailing my boat as I need to to sail where I sail. I can also do it without criticising what others have. What difference does that make really?

And oh my the way I worked hard and have a job so whats it to you if I spend it on rings for my wife, screens for my eyes, electrontics for our boat, there is a MOB pole as well as Lifesling, and dogy clips. I didnt spend your money did I? You didnt work for it? So why the jealousy.

Obviously you have been sleeping to long with the Yaks. Its time to put you on ignore,,,thats where all the trolls go.


----------



## PCP

Hey Guys lets keep it civil.

Regarding water bottles I just love good water and the one that you get from the marinas, specially on Islands, is many times of bad quality and not tasty to say the least.

There are guys that think it is right to pack the boat with beer cans and that think it is wrong to pack it with good water bottled?

Normally when I have the boat in a place with a supermarket with good and inexpensive water I pack the boat with water, I mean something like 75L of water. It is not expensive and just adds 75L to my boat water tankage

Yes, I have lots of storage space for that, it would be different if I had a boat with less storage space.

....


----------



## Minnewaska

Why are we arguing about water bottles and nav pods in a thread about how stupid the Bounty was? Let's get to 1000 posts on topic.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> I'm really perplexed why some appear to so strenuously reject the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62...
> 
> 
> 
> With both the Bounty and Rule 62 it had been cloudy for days so neither would have had a position for days using your technology.
> 
> The old stuff just doesn't hack it in the modern world.
Click to expand...

Congrats, you have simultaneously missed my point entirely, and yet unwittingly supported it completely... (grin)

My point exactly: Without the ability to fix a precise position for days, any sane/prudent captain aboard RULE 62 would never have closed so closely upon the treacherous lee shore represented by the Abacos... instead, being comparatively uncertain of his position, he likely would have chosen to make for the 40-mile wide opening of NE Providence Channel - marked by some of the most powerful lighthouses in the Bahamas - rather than shooting for an unlit opening in a reef 75 meters wide, in the dark...


----------



## chef2sail

He shouldnt have made either decision, he should have had the experience to heave to and tough it out, Like everyone else in the 1500 did.


Advancing toward the Bahamas Bank and shallow water created large seas and was a mistake.


----------



## casey1999

Recently saw where ACR (one of the largest maker of Epirbs) has a "Survivor Site" on there web page. You become a "ACR Survivor" after you have activated your ACR Epirb in a real emergency. They give you a new Epirb as part of your free membership. Read the "Survivor" stories here:

http://www.acrartex.com/survivors/

On this site you can get the details by putting your cursor on the survivors name and clicking:
http://www.acrartex.com/survivors/stories/


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JonEisberg said:


> Congrats, you have simultaneously missed my point entirely, and yet unwittingly supported it completely... (grin)


No I have picked you for the stupidity of your 'argument' that to be lost at sea is a good thing.


----------



## casey1999

I thought this was interesting from the ACR site:

ACR Electronics Inc - ACR and ARTEX BeaconsFoster Stanback Rescue / ACR and ARTEX Beacons

"When I arrived they told me that the base commander wanted to talk to me. I thought, "Oh no, here we go. He's going to chew me out for sinking a boat and involving dozens of people in an expensive rescue operation." Soon a smiling young man came out and listened attentively as I divulged all the details of our ordeal. When I was finished, he said, "Well, we just want to thank you for making our job a whole lot easier." My three friends, who were taken further north to the air station at LAX, asked the rescue swimmer how often he had had to go out at night on rescue operations. *He replied that, surprisingly, such missions were quite common, but we were the first actual "survivors" he had pulled out of the water in seven years. **People typically lose consciousness in 1 to 2 hours in 50-60 degree water. Our wetsuits would perhaps have given us a few more hours, *but there was no way we would have made the ten mile swim to the shore of Catalina.

The only things that saved us were the ACR Survival Craft Radio and the ResQLink personal locator beacon. Yes, even the radio still did its job after I had dislodged the battery, thanks to an amazing new system developed by the Coast Guard called Rescue 21. Any distress call on the emergency channel is picked up by various receiving towers and immediately recorded on a computer. A program then calculates the exact coordinates of the source of the transmission using triangulation. The Coast Guard personnel were able to pinpoint exactly where we were when I made our brief May Day call. They then overlaid the position being reported by the ResQLink and got a perfect match. Thanks to these amazing electronic devices and the dedication and professionalism of the Coast Guard, we were the lucky participants in a "textbook rescue.""

Seems in addition to life jackets and maybe a life raft, a wet suit or survival suit for each crew may be a good idea.


----------



## JulieMor

Minnewaska said:


> Let's get to 1000 posts on topic.


Okay. 23 to go...


----------



## casey1999

Once the Coast Guard report is out, we should be able to get to 2,000 in no time while we discuss the reports findings.


----------



## therapy23

Minnewaska said:


> Why are we arguing about water bottles and nav pods in a thread about how stupid the Bounty was? Let's get to 1000 posts on topic.


That was answered after my post. :chainsaw


----------



## therapy23

Minnewaska said:


> Why are we arguing about water bottles and nav pods in a thread about how stupid the Bounty was? Let's get to 1000 posts *on *topic.


Or off........


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> Once the Coast Guard report is out, we should be able to get to 2,000 in no time while we discuss the reports findings.


Let's have a pool on when we might expect this report. I have a gallon of ritas that says we won't have seen it by this time next year. Anyone in?

Double or nothing says it doesn't answer half our questions. If there is a single declaration of hull failure, some will try to suggest it wasn't the Captain's fault. Maybe that last line is a triple or nothing wager.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> I completely, 100% buy into " the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62." But your choice of the word "might" is revealing. By using the word "might," I think you subconsciously acknowledged that your notion is speculation. So deep down, I think you agree with me more than you're willing to admit.


Uhh, OF COURSE I agree this is all speculative, I'm pretty certain I've admitted that more than once in the course of this thread...

Nevertheless, I believe discussions of a speculative nature can still have value, and think many of the side issues that have arisen in this thread are certainly worthy of discussion... If the thread is to be kept solely "on topic", and nothing of a speculative nature is to be permitted at all, then it seems it would need be closed by the mods, awaiting the results of whatever official investigation a year or two hence...

I've always found that most sailors like to talk... To establish such strict guidelines seems akin to prohibiting any discussion of the Super Bowl during the two week interval prior to the game, for example...

Not to mention, any placing of bets on the game... What fun would that be? (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Congrats, you have simultaneously missed my point entirely, and yet unwittingly supported it completely... (grin)
> 
> 
> 
> No I have picked you for the stupidity of your 'argument' that to be lost at sea is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Wow, That's quite an imagination you've got there, Mark&#8230;

Care to point to the post(s) where I've posited anything remotely close to such a position?

I'll be departing Dodson's boatyard in Stonington, CT first thing in the AM, and with snow and restricted visibility in the forecast for LIS tomorrow and tomorrow night, rest assured I'll be quite content to know _precisely_ where I am every mile of the way...


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> He shouldnt have made either decision, he should have had the experience to heave to and tough it out, Like everyone else in the 1500 did.
> 
> Advancing toward the Bahamas Bank and shallow water created large seas and was a mistake.


I don't know, I'd hardly describe the NE Providence Channel as "shallow", Dave&#8230; Don't have a chart handy at the moment, but I'm gonna guess it probably averages somewhere between a mile or two deep, for most of the 40 miles or so between the tip of Great Abaco and N Eleuthera&#8230; If he'd run for the shelter of Spanish Wells, or Hole in the Wall or Sandy Point, he probably wouldn't have come on soundings again until being in the lee of Royal Island, or Great Abaco, or whatever other option he might have chosen&#8230;

Sounds like a couple of his crew was pretty sick, and had been for days&#8230; Prolonged, serious seasickness can easily lead to dehydration and other serious medical issues, I doubt many medical professionals would endorse "toughing it out" in such a situation... Especially since the easily approached safe haven, and excellent medical clinic - or even a 2-3 hour fast ferry connection to Nassau for anyone seriously ill - would have been available at Spanish Wells... just another half a day's sailing away&#8230;

Really has to make you wonder about the value of the advice given by the 1500 rally organizers for your $1500, when superior advice is available on Sailnet for free, no? (grin)


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, That's quite an imagination you've got there, Mark&#8230;
> 
> Care to point to the post(s) where I've posited anything remotely close to such a position?
> 
> I'll be departing Dodson's boatyard in Stonington, CT first thing in the AM, and with snow and restricted visibility in the forecast for LIS tomorrow and tomorrow night, rest assured I'll be quite content to know _precisely_ where I am every mile of the way...


Bring your ice chipper and a pail of sand to throw on the deck


----------



## chef2sail

We stayed in Stonington anchored and on a mooring for 3 nights on our trip last year to NE and the Sound. Dotsons is first rate. I'd love to know what wax the use on the Morrises and other boats there. We brought home 10 bags of scallops from the frozen seafood scallop place there. 

Safe journey


----------



## chef2sail

No bet here Minnie. Nothing found will take away from Walbrifges responsibility. It will just maybe add other causitive factors to the events of the day or days.


----------



## chef2sail

> I don't know, I'd hardly describe the NE Providence Channel as "shallow", Dave&#8230; Don't have a chart handy at the moment, but I'm gonna guess it probably averages somewhere between a mile or two deep, for most of the 40 miles or so between the tip of Great Abaco and N Eleuthera&#8230; If he'd run for the shelter of Spanish Wells, or Hole in the Wall or Sandy Point, he probably wouldn't have come on soundings again until being in the lee of Royal Island, or Great Abaco, or whatever other option he might have chosen


&#8230;

I understand that John. I have been there few times myself. I would have stayed out just the same and continued southward or hove to.


----------



## jameswilson29

Minnewaska said:


> Let's have a pool on when we might expect this report. I have a gallon of ritas that says we won't have seen it by this time next year. Anyone in?


The report will be issued shortly after the administration's report on the Benghazi attack.


----------



## smurphny

I'm surprised there has been no information on the actual material specs. on the Bounty replica/prop/disposable. I cannot imagine that the quality of the materials was not compromised to keep the cost down for something that was intended to be trashed after filming was done. White oak or red? Bronze or steel? Long leaf pine or white? This may be the reason she worked so much and leaked terribly.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> &#8230;
> 
> I understand that John. I have been there few times myself. I would have stayed out just the same and continued southward or hove to.


The depth in New Provedance Channel in the area he should have gone is 3,500 meters deep and 30 nms from where he was aiming.

It would have been best to go there because if his crew were that sea sick the would have needed flat water.

Remember if someone is throwing up blood it's getting serious.

Heaving to reduces the motion, but not by a lot because they were going downwind. If they were heading upwind hoving to may have been good for an hour to sort people out.

But remember for landlubbers sea sickness can be life threatening.

Dial up the channel on your plotter and look at Cherokee Point it's only 30nm.
Then 20 miles on is Sou'wester Point at he bottom of the Abacos. Would have been like a millpond behind either.

Mark


----------



## bloodhunter

I haven't been on this thread for a while but I figured I'd help toward the millenium mark.
I have my own questions about that tv interview Captain Walbridge gave. At the time I dismissed it a pretty much a publicity piece to be taken with a large helping of salt. But does anyone know (not rumor but fact) whether Walbridge actually did any of the things he talked about -- chasing hurricanes, running under bare poles in a 70 kt wind, etc. I mean true hurricane-force winds and seas, not a near gale with some gusts of 50 kts. Watching the interview I had a feeling he had not, but I really don't know. I have to confess that some 50 years ago, through an act of supreme stupidity by myself and three other young men, I was caught in a similar situation to that of the Bounty in more or less the same area. We were lucky to survive. I just can't imagine anyone who has gone through a hurricane in a small boat talking as blithely about it as Walbridge did in that interview. 
If Walbridge did have the experiences he claimed then what he did was really reprehensible but if he did not he may have been as little aware of what he was getting into as his crew. Sure, he sailed the Bounty for a long time but not like the original was sailed.
A Royal Navy officer at that time begain his career in his young teens as a midshipman. Gradually he would work his way up if he were good enough to post captain and maybe admiral. By the time he reached that rank he would have constantly been at sea (except during refits) for years, in all kinds of sailing ships, in all kinds of weather. He would have known from years of experience how a ship would handle in any conditions including hirricane force winds. There is probably no one alive today who had that kind of experience with wooden sailing ships.
This is all speculation of course but it might explain though not excuse what happened if the captain decided -- Well the Bounty had gone through a gale (40kts) without much trouble, she should be able to get through this without really knoqing what 'this' was. Again, this all speculation.
Another question, does anyone know whether the Bounty's topmasts were taken down before she sailed? Hard to tell from the pictures.


----------



## casey1999

Hey Bloodhunter, you post some good points.

I found this and posted it a while back:

Taken from:
HMS Bounty captain 'wasn't gambling' with lives, wife says | Sympatico.ca News

"A local public television interview with Walbridge from the summer included a quote from the captain saying that he had previously chased hurricanes.

In the interview, Walbridge said "you try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it - you want to stay behind it. But you'll also get a good ride out of a hurricane."

McCann said Tuesday that during the public television interview her husband was "being a little?cute, I guess."

"But *he would like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fast. And he's been in many hurricanes. I mean, I can't even count the number of hurricanes he's been in."

McCann said her husband had been trying to navigate around the storm "and get on the east side of it, which is what he did do."*
She said that in the weeks since the ship went down, she has learned of a series of "unfortunate circumstances" at sea, including overwhelmed pumps and generator problems.

The crew has been "extremely supportive and caring and loving" since the sinking, McCann said, adding that the first mate spoke to her about her husband's dedication to safety."


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Well he broke two of his own stupid rules.... He was in front of it and on the west side.


And in the gulf stream


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> ...
> 
> "A local public television interview with Walbridge from the summer included a quote from the captain saying that he had previously chased hurricanes.
> 
> In the interview, Walbridge said "you try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it - you want to stay behind it. But you'll also get a good ride out of a hurricane."
> 
> McCann said Tuesday that during the public television interview her husband was "being a little?cute, I guess."
> 
> "But *he would like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fast. And he's been in many hurricanes. I mean, I can't even count the number of hurricanes he's been in."
> 
> ....
> 
> ..*


*

When I saw that TV interview with the Captain I wonder if he was not just bragging about it but then what he said in the television regarding chasing hurricanes was just what he said before departure to his crew. I mean he give a very similar description to his crew regarding the way he pretended to maneuver this particular hurricane.

Besides that, he could be bragging but what reason had his wife to brag about his husband regarding him having been in many hurricanes?

Maybe it was just true, maybe the captain " like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fastt".

If he liked hurricanes and chase them it is only natural that he would not have wanted to miss this one and its fast ride.

Regards

Paulo*


----------



## JulieMor

Someplace in this thread is a quote from Walbridge talking about how he intended to skirt around Sandy. That reminded me a lot of watching him in the video, like he had this foolproof method. At least one of the crew said he had been through two hurricanes with Walbridge. I also remember reading a quote from one of the crew saying Walbridge told the crew what he was planning to do and if anyone didn't want to go, he would understand. So there is certainly some evidence there was intent to sail towards a hurricane when he left New London.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> Walbridge told the crew what he was planning to do and if anyone didn't want to go, he would understand. .


How do you just get off? A ship is your accommodation. So there you are, without a job, without a car, without accommodation!

That's a pretty difficult predicament to be in. But he would "understand"? Bet he wouldn't keep the crew employed and bus them down to Florida!


----------



## JulieMor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> How do you just get off? A ship is your accommodation. So there you are, without a job, without a car, without accommodation!
> 
> That's a pretty difficult predicament to be in. But he would "understand"? Bet he wouldn't keep the crew employed and bus them down to Florida!


Yeah, I thought the same thing.


----------



## SloopJonB

MarkofSeaLife said:


> How do you just get off? A ship is your accommodation. So there you are, without a job, without a car, without accommodation!


But alive.


----------



## PCP

The 1000 post deserves a statement:

It is not really important who got first the general picture what is important is that *in the end the general opinion on this forum is pretty much consensual and that is great*. I believe that this consensual position (that is similar to the one of the main professional sailing forums) will be globally the one that will be reached by the CG investigation, certainly reinforced by some missing facts that certainly will come to the light on the CG investigation. However it seems to me that the facts that we have already are enough to substantiate this consensus and to get a good idea of what have happened, not in the details but globally.

...


----------



## smurphny

My bet is that the inquiry will find evidence that the ship was not seaworthy and that it basically leaked, became uncontrollable because the bilge was full of water, and sank. The captain, primarily, and everyone else in the corporate chain of command, would be responsible for choosing to take a ship in such condition into a hurricane, or anywhere else for that matter.


----------



## rgscpat

Here's an optimistic prediction that we'll get the USCG report by 12 July 2013. 

Probably both the condition of the ship and the decision to sail will be criticized, and there will be some recommendations, at the very least, for similar replica ships that have so far escaped a fair amount of regulation.


----------



## SloopJonB

smurphny said:


> My bet is that the inquiry will find evidence that the ship was not seaworthy and that it basically leaked, became uncontrollable because the bilge was full of water, and sank. The captain, primarily, and *everyone else in the corporate chain of command, *would be responsible for choosing to take a ship in such condition into a hurricane, or anywhere else for that matter.


That's the nice thing about corporations - no-one is responsible.


----------



## casey1999

I am thinking to really "sail" that slug of a ship HMS Bounty "movie version" you may need a hurricane to get any kind of speed. Otherwise you would normally just run the twin diesels. Maybe that is why the Capt seeked to find hurricanes in which to "sail", that is what the ship required.


----------



## Minnewaska

The Weather Channel is airing a documentary on Rescuing the Bounty on Dec 5th at 8pm eastern.

The the Mayan's calendar says we're done on Dec 21st and I insist the official investigation be finished before then!


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> The Weather Channel is airing a documentary on Rescuing the Bounty on Dec 5th at 8pm eastern.
> 
> The the Mayan's calendar says we're done on Dec 21st and I insist the official investigation be finished before then!


It has been determined the Mayan calender ends on Dec 21st because they ran out of good quality stone in which to carve the calender.


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> It has been determined the Mayan calender ends on Dec 21st because they ran out of good quality stone in which to carve the calender.


I'm sure that's true, but don't tell the investigators. They're probably betting they don't need to wrap this up.


----------



## casey1999

Question:
When the next HMS Bounty is built for the movie "The Sinking of the Bounty" will this Bounty actually be sunk at the end of the movie, or will it be kept as a dock side attraction?


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> Question:
> When the next HMS Bounty is built for the movie "The Sinking of the Bounty" will this Bounty actually be sunk at the end of the movie, or will it be kept as a dock side attraction _and sailed toward a hurricane 50 years later_?


Thought the above amendment might drive the point even further.


----------



## SloopJonB

PCP said:


> The 1000 post deserves a statement:
> 
> It is not really important who got first the general picture what is important is that *in the end the general opinion on this forum is pretty much consensual and that is great*. I believe that this consensual position (that is similar to the one of the main professional sailing forums) will be globally the one that will be reached by the CG investigation, certainly reinforced by some missing facts that certainly will come to the light on the CG investigation. However it seems to me that the facts that we have already are enough to substantiate this consensus and to get a good idea of what have happened, not in the details but globally.


Considering the amazing level of knowledge and experience that one finds on this forum, I can't imagine any other group of mariners could come up with better conclusions.


----------



## JulieMor

casey1999 said:


> It has been determined the Mayan calender ends on Dec 21st because they ran out of good quality stone in which to carve the calender.


I heard someone shipped them stone from China and they used that for the calendar starting Dec 22.


----------



## casey1999

For the guys arguing about benefits/problems with chart plotters, this story just came out- real interesting:
Scientists 'undiscover' South Pacific island - CNN.com

CNN) -- An international scientific expedition has revealed a South Pacific island roughly the size of Manhattan and clearly marked on online maps and *marine charts *does not, in fact, exist.

The 'undiscovery' of the island -- which until now was midway between Australia and New Caledonia -- highlights how much there still is to learn about the oceans, scientists say.

"We saw this mysterious island on all the scientific maps and weather maps but not on this one navigational chart that was on our ship," Ph.D student Sabin Zahirovic, part of the research team on board the RV Southern Surveyor, told CNN.

"So we decided to go see if it was actually there."

The undiscovery was made during the ship's voyage this month. Although the team had originally planned to check out the existence of the island during the day, they had arrived at the location of the island at night due to a navigational error.

"We were watching all of our depth-sounding equipment. Luckily for us the sea floor turned out to be very deep there," said Zahirovic, who is studying the tectonic evolution of the eastern Coral Sea.

The implications are significant

Although the undiscovery of the island was not part of the original research mission of the international team of scientists led by University of Sydney's Dr. Maria Seton, the implications of the wrong maps are significant.

"All the scientific cartography relies on these maps, and numerical simulations of waves and currents depend on size of these land forms," said Zahirovic.

"It just goes to show the oceans are so underexposed. It's actually really shocking that we haven't not found more islands."

*Can anyone pull up this on their chart plotter to see if it shows up, I will try on mine in next few days. Island is called both Sandy Island by Google Maps and Sable Island on others?*


----------



## JonEisberg

bloodhunter said:


> ... But does anyone know (not rumor but fact) whether Walbridge actually did any of the things he talked about -- chasing hurricanes, running under bare poles in a 70 kt wind, etc. I mean true hurricane-force winds and seas, not a near gale with some gusts of 50 kts. Watching the interview I had a feeling he had not, but I really don't know. I have to confess that some 50 years ago, through an act of supreme stupidity by myself and three other young men, I was caught in a similar situation to that of the Bounty in more or less the same area. We were lucky to survive. I just can't imagine anyone who has gone through a hurricane in a small boat talking as blithely about it as Walbridge did in that interview.


Well, since we're placing bets, I'll wager that we will never learn - through the Official Investigation, or otherwise - the names/dates of the 2 hurricanes it is claimed the BOUNTY "sailed through" previously...

Not to mention, any of the other "too many to count" his wife refers to...

Anyone who claims to have experienced 70-foot swells from a hurricane several hundred miles distant, is more than just "being cute'...

He is absolutely full of it...


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> ..He is absolutely full of it...


We're officially using the term "blowhard" now.


----------



## casey1999

Originally Posted by casey1999 
Question:
When the next HMS Bounty is built for the movie "The Sinking of the Bounty" will this Bounty actually be sunk at the end of the movie, or will it be kept as a dock side attraction *and sailed toward a hurricane 50 years later? *



Minnewaska said:


> Thought the above amendment might drive the point even further.


Yes, good. It is also a way we can have never ending sequels to the Bounty tragedy.


----------



## smurphny

casey1999 said:


> For the guys arguing about benefits/problems with chart plotters, this story just came out- real interesting:
> Scientists 'undiscover' South Pacific island - CNN.com
> 
> CNN) -- An international scientific expedition has revealed a South Pacific island roughly the size of Manhattan and clearly marked on online maps and *marine charts *does not, in fact, exist.
> 
> The 'undiscovery' of the island -- which until now was midway between Australia and New Caledonia -- highlights how much there still is to learn about the oceans, scientists say.
> 
> "We saw this mysterious island on all the scientific maps and weather maps but not on this one navigational chart that was on our ship," Ph.D student Sabin Zahirovic, part of the research team on board the RV Southern Surveyor, told CNN.
> 
> "So we decided to go see if it was actually there."
> 
> The undiscovery was made during the ship's voyage this month. Although the team had originally planned to check out the existence of the island during the day, they had arrived at the location of the island at night due to a navigational error.
> 
> "We were watching all of our depth-sounding equipment. Luckily for us the sea floor turned out to be very deep there," said Zahirovic, who is studying the tectonic evolution of the eastern Coral Sea.
> 
> The implications are significant
> 
> Although the undiscovery of the island was not part of the original research mission of the international team of scientists led by University of Sydney's Dr. Maria Seton, the implications of the wrong maps are significant.
> 
> "All the scientific cartography relies on these maps, and numerical simulations of waves and currents depend on size of these land forms," said Zahirovic.
> 
> "It just goes to show the oceans are so underexposed. It's actually really shocking that we haven't not found more islands."
> 
> *Can anyone pull up this on their chart plotter to see if it shows up, I will try on mine in next few days. Island is called both Sandy Island by Google Maps and Sable Island on others?*


Do you know what the coordinates are? It would be interesting to see if it's on Google Earth or on my Jeppesen charts.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> Do you know what the coordinates are? It would be interesting to see if it's on Google Earth or on my Jeppesen charts.


Yep. That's the URL for google maps. And the lat and Lon are in there the -19 v 159 me. I am on the stupid iPad so I can't resolve it properly for you. Remember its east and south! Not west and north lol

It's just a cartographers mark so they can tell if anyone is ripping off their maps.


Code:


https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=Sandy+Island,+Australasia&aq=0&oq=sandy+island+austr&sll=41.402788,-98.178844&sspn=54.265531,79.013672&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sandy+Island&ll=-19.224657,159.943123&spn=4.318757,4.938354&z=8

You have to scroll lft to get to the LandL


----------



## casey1999

smurphny said:


> Do you know what the coordinates are? It would be interesting to see if it's on Google Earth or on my Jeppesen charts.


I do not know. Did some more searching but found no new information, although a lot of articles on the subject. I went to google yesterday to try to find the island. Strange thing when I was zoomed out on the island, it looked like it was on the map, but when I zoomed in it disappeared. I think Google was in the process of removing it from the data base.

Some articles say a "fake" island may be put on a chart or map by the map/chart maker. That way, if someone illegally plagiarizes the map/chart, the maker will know. But another article says this is not done on charts, as the entire chart would not be trusted if a fake island were found on it.


----------



## casey1999

More on Sandy Island:

From:
Sandy Island does exist - on a 1908 chart ? The Register

Sandy Island does exist - on a 1908 chart
Auckland librarian spots early citation of contentious isle

By Richard Chirgwin • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 25th November 2012 23:09 GMT

A librarian at Auckland Museum has shed a little bit of light on the possible origins of the "island that isn't there".

The difficult-to-eradicate Sandy Island, which isn't in the Coral Sea between Australia and New Caledonia, drew attention last week when an Australian scientific expedition sailed to the chart-marked location to find open ocean. As Vulture South noted at the time, the latest voyage seemed to replicate an "undiscovery" of the island in 2000 by a group of radio amateurs.

Auckland Museum's Greg Meylan writes that a pictorial librarian at the institution, Shaun Higgins, has located a 1908 edition of a Pacific Ocean chart first compiled in 1875 that seems to be the earliest in the museum's collection to record Sandy Island.

The chart, which indicates a too-big-to-miss landmass more than 30 km long (considerably larger than it appeared to be in last week's stories), states that the island was discovered on an 1876 voyage by a vessel called Velocity. However, the chart also cautions that its source information might not be reliable:

"Caution is necessary while navigating among the low lying islands of the Pacific Ocean. The general details have been collated from the voyages of various navigators extending over a long series of years. The relative position of many dangers may therefore not be exactly given".

The Register expects the next move for historians will be to try and work out whether Velocity's logs are preserved anywhere, to see if the vessel mis-recorded an island it encountered, or merely compiled an earlier error into its maps.

Auckland Museum has images of the chart in its Flickr account, here.

It's easiest to spot the island on this 2000x1600 image. To do so, click on the link above, click on the resulting image to enlarge near the northern tip of New Caledonia. Next, cast your gaze about 7cm to the left, and 1.5 cm up. You'll soon see Sandy Island to the right of Brompton Reefs.

The discovery of the older chart seems to put paid to one theory for the presence of the island on online maps, that it was a digitisation error.

In that story, Sydney University geologist Sabin Zahirovic makes the good point that the Coral Sea, so familiar and nearby to Australians, is poorly-explored.

Here is the chart link:
Pacific Ocean. G9230-1908. Detail. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

To make chart show up, click on the title of this attachment


----------



## casey1999

Makes me sea sick just watching...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sal Paradise said:


> There is also a fairly disturbing video of Bounty heaving to-
> 
> ]


How many degrees was it rolling n the first part of the vid? At least 45 deg every wave?


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> Jon,
> You are mistaken.
> 
> Chef, if you like "facts", you should remove the "like" on post #664.
> 
> Here is the interview, happened Oct 25, 2012 just prior to his departure into the cane:
> 
> Debate rages about Bounty captain's decision to set sail | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> "Capt. Robin Walbridge stood on the deck of the 180-foot wooden sailing ship Bounty on the sunny afternoon of Oct. 25. The wind was so mild that the ship had motored back to harbor after a short sail. The Bounty was tied to a city pier in New London, Conn.
> 
> Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."
> The National Weather Service's marine forecast for the area described the coming confluence of systems: "HIGH PRESSURE MOVES OFFSHORE ON FRIDAY AS A COLD FRONT APPROACHES FROM THE WEST. A COASTAL STORM ASSOCIATED WITH TROPICAL CYCLONE SANDY MAY IMPACT THE AREA LATE IN THE WEEKEND AND INTO EARLY NEXT WEEK."
> 
> Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections."


-
Casey, just to keep things accurate, there was no "interview". If you read all of it, you'll see that the reporter was NOT present when the quoted exchange took place. It was in fact the reporter QUOTING THE PERSON QUOTING Walbridge.

The odds that one person will repeat, word-for-word, what another person said, even a very short time later, are pretty long. In the case of the quoted article, dated November 3, several days had elapsed between the time of the conversation and Barbara Neff relaying it to the reporter. There's a reason that hearsay testimony is generally inadmissable in court.

I know I'm replying to a 2 week old post, but this thread has some legs, and I've still got ~20 pages to catch up!


----------



## JonEisberg

Sal Paradise said:


> _
> There is also a fairly disturbing video of Bounty heaving to-
> _


_

Wow, "heaving-to" is putting it politely, looks like lying ahull is more like it... Hell, that scrap of sail they're flying isn't all that much bigger than my storm jib, or trysail...

Gotta admit, she DOES leave a pretty damn good slick to weather... (grin)

Always tough to tell from photos or video, but I'm guessing the sustained wind speed for most of that vid is perhaps 35, with higher gusts?

Can you imagine the behavior of that pig in hurricane-force winds, in the Gulf Stream?

Well, at least having the thing starting to sink beneath you would likely dampen the rolling somewhat...

Yeah, looks like a hell of a ship on which to "chase hurry-canes"... Get that pig in the Southeast Quadrant, you'd have a "pretty good ride", for sure..._


----------



## chef2sail

> Yeah, it looks not that stable. And in fact, thats how they all went into the water, and how 2 people died - when the Bounty rolled over SalParadise.


Get your words right...there was no report of her rolling over. Dont start a new rumor

Funny that Jon didnt correct you as he is so exact about what he says. ( I agree he is)



> Well, at least having the thing starting to sink beneath you would likely dampen the rolling somewhat...JomEisenberg


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> -
> Casey, just to keep things accurate, there was no "interview". If you read all of it, you'll see that the reporter was NOT present when the quoted exchange took place. It was in fact the reporter QUOTING THE PERSON QUOTING Walbridge.
> 
> The odds that one person will repeat, word-for-word, what another person said, even a very short time later, are pretty long. In the case of the quoted article, dated November 3, several days had elapsed between the time of the conversation and Barbara Neff relaying it to the reporter. There's a reason that hearsay testimony is generally inadmissable in court.
> 
> I know I'm replying to a 2 week old post, but this thread has some legs, and I've still got ~20 pages to catch up!


Ok, the article is a little confusing, as the reporter does not specify that she was not present, but I agree, she was not there. But what I was pointing out is that on Oct 25 (prior to departure) the Bounty Capt knew a hurricane was headed his way, and in fact departed early to try to get a "jump" on the cane. He knew he was sailing into a huricane and it is what he planned to do.

I agree personal accounts of what actually happened are not good, and as you mention, not good in courts of law, but we eagerly await what the crew has to say.


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> How many degrees was it rolling n the first part of the vid? At least 45 deg every wave?


I read on the "wooden boat forum" where the Bounty was reballasted recently. The 80,000 lb of lead was removed from bilge and 65,000 lb "shoe" was added (I assume attached to the exterior of the keel). I assume the calculation would show moment arm would be the same for the two ballasting methods. The coast guard did have an issue during an inspection with the ballasting calculations (for the reballasting) but they were corrected on paper. Interesting though why the ballasting change.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> We stayed in Stonington anchored and on a mooring for 3 nights on our trip last year to NE and the Sound. Dotsons is first rate. I'd love to know what wax the use on the Morrises and other boats there. We brought home 10 bags of scallops from the frozen seafood scallop place there.
> 
> Safe journey


Thanks... Next time you're in Stonington, check out the Dogwatch Cafe adjacent to Dodson's...

Great place, wonderful food, highly recommended...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

casey1999 said:


> Interesting though why the ballasting change.


Ahhhh that's how they lightened her!

That's an interesting part of the jigsaw because you remember how there was so many inspection certificates issued this year. And the weigh was different but quite a bit. The passenger ship non inspected the vessel needed to be under a certain deadweight or displacement, don't remember which.

It's not my field at all so it went over my head a bit.

10 tones off the ballast. Hmmm.



> UPVs may also include vessels over 100 GTs but less than 300 GTs that carry not more than 12 passengers, with at least one being a passenger for hire. Such vessels are discussed in the Enclosure (3). Please contact the Coast Guard using one of the phone numbers provided on page three of this booklet for any questions regarding such vessels. http://www.uscg.mil/pvs/docs/UPV_JobAid2011.pdf


So they had to get her under the 300 tons.

Remember that as an uninspected vessel and safety breaches the CG finds they can only ADVISE the owners to make good, they can't ENFORCE any requirements or fines!

This said she was 500 tons http://easternyachts.com/bounty/index.htm
Wikipedia says Tonnage:	409 GT. 181 NT

But someone here had the official ships record where the tonnages changed...

So they may have done it so as not to be safety inspected!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Here it is!!



> Deadweight:
> Gross Tonnage(GRT): 266
> Net Tonnage(NRT): 181
> Gross Tonnage(GT ITC): 409


USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page

So they got the tonnage below 300!

That means:


> Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license
> Requirements - UPV Examination Booklet & Job Aid
> The Job Aid is a useful guide to your requirements and is used to conduct a "*No Fault/No Penalty*" dockside safety examinations for most uninspected vessels that carry passengers for hire,
> 
> USCG: Passenger Vessel Safety Program - Uninspected Passenger Vessel


No Fault/No Penalty
In other words NO SAFETY CHECKS!

Can someone check my stuff and tell me if I am reading it correctly?


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Here it is!!
> 
> USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page
> 
> So they got the tonnage below 300!
> 
> That means:
> 
> No Fault/No Penalty
> In other words NO SAFETY CHECKS!
> 
> Can someone check my stuff and tell me if I am reading it correctly?


Sorry mate but they are talking about GT, not T.






Regards

Paulo


----------



## Flatballer

Gross Tonnage is a confusing thing. It's actually related to internal volume, nothing to do with actual weight. Changing the ballast wouldn't have an affect on tonnage, net or gross. Net is the volume of the cargo carrying spaces (not sure how it's calculated for non-cargo ships), also unrelated to displacement.

Gross and net tonnage are what determines the staffing and regulatory requirements, as well as port fees and stuff for ships.


----------



## YukonJack

Minnewaska said:


> It will be economically impossible for a Tall Ship to stay in pristine enough condition to pass a serious modern safety inspection. They will have a very difficult time in defining what standard should be acceptable for a ship like Bounty. Further, they could restrict the severity of condition that they undertake a passage, but again, defining it will be difficult.
> 
> I think the most likely outcome will be a mandatory minimum crew that have minimum experience applicable to the vessel. Real professionals. They are much more likely to push back than adventuresome passengers lost in the romance of an 18th century tall ship.


As I have stated I am a volunteer on a Tall Ship.

She is very well maintained by a large bench of very multi skilled volunteers.

She was invited this year to attend a Tall Ships Festival in Nova Scotia. The Guild maintains very strict sailing guidlines and her travels are limited North to MA and South to Norfolk. They really wanted to do the trip because she was in high demand and had not been there since the 90's. They had her professionally surveyed. She was cleared for take off.

It depends on the organization that owns these Tall Ships as to there maintence and sailing protocols.

We do have a professional component to the crew also. The captain, fist mate & second mate are all licensed. One of our captains comes from the ranks of the professional maritime trades


----------



## YukonJack

Capt.aaron said:


> I know the Western Union , the ship that laid the phone cable to Cuba was over and over again failing their Coast Guard Inspection, until finally they passed after a huge structural refit, and they are only sailing around the Bay with tourists. It's the Coast Guard who say's yay or nay in the end. Most of the big ocean Tall ships are steel, like the Eagle. The ones I see that are sea worthy are Sweedish or Dutch. It takes a government to fund these things properly.


Rhode Island is in the process of buiding a Tall Ship to represent their state. They took a steel haul and floated it down from Canada and are doing the rest of the work on the same island the Rhode Island National Guard fly out of. It is the Oliver Hazzard Perry Project. It will be the first user friendly Tall Ship for the handicapped.


----------



## Hyrdflyr

While I have not read each and every posting in this compendium, I have reviewed the video of the Bounty lying ahull in that blow. I see some similarities to modern northwestern seiners, mostly flat-bottomed and shoal draft and carrying a lot of mast, booms, seine blocks and an antenna farm etc with notable weight and windage up high. Common practice in a blow or gale is to face the wind and seas and jog into them, minimizing the chances for a knock-down while maintaining a limited amount of maneuverability. Why would a captain not utilize his engines rather than lie ahull like that, waiting for the "big one" that would lay the boat over. I can only surmise vanity and ego, as in "that's not how it was done" so "we're not going to do it that way"


----------



## Brewgyver

Sal Paradise said:


> He also said "south east quadrant" in his August interview. ABout 11 minutes in.
> 
> Bounty captain talked about chasing hurricanes | The Chronicle Herald


Yes, Sal, I know, but that really wasn't my point. I was pointing out that an online news article, quoting one person (Neff) quoting another person (Walbridge) a WEEK later, was refered to as an "interview" of Walbridge. The same article was used here 3 million posts ago (hyperbole) as a supposedly authoritve source on the question of the possibility that the Harbor Master might have requested Bounty to leave the port. (Neff has a part-time position marketing/managing some city owned moorings, and is not employed by the Port Authority of New London).


----------



## Roger Long

Flatballer said:


> Gross Tonnage is a confusing thing. It's actually related to internal volume, nothing to do with actual weight.


You are quite right. I used to do a lot of admeasurment (tonnage) work. If you use all the tricks to reduce measured tonnage with the U.S. system, now only applicable for vessels that do not make international voyages, the upper length limit for a 100 G.T. vessel is 5000 feet!

Normally, a 100 G.T. vessel is under 100 feet long. The U.S. Statutory Tonnage Admeasurement system is one of the silliest regulatory regimes ever devised. This was one of the reasons for the establishment of an international tonnage system based on external measurements which is almost immune to any cute tricks.


----------



## Minnewaska

YukonJack said:


> ..... The captain, fist mate & second mate are all licensed. One of our captains comes from the ranks of the professional maritime trades


Again, I believe the best outcome will be to find this totally inadequate.

Getting your profession ticket on a merchant ship, for example, allows for zero experience sailing an 18th century replica. The deck hands should have specific experience as well, when going offshore.

Nonsensical psuedo training, non-inspected vessel stuff should end.

Let them sit at dockside or putter around the bay, but if you want to move them in open water, the crew should be locked and loaded for anything. They should have serious experience, in addition to their ticket. Not just supervised. No joy rides.

I don't really care if one wants to risk their life. This example shows, in my opinion, that one may be convinced to take a risk they have no way to measure themselves and accept the reputation of the skipper as their guidance.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Flatballer said:


> Gross Tonnage is a confusing thing. It's actually related to internal volume, nothing to do with actual weight. Changing the ballast wouldn't have an affect on tonnage, net or gross. Net is the volume of the cargo carrying spaces (not sure how it's calculated for non-cargo ships), also unrelated to displacement.
> 
> Gross and net tonnage are what determines the staffing and regulatory requirements, as well as port fees and stuff for ships.


Then why did they take the ballast off?

Why have there been so many certificates issued over the last year?

Why doesn't it need to be inspected? Because the tonnage has been lowered.


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Yes, Sal, I know, but that really wasn't my point. I was pointing out that an online news article, quoting one person (Neff) quoting another person (Walbridge) a WEEK later, was refered to as an "interview" of Walbridge. The same article was used here 3 million posts ago (hyperbole) as a supposedly authoritve source on the question of the possibility that the Harbor Master might have requested Bounty to leave the port. (Neff has a part-time position marketing/managing some city owned moorings, and is not employed by the Port Authority of New London).


If someone was talking to you about the way he was going to maneuver an Hurricane and you were part of the crew that was going to do it I bet that one month later you would remember very well that talk. There are some conversations that are irrelevant and we forget quickly but a talk about how you are going to sail an Hurricane? I guess that would be hard to forget

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Sal Paradise said:


> ...
> But Barksdale described how a large wave hit the ship, suddenly heeling the entire vessel over on its starboard side, masts in the water, and apparently throwing everyone into the sea.
> 
> Its a description of the motions of the ship.
> the dictionary defines roll as...
> roll - to move with repeated turning or rotating motions, or cause something to move in this way
> 
> We just saw a video of Bounty, as John described it "rolling" . Two people died after they were thrown in the water when the ship rolled on its side. Not a rumor. A description.


On that video we saw the boat rolling a lot. On a previous post (long time ago) I explained that roll was a big problem for these boats on heavy weather. They have a limited AVS and unlike one of our boats they cannot carry on a storm an amount of sail that prevents that roll without the risk of being knocked down by a violent gust and if that happen the boat would not come up again.

Sailing one of there boats in bad weather has little to do with sailing a modern sailing boat on the same situation.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> Again, I believe the best outcome will be to find this totally inadequate.
> 
> Getting your profession ticket on a merchant ship, for example, allows for zero experience sailing an 18th century replica. The deck hands should have specific experience as well, when going offshore.
> 
> Nonsensical psuedo training, non-inspected vessel stuff should end.
> 
> Let them sit at dockside or putter around the bay, but if you want to move them in open water, the crew should be locked and loaded for anything. They should have serious experience, in addition to their ticket. Not just supervised. No joy rides.
> 
> I don't really care if one wants to risk their life. This example shows, in my opinion, that one may be convinced to take a risk they have no way to measure themselves and accept the reputation of the skipper as their guidance.


I would hate to see all tall masts as dockside attraction even if I believe that a strict ruling is needed. Yukon's ship, Gazela, is a very different ship from Bounty: It is already (not for much) a XX century sailing ship as most of the tall ships around. By design they make an huge difference to Bounty (a XVIII century design) in all aspects including seaworthiness.

Yukon says that their organization does already a strict ruling in what regards the conditions the ship can sail and that is basically coastal with fair weather.

I don't see any harm in that providing the ship is maintained in good condition (as he says).

I just believe that should not be left to the good sense of the owner or the organization that owns the ship. The ships should be subjected to mandatory regular serious inspections not only in what regards safety means but also structural ones and in function of that should be classified in regards to what they can do and sail and if needed, limiting them to dock attractions.

I believe also that each ship should be regulated in what regards the number of professional sailors needed to sail the boat safely and the required qualifications.

We, as most countries with a sea history, have several tall ships and some of them have circumnavigated many times and are able to do that in all safety. Sagres have done that last year, one more time.










but this is a XX century steel boat that has as crew navy sailors and Captain (training vessel). They get ,young people aboard for training or enjoying sailing (even while circumnavigating) but if needed or in bad weather the ship will not be sailed by them but by the permanent crew.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> I explained that roll was a big problem for this boats on heavy weather.
> 
> Paulo


Especially when you have just removed some ballast and repositioned the rest.


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, "heaving-to" is putting it politely, looks like lying ahull is more like it... Hell, that scrap of sail they're flying isn't all that much bigger than my storm jib, or trysail...
> 
> Gotta admit, she DOES leave a pretty damn good slick to weather... (grin)
> 
> Always tough to tell from photos or video, but I'm guessing the sustained wind speed for most of that vid is perhaps 35, with higher gusts?
> 
> Can you imagine the behavior of that pig in hurricane-force winds, in the Gulf Stream?
> 
> Well, at least having the thing starting to sink beneath you would likely dampen the rolling somewhat...
> 
> Yeah, looks like a hell of a ship on which to "chase hurry-canes"... Get that pig in the Southeast Quadrant, you'd have a "pretty good ride", for sure...


Really! It looks downright unstable. I can't believe how rapidly it heeled...like a folded paper boat. It is certainly not hove-to in any sense of the word but rather surviving a beam sea under essentially bare poles. Makes you wonder why anyone would stay aboard after the first time it experienced a moderate blow. After watching that video, I'm convinced that there were MAJOR design issues with this PROP. Compare it to Paulo's picture above which shows a square rigger actually sailing nicely in what looks to be a 15 knot wind. These boats CAN sail as I noticed in and around NYC during the Bicentennial. They get a lot of leeward slippage but they are able to point up in a heavy wind and they are able to heave-to.


----------



## Minnewaska

PCP said:


> I would hate to see all tall masts as dockside attraction even if I believe that a strict ruling is needed.....


Personally, I couldn't care less if they were relegated to dockside, but that wasn't what I suggested.

There should be enough professional and experienced crew aboard to take one in open water, if necessary.

I don't think the requirement needs to be on "Tall Ships", which is essentially undefined anyway. The requirement to have experience should be specific to the design. Sailing a steel hull 20th century designed square rigger would not qualify, in my book, to be applicable to an 18th century replica.


----------



## chef2sail

> Yeah, it looks not that stable. And in fact, thats how they all went into the water, and how 2 people died - when the Bounty* rolled over*.SalParadise


 At least be honest enough to print what you said......you said* ROLLED OVER *'



> According to the Coast Guard it did.
> http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/boun...tinues-captain
> We're still hopeful," said Capt. Joe Kelly, commanding officer of the Elizabeth City Coast Guard Air Station. Walbridge and Christian were in the process of getting aboard the life rafts when the ship rolled, throwing them overboard, Kelly said.


They said rolled not rolled over



> But Barksdale described how a large wave hit the ship, suddenly heeling the entire vessel over on its starboard side, masts in the water, and apparently throwing everyone into the sea.


Heeled is another sailing term thats doesnt mean rolled over



> We just saw a video of Bounty, as John described it "rolling" . Two people died after they were thrown in the water when the ship rolled on its side. Not a rumor. A description.


Jon who self addmittedly uses his words carefully said rolled on its side not rolled over

Rolled Over is different than roll. In most instances I have heard relaing to sailing boats a roll over means the mast passes to a 180 degrees from upright.

A rollover is a type of vehicle accident in which a vehicle tips over onto its side or roof. The most common cause of a rollover is traveling too fast while turning











Either YOU exagerrated the phrase for effect and risked starting a rumor or were just ignorant of the differentce between rolled, heeled, and rolled over. I temd to think the first as you again write down the ENTIRETY of what you said in your weak defense.

Sal you tend to stretch the truth in your posts, you are the one who psoted the picture supposed of the last moments of the Bounty, but were FOUND OUT and had to retract, and when confronted got personal. Try and stay civil.

This incident is bad enough without creating an additon drama in it implicating the Bounty rolled over. Especially in light of the possibilty the lightened the ballast. Wont take long for the average person to draw a line between less balllast to the ship having rolled over ( which didnt occur)


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> ...
> There should be enough professional and experienced crew aboard to take one in open water, if necessary.
> 
> I don't think the requirement needs to be on "Tall Ships", which is essentially undefined anyway. The requirement to have experience should be specific to the design. Sailing a steel hull 20th century designed square rigger would not qualify, in my book, to be applicable to an 18th century replica.


I agree. That was just what I am saying. Tall ships are all not the same.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Especially when you have just removed some ballast and repositioned the rest.


Where do you have seen that notice about change in ballast? I am just curious about that. The ballast on this boats should be the one that he was designed to have.

Regarding roll on these boats more ballast than what was meant by design could mean more roll. That's strange but truth. A stiffer boat (than what was designed to be) could be a more dangerous boat precisely because it would roll more.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Since most of us are in agreement that Tall ships are not the same as the giant sailing government vessels we see in the OP sails etc, how can we govern them. 

We have a class C tall ship in our marina/ Witchcraft (60 ft) which is classified as a type C tall ship built in 1902. It goes out a sails just like I do and I have been on her sailing many times. I have posted a few of the tall ships which participated in OP Sail Baltimore this summer. Some are the goverment vatiety, some are privately owned

How can you regulate them? Carrying passangers I am sure is one of the delinaiations. How can you prevent a privately owned craft from going to sea? It would have to more than the basic sailing equipment we are required to carry of course.

None of this exonerates the sailing into a hurricane of course.


----------



## bloodhunter

A question. The original Bounty was 91 feet on deck had a 24-foot beam, drew 13 feet and had a displacement of 215 tons. The new Bounty was 120 feet on deck, had a 30-foot beam also drew 13 feet and had a displacement of 412 tons. Wonder what if any effect upsizing the Bounty had an effect on the ship's seaworthiness.
---------------------
Seems to me that everyone refers to the ship as the HMS Bounty. As far as I know she was never part of the Royal Navy (or any other navy for that matter). Just a quibble but I find it annoying


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> How can you regulate them? Carrying passangers I am sure is one of the delinaiations. How can you prevent a privately owned craft from going to sea? It would have to more than the basic sailing equipment we are required to carry of course.
> 
> ...


I cannot but a state can just making mandatory a licence that specifies in what conditions (coastal/unlimited; if coastal in what weather conditions; crew: number and qualifications) a given ship can sail, private or not. For that the boat has to be thoroughly inspected regularly to determine or maintain is qualification and licence.

You know that in most European countries all recreational boats have that kind of inspections and classifications regarding boat licence (so it can be done) but I am just talking just about ships, or big sailing boats that private or not can carry a considerable number of passengers, paying or not, even if the passengers are disguised as crew in training.

I guess that is not nothing new for US. Do not government inspect private cars condition?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

bloodhunter said:


> A question. The original Bounty was 91 feet on deck had a 24-foot beam, drew 13 feet and had a displacement of 215 tons. The new Bounty was 120 feet on deck, had a 30-foot beam also drew 13 feet and had a displacement of 412 tons. Wonder what if any effect upsizing the Bounty had an effect on the ship's seaworthiness.
> ---------------------
> Seems to me that everyone refers to the ship as the HMS Bounty. As far as I know she was never part of the Royal Navy (or any other navy for that matter). Just a quibble but I find it annoying


You are right. The original was the HMS Bounty because it was a Navy boat even if it was not designed to be one. The replica, as you said, was just a bad replica and makes not any sense to call her "Her (or His) Majesty Ship", specially in Republican America.

Regarding seaworthiness given all things equal, a bigger ship is a more seaworthy ship. Regarding the Bounty it all depends of how it was made bigger: It was made bigger according the designs of a Naval Architect? and even so it would have to be one experienced in the designs of that type of ships, I mean old wooden ships. I guess that it would not be anyone that would be confident in what regards scantlings on a wood XVIII century ship design.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PCP said:


> Where do you have seen that notice about change in ballast? I am just curious about that. The ballast on this boats should be the one that he was designed to have.
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, do you read other people posts in this thread? 
Well read this post carefully, and the posts after it, 1029 etc. because I would like some thoughtful comments not just people fobbing the idea off. If its been rebalasted to lighten it so the ship does not need to go through a safety inspection we have a extremely worrying situation!



casey1999 said:


> I read on the "wooden boat forum" where the Bounty was reballasted recently. The 80,000 lb of lead was removed from bilge and 65,000 lb "shoe" was added (I assume attached to the exterior of the keel). I assume the calculation would show moment arm would be the same for the two ballasting methods. The coast guard did have an issue during an inspection with the ballasting calculations (for the reballasting) but they were corrected on paper. Interesting though why the ballasting change.


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Paulo, do you read other people posts in this thread?
> Well read this post carefully, and the posts after it, 1029 etc. because I would like some thoughtful comments not just people fobbing the idea off. If its been rebalasted to lighten it so the ship does not need to go through a safety inspection we have a extremely worrying situation!


Sorry about that I did not have saw it.

*Originally Posted by casey1999 
I read on the "wooden boat forum" where the Bounty was reballasted recently. The 80,000 lb of lead was removed from bilge and 65,000 lb "shoe" was added (I assume attached to the exterior of the keel). I assume the calculation would show moment arm would be the same for the two ballasting methods. The coast guard did have an issue during an inspection with the ballasting calculations (for the reballasting) but they were corrected on paper. Interesting though why the ballasting change.*

That can eventually gave the same RM but I am not sure it would not increase roll also.

On fact I have done the same to an old traditional boat that I owned, but in my case I increased RM. putting more ballast on the outside of the keel I got a much more stiff boat, able to carry more sail but a boat that with the sails down rolled a lot more. I had also heard saying that one of the things that gave to the aluminum French centerboarders such a good dynamic stability was the fact that they have all the ballast inside the boat and that make them roll less. I am no sure about this though.

Regards

Paulo

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

I'm in the process of seeing what I can find out on the reballasting, but in the process I found this and thought it was interesting:

"Restoring HMS Bounty II 
HMS Bounty underwent a major three-phase restoration project from 2001 to 2006 after being purchased by the HMS Bounty Organisation LLC. *The first phase of the refit was to replace the hull, which at the time was so damaged the vessel was taking on 30,000 gallons of water an hour*.

From the "for sale" advert:

HMS Bounty for sale: a piece of cinematic history


----------



## casey1999

This was from Chaparral site (post #17):
HMS Bounty II - Chaparral Boats Owners Club

"Ever since they rebuilt the hull a few years back, she has been floating higher in the water as a result of reduced ballast and new lighter engines. That may be the reason since in her original form she would have gone down like a rock!."

Hard to find all the facts, but I am sure CG report will address.


----------



## casey1999

casey1999 said:


> I read on the "wooden boat forum" where the Bounty was reballasted recently. The 80,000 lb of lead was removed from bilge and 65,000 lb "shoe" was added (I assume attached to the exterior of the keel). I assume the calculation would show moment arm would be the same for the two ballasting methods. The coast guard did have an issue during an inspection with the ballasting calculations (for the reballasting) but they were corrected on paper. Interesting though why the ballasting change.


Here is link to the shipyard work done to make ballast change:
Shipyard Log: August 2007

From above:
"The Bounty's current protector is Bob Hansen. When he first brought her to us in 2001, Bounty had been leaking upwards to 30,000 gallons of water an hour at her pier. Our job was to rework the hull from the waterline down. During this recent visit to the shipyard, the scope of work included: Fastenings; 7,000 trunnels (locus wood dowels)
*Keel: 54,000 lbs lead*"

Not sure why the difference between 54k lead and reported 65k lead. I assume the internal lead was removed and then a lead shoe attached to outside of keel.


----------



## chef2sail

> Do not government inspect private cars condition?PCP


Yes, but that is left up to the states indigually and there are many variations. Some like Alaska, Montana, Texas....there is little real inspection except brakes. Some like Pa, MD California it is more extenisve. Each state sets its qualifications and its not very strict. Each state also has different poluultion control standards too...even some states the counties are different.

The government here is less likely to set national standards for many reasons. Unlike European countries it is hard to police because of the immense size is one. Getting politicians to agree on a national policy will be next to impossible. Getting them to place restrictive regs is almost considered by some un-American Its hard to have concensus here..


----------



## chef2sail

> 30,000 gallons of water an hour.


Thats insane,,500 gallons per minute...


----------



## Flatballer

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Paulo, do you read other people posts in this thread?
> Well read this post carefully, and the posts after it, 1029 etc. because I would like some thoughtful comments not just people fobbing the idea off. If its been rebalasted to lighten it so the ship does not need to go through a safety inspection we have a extremely worrying situation!


Removing ballast from inside the ship and putting it outside would actually raise the gross tonnage, not lower it. There are things you can play with to reduce your tonnage and it's possible they did that for regulatory reasons, but the ballast is unrelated.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## smurphny

bloodhunter said:


> A question. The original Bounty was 91 feet on deck had a 24-foot beam, drew 13 feet and had a displacement of 215 tons. The new Bounty was 120 feet on deck, had a 30-foot beam also drew 13 feet and had a displacement of 412 tons. Wonder what if any effect upsizing the Bounty had an effect on the ship's seaworthiness.
> ---------------------
> Seems to me that everyone refers to the ship as the HMS Bounty. As far as I know she was never part of the Royal Navy (or any other navy for that matter). Just a quibble but I find it annoying


As I have been saying right from the start here: If you make a hull larger, the draft must also change. The righting moment is changed drastically if the depth of the weight is not changed in proportion to the overall change in size of the hull. That's why the extreme rolling motion is evident in that video. I wonder if this boat could have pointed up very far in even a 15 knot wind. There was just not enough hull in the water and not enough weight low enough to keep her from heeling over wildly.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Thats insane,,500 gallons per minute...


Yea, your electric bill or fuel charge just to pump that water out of the boat on an annual basis would be huge.

Did the calcs, your annual electric bill would be around $20,000 per year just to keep her above the water.


----------



## casey1999

Flatballer said:


> Removing ballast from inside the ship and putting it outside would actually raise the gross tonnage, not lower it. There are things you can play with to reduce your tonnage and it's possible they did that for regulatory reasons, but the ballast is unrelated.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


I had read in one of the documents the lead ballast was removed from inside the hull (and placed outside on the keel) to make more interior room for passengers.


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> If someone was talking to you about the way he was going to maneuver an Hurricane and you were part of the crew that was going to do it I bet that one month later you would remember very well that talk. (snip)


That MIGHT happen, but it usually is does not. Most people cannot recite what they heard, word for word, an hour later. And in any case, your point is moot, as the person recalling what Walbridge said was NOT part of the crew.


----------



## JulieMor

casey1999 said:


> I had read in one of the documents the lead ballast was removed from inside the hull (and placed outside on the keel) to make more interior room for passengers.


The ship was what, 180'? And they typically had 12 passengers. When she sunk there was 16 on board. What was all the other room below used for?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I still believe changing the boat to avoid safety inspections could be, at least, rather suspect, and at worst, criminal.

Especially if those changes, or the lack of safety equipment, safety standards contributed to the deaths of two people. Certainly makes me more suspect of the company and captain.


----------



## chef2sail

> What was all the other room below used for?-JulieMor


30,000 gallons of water


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> The ship was what, 180'? And they typically had 12 passengers. When she sunk there was 16 on board. What was all the other room below used for?


There are never many real passengers.

If you pay money to go on for a week, say, they call you "volunteer crew".

If they take 30 Boy Scouts out the kids are crew, not passengers.

This then means they are taking many people out on an uninspected vessel.... A vessel where there may be only 3 or 4 paid crew and everyone else is unpaid or actually paying.

This matter could really blow the lid off what could be a huge safety scam.


----------



## Brewgyver

JulieMor said:


> The ship was what, 180'? And they typically had 12 passengers. When she sunk there was 16 on board. What was all the other room below used for?


Breadfruit plants.


----------



## casey1999

JulieMor said:


> The ship was what, 180'? And they typically had 12 passengers. When she sunk there was 16 on board. What was all the other room below used for?


Apparently they did or they had plans to take a lot of paying passengers to go on overnite trips.

From:
http://www.tallshipbounty.org/pdfs/Elissa-pg5.pdf

"the ships crew began gutting the interior.
We have been working with our naval architect on a new
layout for the ship's "Tween" deck for a more functioning
galley as well as better accommodations for our sail trainees.
We will now have ten cabins opposed to the six previously
and more storage space."


----------



## Brewgyver

Sal Paradise said:


> "Capt. Robin Walbridge stood on the deck of the 180-foot wooden sailing ship Bounty _on the sunny afternoon of Oct. 25._ The wind was so mild that the ship had motored back to harbor after a short sail. The Bounty was tied to a city pier in New London, Conn.
> 
> Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty _would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night _instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."
> 
> Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections."
> 
> Comment - not a lot of damn time for a crew member to decide to leave the ship, a couple hours at most - and with a sense of loyalty towards each other, the storm still days away and the belief that the Captain would know what to do. Well, I can see how they decided to go, with such little time to consider the danger, they stuck together and went.


I would like to point out that there is no mention of any crew members being present at this oft-refered to event. The person writing the article was not present, either, and the whole event is per the recollection of one person, a week later.


----------



## Maine Sail

Sal Paradise said:


> _Originally Posted by bloodhunter
> ... But does anyone know (not rumor but fact) whether Walbridge actually did any of the things he talked about -- chasing hurricanes, running under bare poles in a 70 kt wind, etc. I mean true hurricane-force winds and seas, not a near gale with some gusts of 50 kts. Watching the interview I had a feeling he had not, but I really don't know. I have to confess that some 50 years ago, through an act of supreme stupidity by myself and three other young men, I was caught in a similar situation to that of the Bounty in more or less the same area. We were lucky to survive. I just can't imagine anyone who has gone through a hurricane in a small boat talking as blithely about it as Walbridge did in that interview._
> 
> Both the crew and Walbridge's wife are on record that he DID in fact sail into hurricanes.
> 
> There is also a fairly disturbing video of Bounty heaving to-
> 
> Rough seas on HMS Bounty - YouTube


They call that "rough seas", then he claimed to have sailed in 70 footers.... Go figure....


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> That MIGHT happen, but it usually is does not. Most people cannot recite what they heard, word for word, an hour later. And in any case, your point is moot, as the person recalling what Walbridge said was NOT part of the crew.


Let me see if I understand you. Your point is that story about how Bount'ys Captain said how he was going to maneuver the Hurricane with his Ship was probably not accurate. I am saying that is such a weird statement that should have been marked in the memory of the ones that hear it. The statement was produced to the crew and some other persons that were there, a small group.

The article that refers that is published at 3/11 and Bounty leaved at 25/10 so are talking about a week or less between the statement and the moment it was told to the reporter by New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. Not a month or a year and it is a pretty simple statement:

*He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south ....

Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.

"He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out",*

Bounty's ill-fated trip in face of hurricane scrutinized | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

How difficult is to remember such a simple statement a week before being made and obviously being such a dramatic statement. There is some drama in saying that he is going to out-sail an hurricane you have to admit, is not as saying that tomorrow is going to rain.

He said that to a a small group that included the crew and Barbara Neff. Barbara new the Captain for 15 years and that's why she was probably on that group.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> (snippage)
> If nothing else this whole Bounty affair is showing us that there really is a gulf between the recreational (including the TSC) hobbyist and the professional mariner. These guys are really really scary, a lot scarier than I ever believed they were. I think this storm has opened a few eyes but unfortunately it seems to have driven some of the survivors into a deeper defensive position, from fear or just embarrassment I don't know."[/COLOR]
> 
> Rob Almeida | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News
> ....


Paolo, you posted this at least once, a couple of WEEKS ago. It hasn't become any more illuminating, nor any less offensive. I mean, God knows "preofessional mariners" never do anything wrong...


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Paolo, you posted this at least once, a couple of WEEKS ago. It hasn't become any more illuminating, nor any less offensive. I mean, God knows "preofessional mariners" never do anything wrong...


To make it clear, It is not me that it is saying that. I have just posted it and I guess that now they would find us ( I mean Rob Almeida and other professional captains and sailors) a bit less scarier since in the end we aligned with the position and views they had taken right since the first day.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> *Originally Posted by Sal Paradise
> "Capt. Robin Walbridge stood on the deck of the 180-foot wooden sailing ship Bounty on the sunny afternoon of Oct. 25. The wind was so mild that the ship had motored back to harbor after a short sail. The Bounty was tied to a city pier in New London, Conn.
> 
> Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."
> 
> Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.
> "He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff. No one raised objections."
> 
> Comment - not a lot of damn time for a crew member to decide to leave the ship, a couple hours at most - and with a sense of loyalty towards each other, the storm still days away and the belief that the Captain would know what to do. Well, I can see how they decided to go, with such little time to consider the danger, they stuck together and went.*
> 
> I would like to point out that there is no mention of any crew members being present at this oft-refered to event. The person writing the article was not present, either, and the whole event is per the recollection of one person, a week later.


Who do you think he is referring to when he says "*No one raised objections*" if not to the crew?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Who do you think he is referring to when he says "*No one raised objections*" if not to the crew?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I think their was a small group of drunks sitting on the dock, listening to the Capt. No one raised objections, so the Bounty set sail.


----------



## chef2sail

This is becoming like playing a 78 rpm record at 33rpm with a scratch in it which sends it back to the beginning. Same phrases.

So let me ask why? Whats the agenda for doing that? We all get it and can read it the first time...and if not surley the second time? Why keep repeating yourself with the same
accusations. Those who beleive certainly will not change their minds. Neither will those who dont. Is it your mission ( those who keep repeating themselves) to drum or force yourselves on others. Its kind of like vopting we each are entitled to only one opinion.

To those who are creative or loose with their quotes, pictures and posting from other sources and "doctor them" to prove your point it isnt necessary. There is no point. You are entitled to your opinion.

Th captain sailed into a hurricane ( bad decision).....he paid with his life. So did a crewmate who was given the choice to remain at the dock- These are the facts.

The investigation, whenevrr it concludes in many months will determining the rest of the facts from rumors. There will be conclusions from real professionas not bloggers from social media sites. I doubt they will call any of us as witnesses.

Then and only then will this be really settled. 

Can we agree to post only new material which hasnt been posted already.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Well, I spoke with the Schooner Girl who was one of the first to speak with a crew member a few hour's after the rescue. He is at home with his folks. He is suffering from survivors guilt. I was called back to sea early and I'm back on the tug so I'll probably miss meeting him. She said there was no cult like vibe on board the Bounty, just a bunch of salty kids who love the sea and now have a new found respect for it. Some lessons come hard, this was a hard one.


----------



## JulieMor

Capt.aaron said:


> She said there was no cult like vibe on board the Bounty, just a bunch of salty kids who love the sea and now have a new found respect for it.


Sounds a lot like most of us SNers. Regardless of age, we're still just a bunch of salty kids once we're out on the water, having the time of our lives! What would Neptune do without us?


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> This is becoming like playing a 78 rpm record at 33rpm with a scratch in it which sends it back to the beginning. Same phrases.
> 
> So let me ask why? Whats the agenda for doing that? We all get it and can read it the first time...and if not surley the second time? Why keep repeating yourself with the same
> accusations. Those who beleive certainly will not change their minds. Neither will those who dont. Is it your mission ( those who keep repeating themselves) to drum or force yourselves on others. Its kind of like vopting we each are entitled to only one opinion.
> 
> To those who are creative or loose with their quotes, pictures and posting from other sources and "doctor them" to prove your point it isnt necessary. There is no point. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Th captain sailed into a hurricane ( bad decision).....he paid with his life. So did a crewmate who was given the choice to remain at the dock- These are the facts.
> 
> The investigation, whenevrr it concludes in many months will determining the rest of the facts from rumors. There will be conclusions from real professionas not bloggers from social media sites. I doubt they will call any of us as witnesses.
> 
> Then and only then will this be really settled.
> 
> Can we agree to post only new material which hasnt been posted already.


Dave, this is internet, we like to chat. See this place like a bar where he exchange some jokes and in the end something positive will come out of it, even if it said many times.

I don't understand what you mean with :"Whats the agenda for doing that? We all get it and can read it the first time...and if not surley the second time? Why keep repeating yourself with the same accusations. Those who beleive certainly will not change their minds. Neither will those who dont. "

I don't think nobody has a hidden agenda or an open one; I don't see nobody doing accusations and in what regards changing minds I don't see nobody with a different basic opinion, we are only discussing details and enjoying it.

No, let me open one more beer

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> Dave, this is internet, we like to chat. See this place like a bar where he exchange some jokes and in the end something positive will come out of it, even if it said many times.


Paulo, I know all to well its the internet. I understand the bar analogy. I guess there are always a few drunks at the bar who say the same thing over and over again,,,,just because they are drunk and like the sound of their voice.

I get it.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> ,just because they are drunk and like the sound of their voice.
> 
> I get it.


Well, get drunk too and join us!

I never repeat myself twice. Cos that would be fours times!

Lol!

Get it?

Never repeat myself? Lololol

Twice 

At lest I can laugh at my own jokes. I have to solo sailing


----------



## chef2sail

> You do get it Dave. Just a few weeks ago one fellow put it perfectly -Sal Paradise





> Just that time it wasn't some hypothetical, it was real - someone was asking for help securing a boat in a storm and in his own words - "Needed help bad". Yeah there are always a few


So did you go help him Sal?...did you?? Yeah talk is cheap,,, Yeah there always are a few


----------



## chef2sail

> never repeat myself twice. Cos that would be fours times!


To funny. Its ok to tell yourself jokes when sailin g alone....as long as a strange voice doesnt answer:laugher:laugher


----------



## casey1999

More on the ballasting changes:
HMS Bounty, Replica, Restoration

Does not this show vessel inspection expired Sept 30, 2012?
USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page


----------



## JulieMor

This just came in the mail 

_(For entertainment purposes only. This is no way represents the views of the owners, administrators or moderators Sailnet.com) _


----------



## chucklesR

You apparently have too much time, but a great imagination


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

tsThat's great, Julie! I'm glad it's all official now!


----------



## chef2sail

That says it all....Great job Julie


----------



## JulieMor

_I know this may be shocking to some, but I come from a long line of attorneys. _

Since I'm waiting for some varnish to dry on one project and glue to dry on another, I'll take on the position of counsel for the defendant, Captain Robin Walbridge.

*We enter a plea of NOT GUILTY on all charges.*

*Case #01*
*a.	Did Defendant act on his own when setting sail from New London, CT on October 25, 2012?*
The Defendant was always under the employment of the Plaintiff and as such carried out Plaintiff's orders as instructed, even in Plaintiff's absence.

*b.	Was the Defendant aware of the approaching Hurricane Sandy prior to setting sail on October 25, 2012?*
The Defendant was aware there was a storm to the south but, based on the knowledge he had at the time, felt he could safely "skirt" around it.

*c.	Did the Plaintiff advise the Defendant of any limitations regarding what sailing conditions the Bounty should set sail?*
The Defendant always acted in accordance of the rules and regulations set forth by the Plaintiff.

*d.	Did the Defendant act responsibly in the maintenance of the Bounty to ensure her seaworthiness?*
The Defendant diligently and in a timely manner addressed any and all maintenance issues even if it meant fixing them himself.

*e.	Did the Defendant inform the Plaintiff, and in a timely manner, of any deficiencies existing on the Bounty that would make her unsafe to sail?*
As soon as it was reasonably possible, the Defendant regularly informed the Plaintiff of any and all deficiencies upon the Bounty.

*f.	Did the defendant have a history of intentionally sailing into hurricanes? * 
We assume you are referring to the video that went viral. What the Defendant said in that video was intended to arouse curiosity and build the mystique of the Bounty. Nothing more.

*g.	If so, was the Plaintiff aware of the Defendant intentionally sailing into hurricanes?*
No response required as there was no intent to sail into hurricanes.

*Case #04*

*a.	Did the Defendant request any information from the crew he hired proving any skill, experience or knowledge in performing the duties he required them to perform on the Bounty?*
Yes, the Defendant required extended information of all crew accepted. The least experienced were given non-life/safety related responsibilities.

*b.	Did the Defendant provide any ongoing training for the crew in the performance of carrying out his commands?*
Yes. The Defendant's reputation of a skilled instructor devoted to teaching his crew proper seamanship was legend.

*c.	Did the Defendant provide any ongoing life-safety training?*
Yes. Life-safety drills were held regularly.

*d.	Did the Defendant ignore any warnings from the crew about unsafe conditions on the bounty?*
No. The Defendant took seriously each and every warning from the crew and attended to as soon as humanly possible.

*e.	Did the Defendant properly and in a timely manner provide sufficient information about his intended course prior to leaving New London on October 25, 2012?*
Yes. As testified by at least one of the crew, the Defendant notified the crew this may be a difficult passage and anyone not wishing to make the passage could stay ashore.

*f.	Did the Defendant threaten any of the crew with a loss of their job should they choose to remain ashore for any sail the crew deemed unsafe or dangerous?*
No. There is no evidence to that allegation.

*g.	Did any Plaintiff feel the Defendant intentionally sailed into hurricanes and if so did they object?*
The Defendant knows of no member of the Plaintiff party who made any comments of the sort.

*h.	If a Plaintiff objected as in interrogatory 4(g), how did the Defendant respond?*
N/A

*i.	Did any Plaintiff at any time in any sail prior to the departure on October 25, 2012 feel their safety was in jeopardy due to the actions on the part of the Defendant?*
No complaints of that nature were made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at any time.

If it please the court, Defense Counsel wishes to say a few words on behalf of the Defendant, who is no here to defend himself:
_
At 28, the Defendant, Captain Robin Walbridge secured his 50-ton license while working on the Miller houseboats on the Suwanee River in Florida where he was the field mechanic for five years. When not on the houseboats, he taught adult education and basic navigation to fishing and boat guides.

He went on to work on the Governor Stone in Apalachicola, Florida as Captain, conducting day sail programs, and crew training programs for the operation of the vessel. It was here he earned his 100-ton license.

He worked on the HMS Rose in 1993 as First and Second mate and went on to obtain his 500-ton Captain's license. He continued to work with youth sail training programs, developing programs for trainees along the eastern seaboard and Great Lakes. In 1995, he obtained his 1600-ton license.

Captain Robin Walbridge was an experienced, well certified and dedicated captain with 20+ years working on large vessels and a total of 40 years sailing experience. He should not be defending himself in this court but rather be praised for all he has done for the world of sailing._

Unless there are any pbjections, *Defense Counsel moves all charges against our client be dropped* as it was simply an act of God that caused the sinking of S/V HMS Bounty.

_I think the glue should be dried by now..._


----------



## casey1999

Thanks Julie for clearing things up for us.

Could someone call the Coast Guard and let them know no investigation is needed on the sinking of Bounty?

We can defer the investigation money to pay down the US debt!


----------



## jameswilson29

Just to clarify there could be at least three different types of legal proceedings arising out of these kinds of incidents:

1. Administrative proceeding by government agency against individual or entity, i.e., U.S.C.G. investigation, concerned with violation of statutes, rules and regulations, affects govt. licensing and privileges, may assess fines;

2. Civil lawsuit between private parties, i.e. wrongful death case against estate of Captain, concerned with liability and damages with burden of proof being a mere preponderance of the evidence; and

3. Criminal prosecution (only if capt. had survived) by govt., i.e., involuntary manslaughter based on conduct evidencing reckless disregard of human life, concerned with guilty or not guilty verdict with burden of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as I know, there is only a pending administrative proceeding now.

Posters seem to be confusing the terms between these different types of proceedings. "Guilty" or "not guilty" have nothing to do with civil lawsuits. Those are verdicts from a criminal prosecution by the government.

Perhaps that is why some are defending him. A civil action has nothing to do with his character, experience or past good deeds. In a civil case, the primary concerns are: Did he breach a duty imposed upon him by law and if he did, did his breach proximately cause an injury/death to another, and what are the damages suffered as a result or consequence?

The sweetest/most experienced person in the world could still have liability for monetary damages to another person because of a single failure to uphold a legal duty.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I'm sure a good lawyer could find lots more different types of proceedings... And then there's all,the different types of appeals in all the different courts for all the different proceedings.

I think some lawyers would be rubbing, judiciously, their hands together. A nice class action here could buy them their own boat!


----------



## jameswilson29

I would venture a guess that the family of the deceased woman has been contacted (of course not solicited) by those interested in being financially set for the rest of their lives.


----------



## JulieMor

jameswilson29 said:


> Posters seem to be confusing the terms between these different types of proceedings.


I was intentionally all over the place when I did this. I started a motion but it seemed too serious and I didn't want to get into anything that would look anything close to serious to the law professional. I wanted this to be light-hearted. That's why I added the images on the first page and answered the interrogatories as if they were criminal charges.

But how about you being presiding judge?  Just don't be too hard on us flunkies. BTW, my law firm is Dewey, Cheatum & Howe.


----------



## mdbee

*The Weather Channel Special "Coast Guard: HMS Bounty Rescue*

First broadcast will be Dec 5th, Check your local listings.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Can we agree to post only new material which hasnt been posted already.


OK, this should qualify - although it will no doubt raise the hackles of those who feel our only role in this thread, should be to advise them solely of the latest developments in the investigation into the sinking of the BOUNTY... (grin)

Sliding up Delaware Bay this morning in yet another flat calm, I came across the following letter in the November issue of SAILING... Although it is in response to an editorial by Bill Schanen regarding life jacket regulations, it speaks also to the tangential discussion in this thread, and my contention that the latest and greatest technology does not necessarily, or by definition, make today's sailors better, or safer...

Just part of the opinion from a renowned professional sailor, whose experience and knowledge is likely more vast by several orders of magnitude than all of us here put together:



> ...
> 
> Overuse of PFDs actually promotes a sense of fear on the water, and leads to what can be a false sense of security.
> 
> *Due to electronic navigation methods, we have already lost various "seat of the pants" skills, along with many fundamental techniques - call it the art of sailing*. With the ultra efficient and all pervasive means of communication (cell and sat phones now de rigueur) we have also lost part of the sense of freedom and certainly a large share of privacy in going to sea. This is the unstoppable march of technological evolution, but we need not go down this route being forced to wear PFDs at times when they are not warranted.
> 
> Skip Novak
> Cape Town, South Africa


Sorry, I couldn't resist... (grin)


----------



## Roger Long

I think this thread now needs its own theme song.

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because…..

(Was the original Muppets or Fraggle Rock?)


----------



## preventec47

I keep checking in as I am hopeful for info from survivor interviews about
the conditions and their experiences leading up to the sinking.
It has been 10 or 12 days since I last checked but did any of
the crew members ever fill in with a lot of missing info ?


----------



## PCP

Roger Long said:


> I think this thread now needs its own theme song.
> 
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting to it because
> They didn't know what it was.
> And, they keep on posting to it to it because&#8230;..





chef2sail said:


> ...I understand the bar analogy. I guess there are always a few drunks at the bar who say the same thing over and over again,,,,just because they are drunk and like the sound of their voice.
> 
> I get it.


Well, welcome to the bar

According with chief opinion you should be *VERY *drunk!

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jameswilson29

JonEisberg said:


> ...it speaks also to the tangential discussion in this thread, and my contention that the latest and greatest technology does not necessarily, or by definition, make today's sailors better, or safer...


It makes us less safe. Look at the other discussion about spending $700 to make coastal cruising safer. The entire thread became a debate about which electronic device to buy to allow one to call for help, instead of a discussion about how to make the boat safer and self-sufficient. Once one buys an EPIRB and a liferaft, one can engage in all kinds of stupid on any ill-suited vessel in any conditions!

Technology is fun, cheap and easy, an apparent shortcut to the lengthy requirements of competence gained through study and experience. The same could be said about these questionable sailing certifications (although they are not cheap). Spending months taking the relatively inexpensive USCG Auxiliary or Power Squadron courses so one could really start to understand boating is out of the question - I want to learn how to sail safely in a week so I can go on a fantasy charter!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

preventec47 said:


> It has been 10 or 12 days since I last checked but did any of
> the crew members ever fill in with a lot of missing info ?


No they haven't ... And where something comes out its about the latter part of it or the rescue, not the early part of the voyage, determinations conditions, and the start or development of the problems.

It's been a info blackout. Quite weird.


----------



## chef2sail

> It makes us less safe. Look at the other discussion about spending $700 to make coastal cruising safer. The entire thread became a debate about which electronic device to buy to allow one to call for help, instead of a discussion about how to make the boat safer and self-sufficient. *Once one buys an EPIRB and a liferaft, one can engage in all kinds of stupid on any ill-suited vessel in any conditions*!


?????????????????

James, one doesnt necessarily mean the other. Just because you buy an EPIRB or just because you buy a liferaft doesnt mean that you will engage in all kinds of stupid on any ill-suited vessel in any conditions. That discussion and points brought up by Minnie make me rethink the need for a liferaft for instance when I trvel north. The point here is that I *already am going to travel north and already do travel north without a liferaft *therefore I wish to do it and have my safety margin better, not because I have a liferaft I will more likely travel north.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ?????????????????
> 
> James, one doesnt necessarily mean the other. Just because you buy an EPIRB or just because you buy a liferaft doesnt mean that you will engage in all kinds of stupid on any ill-suited vessel in any conditions. That discussion and points brought up by Minnie make me rethink the need for a liferaft for instance when I trvel north. The point here is that I *already am going to travel north and already do travel north without a liferaft *therefore I wish to do it and have my safety margin better, not because I have a liferaft I will more likely travel north.


You mean you don't have a liferaft?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

No I dont have a liferaft, but am purchasing one this year. We genrally dont tracvel more than 15 miles offshore and only for 3 weeks of the year ( no excuse meant) but thats not to say that I havent thought about it. 

In the past when I went way offshore on trips we rented one. On any deleiveries I am a part of offshore I wont go without one present.

I do promise I will not become more risk oriented once I purchase one.

Dave


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> No I dont have a liferaft, but am purchasing one this year. We genrally dont tracvel more than 15 miles offshore and only for 3 weeks of the year....


At least around here, rafts can be rented, if you only feel you need one for that short period.

Rentals are a bit expensive. However, if you properly recertify your own raft, that is also expensive, and many don't do it. If you rent, you always have a certified raft.


----------



## JulieMor

When I started sailing we had a compass and a VHF. Then we bought a depth sounder and speed indicator. We could now avoid slowly shallowing waters and we'd know exactly how fast we were going when we hit that thing while in the dense fog.

One time we left Green Bay and planned a stop at Beaver Island. We set our compass direction to hit the center of Beaver Island, an island about 13 miles long. Smartypants me decided to aim for the south end so we could then turn north towards St. James Harbor. You know, to save some time. 

Once we were out on the water, a dense fog enveloped us. I could barely see the bow. It was so dense whatever part of my hair that was exposed to the elements was soon soaked. And it was cold, 55 degrees. A weather forecast onshore said it was 95.

I heard fog horns and imagined tankers or freighters all around us. My eyes were almost popping out of my head as I strained to try to make something out of the fog soup all around us. My ears were tuned to rippling waters and any sign at all we were nearing another vessel. I was on edge the whole time.

After over 12 hours I knew we missed the island. Just as it was starting to get dark I saw the Michigan bluffs, not more than 1/4 mile ahead. I had no idea where we were. If we went north and Traverse Bay was to our south, our next harbor was Mackinac Island and there was some treacherous shoals that lay before us that we'd have to navigate in the dark with only a compass. 

My dad said, "Aim there" and pointed us south. After a discussion about how he knew that was the right way, I gave in. Within about an hour we were entering Traverse Bay. It was dark by then. I knew Little Traverse Bay and I knew how to get to Little Harbor and with the lifting fog and lights from all around, we made it safely.

At least twice more we had fog incidents, still having only the compass to guide us. I had by then completed two Power Squadron courses and a course in celestial navigation, but wasn't at all confident in my ability to locate us any closer than a mile from where we may be.

Then we got a LORAN. Our first trip was from Chicago to Saugatuck, MI. He hit the mouth of the harbor dead on. I was sold! The sextant became a museum piece and was only taken out of the wooden box to show friends how "they used to do it in the olden days". Then I would talk of how difficult it was to actually know where you were and pointed to that white box and say, "That will tell you exactly!"

That was over 30 years ago. 

I can see how easy it is to rely on all the electronics available to us today and feel comfortable you know what you're doing. Navigational aids that will tell you exactly where you are. Sounders that map the bottom all around you. Up to the minute weather information coupled with computer models that can actually accurately predict what the weather will do. And when all else goes wrong emergency positioning locator beacons that many believe will bring a helicopter to save them within a few hours.

It's easy to become complacent.

But boats aren't made as well as they used to be. The need for speed has reduced the seaworthiness of many sailing vessels. Many buy boats for their interiors and their price without knowing what a bluewater boat is or without ever having been caught in a gale or a squall. And advertisers aren't going to bring that up in conversation unless they are selling a bluewater boat.

Imagine mandatory certifications for anyone who takes the helm of a boat. There would be a lot of screaming. Things won't change until something massively tragic happens. But with the sailing/boating community representing such a small percentage of the population, I don't see even a great tragedy creating changes.


----------



## Faster

> Imagine mandatory certifications for anyone who takes the helm of a boat. There would be a lot of screaming.


Already in place in Canada.. it's not onerous, and not particularly qualifying, but everyone, youngsters included, need to have a PCOP (Pleasure Craft Operators Card) for any powered vessel - including your 7 foot tender with a 2 hp outboard. It was phased in over a period of time, and was issued to anyone who had ever taken, or takes, the Canadian Power and Sail Squadron basic boating course as well as being offered separately, even on-line.

Fees are reasonable and there's been little hue and cry, though I imagine there are a lot of crusty oldtimers still boating without it....


----------



## PCP

JulieMor said:


> When I started sailing we had a compass and a VHF. Then we bought a depth sounder and speed indicator. We could now avoid slowly shallowing waters and we'd know exactly how fast we were going when we hit that thing while in the dense fog.
> 
> ....
> 
> Once we were out on the water, a dense fog enveloped us. I could barely see the bow. It was so dense whatever part of my hair that was exposed to the elements was soon soaked. And it was cold, 55 degrees. A weather forecast onshore said it was 95.
> 
> I heard fog horns and imagined tankers or freighters all around us. My eyes were almost popping out of my head as I strained to try to make something out of the fog soup all around us. My ears were tuned to rippling waters and any sign at all we were nearing another vessel. I was on edge the whole time.
> 
> ....
> 
> At least twice more we had fog incidents, still having only the compass to guide us. I
> ...
> 
> That was over 30 years ago.
> 
> I can see how easy it is to rely on all the electronics available to us today and feel comfortable you know what you're doing. Navigational aids that will tell you exactly where you are. ..
> 
> It's easy to become complacent.
> 
> But boats aren't made as well as they used to be. The need for speed has reduced the seaworthiness of many sailing vessels. Many buy boats for their interiors and their price without knowing what a bluewater boat is or without ever having been caught in a gale or a squall. And advertisers aren't going to bring that up in conversation unless they are selling a bluewater boat.
> 
> Imagine mandatory certifications for anyone who takes the helm of a boat. There would be a lot of screaming. Things won't change until something massively tragic happens. But with the sailing/boating community representing such a small percentage of the population, I don't see even a great tragedy creating changes.


That remembers me the longest 36 hours of my life, on my 80 years'old 22ft wooden sailing boat, a bit more than 30 years ago. I had just a fixed compass a azimuth compass and charts, no VHF but one of those old logs that were towed behind the boat, I mean till a big fish eat the thing

And there I was, coming home alone at the end of my vacations (along the the west Portuguese coast). I was doing the final leg from Cascais to Peniche.

I raised the fisherman anchor and sailed out of the bay at 4.00 AM with some wind, making about 3.0K. Well, I was only going out because I had wind, with no wind I was not going anywhere because I had no engine at all.

I had waited for that wind for three days. I passed the river bar turned North, passed Cape Raso and at dawn near Cape da Roca the mist come in and turned into a deep wet fog. With a very weak head wind and the canvas wet by the mist I sailed the next 36 hours tacking the boat from one side to the other with almost no visibility at all, day and night alike (full moon).

Cabo the Roca is a big rocky cap with a bad temper and it is also the Western part of all Europe. There are there many times a strong south current created by the dominant North winds and at large passes one of the busiest world's shipping lanes.

Without seeing nothing and without instruments I sailed towards land till I head the waves breaking against the rock wall and then turned to the sea till I hear the sound of the ship engines. It is amazing how the mist can propagate the sound. About 30 hours later the mist and fog started to raise and I saw that I had passed the Cape but had only make about 6 NM to the North. Well, no problem, there was a weak wind and I was moving making about 1.5K. More six hours at that speed and I should get to Ericeira with day light to stay on anchor and rest.

But then...the mist and the fog started to close again. I was preparing myself for more 12 hours of sailing by the ears when I saw a small fishing boat. I call them, explained the situation and ask them if they mind to get me a tow after having finished fishing. They said that with that mist and fog coming in they were returning right away to Ericeira (they had also only a compass), maybe 6NM North. I get my lift and they didn't accept any money at all.

I arrived there quickly, went to shore eat like a king and slept (aboard) like an emperor. Next day come up as a perfectly good sailing day and even having a moderate wind on the nose I made the 23Nm back to Peniche in about 7 hours arriving at noon.

Today I make voyages of 2000Nm and I don't fell the same sense of accomplishment I used to fell when I sailed on that old boat along the Portuguese coast and made it to Port. And I had always made it to Port

Of course today is much more safer and I don't even agree with Julie regarding today's boats being unsafer then older boats but to the great dismay of my kids I still don't fell safe sailing at night with the radio playing music, so, no music at night when we sail. I still trust my ears and fell discomfort sailing at night without hearing what is going on, even if it is the sound of silence broken by the water rushing by the hull.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Roger Long

Faster said:


> Already in place in Canada.. there's been little hue and cry.


Except this: (See first article page 93)

http://www.cruisingonstrider.us/PEarticles.htm

This is a subject that really deserves a thread of its own, like almost everything that has been posted to this one recently.

Excuse me while I turn the thread dragging alarm off.


----------



## Faster

Interesting article, Roger (once I actually found it!!). Nice magazine/site too..


----------



## killarney_sailor

Faster said:


> Already in place in Canada.. it's not onerous, and not particularly qualifying, but everyone, youngsters included, need to have a PCOP (Pleasure Craft Operators Card) for any powered vessel - including your 7 foot tender with a 2 hp outboard. It was phased in over a period of time, and was issued to anyone who had ever taken, or takes, the Canadian Power and Sail Squadron basic boating course as well as being offered separately, even on-line.
> 
> Fees are reasonable and there's been little hue and cry, though I imagine there are a lot of crusty oldtimers still boating without it....


The PCOP is a joke and just gives the impression of certification ... and provides some income for those who sell them at boat shows. In South Africa, a resident must have a Yachtmaster certificate before they are allowed to leave harbour in command of any pleasure craft. Obviously it is serious bit of ocean, but it is also very serious certification. BTW, a British Yachtmaster certificate is not accepted, you need to get one here.


----------



## Faster

killarney_sailor said:


> The PCOP is a joke and just gives the impression of certification ... and provides some income for those who sell them at boat shows. .


I agree.. hence the statement "not particularly qualifying".. but it's at least a start. For most Canadian cruising grounds I think full on Yachtmaster/Oceanic certification would be overkill, but I'd like to see the CPSS basic course the minimum rather than the $60 quickie course/test.

I think we'd see far fewer boats stranded on sandbars or rocks immediately adjacent to the buoy that told you to go the other side.

The other failing of this system is, at least in Vancouver, the 16 foot rental runabouts where all you need is a credit card, and they put the renter (often foreign visitors) through an even more abbreviated checklist before sending them on their way. We frequently find them totally lost, or out of fuel, or both.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

A nicely thought out post.

There are so many things to wonder about... But it may come down to just a little something that's the death knell.

You mention twisting. It's been mentioned before, too. Now remember the ship was off Cape Hatteras, in contrary current with a strong wnd that had been there over many days. Also any waves coming from the center of the hurricane itself would have been coming from the south, against the wind waves from the north.

With those waves and that twisting its quite likely a plank sprung... And if it was forward it would have made the flooding worse to drive the boat forward.

Maybe it was water inundation, or sloshing around that caused the engine and generators, or pumps to fail. Remember the roll in that video? I the engine room that would have been putting forum foot of water all over the engine room!

In the 18th Century if Bligh had known there was a hurricane he would have been a long way away. All sailing ships would. 


Mark


----------



## PCP

Sal Paradise said:


> What I wonder about is that the period of time where the Bounty took on too much water seems to coincide not with the pumps failing so much as with the loss of propulsion. I am wondering if, once they lost steerage, they got sideways and spun around and overstressed the hull. Would it have been better to put all effort into trying to sail rather than work on the engines and pumps? Sometimes survival comes down tobuying time.
> 
> I would also like opinions about hull stress Bounty was subjected to when they lost propulsion sometime Sunday. I've read that in fact the pumps operated during Sunday night even after the engines quit. From the Bounty specs online, I read she was equipped with (2) 35 kw generators. If thats true , and I think it can't be, but - those are massive, each one easily capable of powering 2 pumps. The engineer stated the second generator was the last thing to go, but that for reasons he _" didn't want to speculate" _about, the water suddenly came in faster than they could pump out. Many have speculated that a plank sprung or some type of seam opened. I would like opinions as to whether the first course of action should have been to get sailing, get steering and point the ship so as to be more stable and less stressed. I wonder if that were even possible in those conditions , on this type of ship with 16 people.
> 
> The timeline seems to be that things were fairly normal, _" all is well" _as they said Sunday on FB and then they lost propulsion. Shortly after that, the engineer, first mate and captain all went into the engine room clearing pumps, and the crew put up some sails. But in the ABC interview they said_ " we had so little control"_ The engineer described being exhausted from holding on as the ship_ " twisted"_ . He also said that Walbridge and the fist mate were in there helping him. My question, which I don't think we can really answer, is what if the captain and first mate put all their energy into furling sails and steering the ship east thereby minimizing hull stresses. I wonder if it even occurred to them to try and stabilize the ship, or if they were fixated on the engines and pumps, _" Stewing over them"_ as Claudene Christian wrote.
> 
> What if Walbridge put everything into sailing during those last hours? Would that course of action have reduce the hull stresses and delayed the big leak long enough for the ship to survive Monday morning? And wouldn't still sailing bounty be a more stable ship? That would have been a much better scenario. Helicopters overhead, a deck to launch rafts from, daylight. Or did they fixate too long on the engine room? Leaving the ship to twist and roll in the hurricane eventually leading to catastrophe when the ship rolled and threw everyone into the water in the dark.
> 
> I got this idea from another article -- Sal Mercogliano, a former merchant marine who is now a maritime historian at Campbell University had this perspective -
> _
> In the 18th century, the original Bounty's full crew would have hoisted smaller storm sails to keep the ship plowing in one direction. But that didn't happen as things began to go wrong on Sunday, including the reported loss of diesel power.
> Powerless "that ship would have been careening on all three axes and it's possible that a hole opened up, a plank loosened up, and once she lost power there's no chance to get storm sails up and manage them with just 16 people on board - remember, the original Bounty had a crew of 100," says Mr. Mercogliano. _


Mercogliano answers to that question when he says: *"there's no chance to get storm sails up and manage them with just 16 people on board - remember, the original Bounty had a crew of 100",*

He is exaggerating a bit because the original HMS Bounty had a crew of less than 50 and not all were sailors, but that ship is not a Yacht and the two professional sailors, the captain and the first mate would not be able to sail the boat and take care of the sails alone without the help of a qualified crew. We are not talking about small sail areas like on a yacht. Even on a storm the sail area needed to steer the ship would have been significant if compared with the sail of a small boat and their handling much more complicated.

The boat was making water and the pumps were running already for a long time. The situation, as you say, seemed to be controlled till the moment they had problems with the engines and stayed with only one generator....but you don't mention an electric problem that was clearly stated and that I think it is on the origin of the pumps not working. They were electric pumps and with the system shorted even if they had the generator still working it will not be able to put them working.

Some photos that were posted show a very poor electric installation and the ingress of water could have been on the origin of the electric problem.

Anyway, even making a controllable amount of water, one that the pumps could handle, the moment the pumps went out of service they where domed because they had not an independent reserve pump system and the boat was making water. They had one hydraulic pump system connected to the engines and other electric depending on the generators. In the past they had had an independent diesel pump system as main but they had not replaced it when he broke some years ago.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

This was posted in another thread as if there was not already enought threads about the Bounty. I guess it belongs here. Comments please

*December 1, 2012

AN OPEN LETTER

Dear Robin,

It has been a month now since the USCG stopped looking for you. Claudene is dead and BOUNTY, like you, is lost at sea as a result of your decision to sail directly towards Hurricane Sandy. Your action reminds me of the movie "Hunt for Red October". I am thinking of that captain of the submarine hunting the other submarine. The captain on the hunt for the fleeing sub threw all caution away in his hunting effort. Why did you throw all caution away by navigating for a close pass of Hurricane Sandy? I was so surprised to discover that BOUNTY was at sea near Cape Hatteras and close to Hurricane Sandy Sunday night October 28th! That decision of yours was reckless in the extreme!

The outcome of your action makes you the only captain of the current crop of long experienced American maritime licensed sailing vessel masters' actually willing to voyage anywhere near a hurricane! Did you not remember the fate of the FANTOME? Like BOUNTY she was a slow, less than 10 knot capable vessel under engine power. Not fast enough to run out of range of the reach of Hurricane Mitch. Additionally the master of FANTOME had too much confidence in hurricane forecasting accuracy. Mitch made an unexpected left turn after consistent movement westward before slowing down to near stopped about the time FANTOME made her run eastward from Belize trying to escape Mitch. A stationary hurricane is nearly impossible to predict future motion. To the best of anyone's knowledge (FANTOME was lost with all hands) Mitch ran right over her. You, on the other hand, maneuvered directly toward a very accurately forecast and steadily moving Hurricane Sandy with a slow moving vessel of wood construction, FANTOME was of metal. Also, BOUNTY is quite a bit smaller than FANTOME. Still you aimed all but directly at Sandy. That was reckless my friend! Was it wise or prudent to set off into the teeth of Sandy in BOUNTY? Did it make any sense at all? Virtually all of your professional friends and colleagues back here do not think so, not at all.

You told everyone you were going east around Sandy. But you did not even try to do so. Your track line indicates unequivocally a trail all but directly toward Sandy. When I heard east around was the strategy I immediately wondered about it. I am not the only one to know that BOUNTY is not highly powered with her engines. You yourself are publicly recorded as saying BOUNTY is under powered. Looking at weather conditions east of Long Island for Friday October 26 it is clear there were northeast winds. They were not strong winds...near 5-10 knots at the buoy 50 miles SE of Nantucket with a slight sea of between 1-2 feet. But windage of any sailing vessel under auxiliary power is significant. A full-rigged ship has a whole lot more windage. 5 knots of boat speed into 10 knots of wind means a lot of drag slowing BOUNTY down...maybe with the underpowered engines BOUNTY could barely reach 5 knots of boat speed? Saturday Oct. 27 at the buoy wind had increased to around 15 knots NExE and sea had increased to around 3-4 feet. With staysails set and motor-sailing what would BOUNTY have been steering? Maybe something south of true East? What kind of speed would BOUNTY have made? On Sunday Oct. 28 wind had jumped to 30-35 knots NExE and the sea was up around 12 feet and building. Considering those big bluff bows of BOUNTY and massive windage in her rigging you probably decided to abandon the "go east around Sandy" strategy long before even trying it out because of the increasingly slow progress BOUNTY would eventually be making with ever increasing winds and swell from the northeast plus the knowledge the wind would eventually veer to east and on toward southeast as Sandy moved north forcing BOUNTY to turn southward and even southwestward and that would be back toward Sandy. You may also have still been doubtful of Sandy actually turning NW. Considering Sandy did go toward land rather than toward sea, had you tried to go eastward as you originally intended with any kind of will, BOUNTY might have wound up pretty far away from Sandy's center, but the storm was so big you might actually have met conditions somewhat similar to what you actually met by heading straight toward Sandy. Having to abandon BOUNTY well out to the eastward would likely have been at a location somewhat further away from rescue assets than you actually were. So, ironically, it may actually have been fortunate for your crew that you did not try to go eastward.

An even more distressing puzzle is brought forth by BOUNTY's steady movement directly at Sandy after you had abandoned your original notion of going east around. Friday Oct. 26 forecasting confirmed an even higher confidence Hurricane Sandy would turn left after some more time going north. But BOUNTY continued straight southward! Why did you not turn for New York Harbor? The light northeast flow I describe above was occurring all the way down past the mouth of the Delaware Bay. You could have gone way up the Hudson River. With the NE'rly wind behind BOUNTY is it likely speed might have been more than 5 knots on her way to New York? Alternatively, by my calculation, at 5 knots BOUNTY could have diverted toward Delaware Bay and gone up that bay and through the C & D Canal by late Saturday night. Wind in the Upper Chesapeake Bay Saturday night was light and variable with a forecast to increase from the NE overnight into Sunday before backing toward the north and continuing to increase overnight Sunday into Monday. At midnight Saturday northeast wind strength in Baltimore Harbor was actually 10 knots. Late Sunday wind had backed to north and increased to near 20 knots. If BOUNTY were in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore by early Sunday she would have been sheltered from wind by all of those tall city buildings that ring the north side of the Inner Harbor. There would have been no sea action. Harbor water levels did indeed increase above normal, but only by 3-4 feet. BOUNTY would not have floated over any dock. Even if she had, the damage would unlikely be the loss of the ship and certainly not the loss of any life!

So what was it you were thinking by not diverting toward shelter once you knew about the confirmed forecasting that not only continued to indicate Sandy going ashore in New Jersey but also Sandy would likely be the largest hurricane in some time? No slow boat was going to be speedy enough to get out of Sandy's long reach from where BOUNTY was on Friday. Certainly resurrecting the "east around" strategy would be impossible now that the distance to Sandy had reduced bringing with the reduced distance soon to increase NE'rly winds, soon to start a steady veer through East. But a slow boat would have had time to get inshore from where BOUNTY was on Friday before Sandy's strength was felt. Why did you persist in steering BOUNTY directly toward Sandy? Was it confidence in her physical strength after all of the rebuilding over the last several years? If that was the case, that is recklessly cavalier to the extreme! Not even the big powerful tug and barge combinations that regularly ply the East Coast were fooling around with facing Sandy! But you were. I find myself wondering again&#8230;What were you thinking?

On top of this, you told folks during the south bound journey directly toward Sandy that it was safer to be at sea. Hmmm...an interesting & vague notion that. It is true the US Navy in Norfolk goes to sea ahead of an approaching hurricane. But they are high endurance (high speed) ships with mariners trained and contracted to go in the way of danger, not young keen professionals & volunteers on an harbor attractions' vessel!

I understand there might be two reasons for sending a navy fleet out. One is their wind resistance at the dock&#8230;and probably also concern for extra high water from storm surge. That wind resistance could play great havoc keeping the ships tied to the dock. Maybe wreck the pier by the pressure against the dock. Extra high water causes all kinds of concerns. The other reason is our nation's security. A navy bottled up in port for a hurricane is not a navy able to provide for national defense. Meanwhile those navy ships have a lot of speed they are capable of. And they do not hang around at sea in the path of a hurricane. They keep going out to sea to get away from the rough seas that will be created by the approaching hurricane. Making 20 knots means they could be 480 nautical miles to the eastward in 24 hours. Something not possible with a smaller slow boat that departed closely ahead of Sandy with the idea of protecting itself from dock damage on the premise it would be safer instead to experience big seas as well big winds creating them. Now that is just plain illogical thinking! With a choice between suffering strong wind by being inshore while avoiding big seas verses being at sea with both big seas and strong winds you should have diverted Friday as soon as you got the updated weather forecasting confirming Sandy was going ashore in New Jersey.

Yeah, you were a reckless man Robin. I would not have continued to proceed as you did. Frankly, I do not know anyone with a lot of experience in large, slow (still faster than BOUNTY), strong, steel motor vessels like the powerful tug & barge combinations we see plying the East Coast would have considered heading toward a hurricane like you did with Sandy&#8230;not only forecast as going ashore rather than turning towards sea&#8230;but also described as a "storm of the century". Those tug & barge operators would seek shelter inshore or not proceed to sea at all. I also do not know any sailing vessel masters that would head toward a hurricane as you did with hopes of negotiating a pass like two vessels meeting head-on. The tug & barge industry has a lot of reason to stay on schedule. Lots of money at stake with timely delivery. But it is even more money if there is significant damage from big seas. Plus, if the cargo is chemical or oil there is the cost and criminal consequences of a polluting spill. I cannot imagine there was any reason existing that would force BOUNTY to directly approach a hurricane. Loss of BOUNTY is so permanent. No more voyages after losing the ship&#8230;don't you know!

But the loss of life is the most tragic. You not only lost your own, you lost that of Claudene's. Hell man, the BOUNTY can be replaced. But why ever risk loss when it is so much more important not to risk a crew member's life? Having BOUNTY remain in port, or seek port when it became evident Sandy was not going to turn eastward as most often hurricanes do, might have meant damage to BOUNTY, but unlikely any loss of life. If you found no dock willing to accommodate BOUNTY up the Delaware or in the Chesapeake Bay, put her in the mud and hang on. Doing that would mean no reason to fear sinking completely below water. Even if she were to roll on her side while aground she would not have sunk below the surface. Maybe she would have become a total loss, but the crew could remain sheltered in her hull, assuming there was no safe way to get off of her and ashore before high winds arrived. Putting BOUNTY aground for the winds of Sandy because of no dock option would have been a bold decision! Actually, I believe your request to get to a dock would not have been turned down. However, all of the above was avoidable by not going to sea at all. Your focus should have been the same focus of all of your East Coast sailing vessel contemporaries&#8230;not go to sea&#8230;rather get tied up in as safe a place as you could find&#8230;not waste time trying to gain some distance toward your intended destination.

Robin, for all of the experience you have, it was recklessly poor judgment to have done anything but find a heavy weather berth for your ship, rather than instead intentionally navigate directly toward Sandy with no thought given to deviate if the original plan of yours was not panning out. During the nineteen years you were master of BOUNTY you were the single reason she remained active. Under your command she went from being an aging wooden vessel with all of the typical problems age brings to a vessel, to a reviving vessel as a result of several significant re-buildings over the last several years. You were a hero in everyone's eyes. Deservedly so I will freely add!!! I so respected your even, steady persistence to celebrate what BOUNTY could be and as a result was becoming. After years of barely surviving coastal trips here in America, after significant rebuilding, you successfully managed two safe and productive European voyages. That success was surely destined for more voyages to ports thrilling throngs of public in love with BOUNTY's roll in Hollywood movies. But that future is gone now. Because you chose to do something that no one of your experience, and all those young professionals with less experience, several that sailed with you, would have done. Some might have sailed and diverted. Some might have sailed with the plan to get some distance south along the coast then duck inshore long before any real impact from Sandy would be felt. But most did not depart at all. They worked from the start locating as safe a harbor arrangement as could be figured out. Up there in Southern New England is the fine port of New Bedford with its storm dyke to protect the fishing fleet. Surely BOUNTY would have been welcomed? I cannot conjure any reason why your friends in New London would not have responded with welcome of shelter had you asked.

While there are many memories I have of conversing with you about things marine affecting what we do as masters of sailing vessels, we never discussed the topic of delivering on schedule as promised and the problems of failure to arrive as promised. This is coming oh so very much too late, but I feel compelled to share that during my many years as master of vessels, there has never been any pressure put on me to make sure promises of arrival were kept. What I was told is that safety was most important. Safety of the ship was desired. But safety of the crew was most essential. As a result I have been master aboard when I have had to inform the company the intended arrival would not occur as scheduled due to weather. Sometimes the weather concern involved a hurricane. Sometimes the concern was a cold front and resultant head winds or a typical mid latitude low passing by. The decision we were going to be tardy to the destination port had to do with risk of damage to the ship. Preventing ship damage most often meant there would be little to no additional risk of injury to the crew and in the case of an inspected vessel also the passengers. Yep, unlike BOUNTY, most of the sail training vessels in America are certified and inspected for underway activities; several in the American fleet are certified for ocean service. Those that are wood built are pretty strong. Yet they avoid hurricanes. Being tardy always meant there would be another opportunity in the future. With BOUNTY now gone, with you and Claudene as well, there is no future to share with Claudene, with you, with BOUNTY, for all of us&#8230;for everyone.

If confidence was the basis in your decisions, no ship is invulnerable. And in a career at sea one cannot avoid every gale or nasty storm - but you set out with the BOUNTY with whatever her strengths and weaknesses into the biggest one some of us have ever seen dominating the Western North Atlantic. Many stronger, faster ships than BOUNTY chose to stay in port for this one. What was your need?

Well my very recklessly cavalier friend. I cannot say I told you so. But I sure can say I am surprised! Not Robin! This stunt is so amateurish as to be off the scale! But stunning surprise of surprises! It is Robin! Heading directly at a hurricane in a small, slow boat. Instead of running and hiding...or not venturing out at all. You have provided everyone with a great deal of hurt and sadness and consternation as well a firestorm of gossip nearly full of blame and foolishness directed at the whole of our sailing community.

That is an inestimably be-damned legacy my friend.

Signed,

Jan C. Miles*


----------



## JonEisberg

Some more details about the final days/hours that I haven't seen reported before... Sounds like the engineer Barksdale may not be as inclined to remain as silent as the rest of the crew in the wake of this fiasco... More information is revealed about the timeline of the failure of the generator(s), appears one may have simply run out of fuel, due to a damaged fuel gauge on the day tank...

Two tidbits in particular jumped out at me (emphasis mine):



> The crew recognized that the ship was moving too slowly, and that they would be caught in the middle of the storm.
> 
> *Walbridge wasn't saying much anymore.* Once, when Barksdale went on deck to get some fresh air, he discovered that the captain had changed course, and that they were now traveling to the southwest...
> 
> ...
> 
> At about 4 a.m., Barksdale realized that he had lost his battle against the water in the engine room. _He climbed up to the lower deck, where he saw his fellow crewmembers, *but not the captain.*_ The others told him that it was time to abandon ship.
> 
> A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> Some more details about the final days/hours that I haven't seen reported before... Sounds like the engineer Barksdale may not be as inclined to remain as silent as the rest of the crew in the wake of this fiasco.....


Another notable report of Barksdale's feedback:



> "There wasn't much time left to think about it and Barksdale hesitated for but a moment. If he wanted to go on land, he would have had to go into the cabin immediately to pack his things. The thought of it felt like betraying the crew, which had become like a family to him."





> "When Barksdale saw the engine room for the first time, before the trip began, he wanted to clean it up, but there was no time for that."


This is the part that has me so pissed off about the Capt's decision to launch. She seems to have suffered as are her parents:



> "Christian was dead -- her body was found drifting in the water on the same day. She had an injury on her face and a black eye, and there were two liters of water in her lungs"





> "Claudene shouted, sounding distraught. "I might lose my phone service. We're already out in the water. I got to tell you how much I love you and dad." "Why are you saying it like that?" Gina asked. "I just want you to know," Claudene replied. "We know," answered Gina. "Now hang up," Claudene said. "I'm going to call back, but don't answer it. I'm going to leave you a message."
> 
> Gina Christian is holding her iPhone in both hands. She still hasn't listened to it yet."


----------



## PCP

yes, some of this new stuff could only come from Barksdale but it is meaningful that he is not directly quoted or interviewed like if he wanted to talk but not come openly publicly in what regards this. I guess that many would have wanted to interview him if he was available.

quote:

He had also had few conversations with the other crewmembers, which is why *he hadn't even heard that a storm was approaching*&#8230;.

"I know that some of you all have been getting e-mails and phone calls regarding the hurricane," Walbridge told his crew as he stood on the deck. *Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port*&#8230;..

When Barksdale saw the engine room for the first time, before the trip began, he wanted to clean it up, but there was no time for that. New fuel tanks had been installed, and he spent his first three weeks connecting the tanks to the engines, laying the pipes and securing the connections&#8230;.

Early Sunday morning, Barksdale* shut off one of the two generators for maintenance work*. &#8230;.

*As the generator cooled down*, Barksdale escaped the hot engine room for an hour. During that time, the gauge on the day tank, which contains a one-day supply of fuel for the engines, was smashed. Barksdale saw the damage when he returned, but he didn't notice that the tank was almost empty. According to the gauge, there was still enough fuel in the tank. Barksdale didn't notice the error until the generator failed&#8230;&#8230;

He was exhausted, the result of being thrown back and forth in the engine room. His body was covered with bruises, his leg hurt, he had injured his index finger and he could hardly breathe. Nevertheless, he managed to keep at least one generator running. But the water was rising underneath the floorboards. Barksdale noticed that *the power from the generator was fluctuating, and that the bilge pumps, which are supposed to pump water out of the ship, seemed to be clogged*. They weren't pumping quickly enough, and the water level kept rising. Taking on Water&#8230;.

The water was now almost two meters high inside the Bounty&#8230;.

At about 4 a.m., Barksdale realized that he had lost his battle against the water in the engine room.

A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News

This article seems an informed one (by Barksdale) and "The Spiegel" is one of the most reputed information newspapers in Europe but Braksdale is not quoted directly and some things are a bit contradictory with other information, some of them give also from Barksdale. Before going on what seems to be those contraindication let me talk about what seems new and relevant:

First of all it seems that part of the crew, or at least Barksdale did not have an idea of how big was the storm coming in. they just trusted the Captain.

The other important information is that this statement "Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port" that I had seen attributed to the bounty organization was after all stated by the Captain to the crew as the reason for leaving port. This is relevant in my opinion. The crew just assumed that they were doing the safest and right thing to do even if some had doubts (that Claudene phone call and email). Some had doubts but in doubt they trusted their Captain assuming he new better what was doing in what regards the Ship and their lives safety.

Regarding the contradictions, it has been reported that the Captain refereed to the organization (they had said that publicly) that one of the Generators? had an electric problem.

No electric problem is referred on this account.

On the other article that quoted Barksdale and used him as information source it is referred the frantic and desperate attempts by himself, the captain and the first made to unclogging the water pumps. Nothing is referred here as if he was all alone dealing with the problem. It refers however that clogging of the pumps was a major problem and that the second generator was not working properly. Ir was also referred that the bilges were not properly cleaned after works being performed on the ship and that the Captain new about that.

He says also that he stooped one generator for maintenance but does not say why he stopped it when he new that he was going to need all the power he could get on the next hours. It is referred "As the generator cooled down" and that eventually indicates that he stopped it because he was malfunctioning and overheating. Nobody does maintenance on a generator in the sea in bad weather if it is not urgently needed.

Two final comments: It is odd that he talks about the generators pumps and clogging but does not talk about the engines. This does mean that he is talking about the last hours of the ship and the two engines were out of service already for a long time? It is said that they had given up when there was already two meters high on the bilges and no engines would work on these conditions.

I guess that more information will be given by Barcksdale now that the American media notice that he is willing to talk. I hope for a more consistent and complete report on what really happened with the engines, generators and pumps since he is the one that knows all about that.

The other comment is about "The Spiegel" that shows here, relating an American story, why he is considered one of the best European news source. I am a regular reader and I recommend it to all that want to follow European problems and European views about the world. They have an English international site on the Internet and even the news on the German pages are easily translated to a comprehensive English by the automatic Google translater.

....


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Good article.
Barksdale was a handyman, not a marine diesel engineer. I think he did a great job under the circumstances. I think that ship needed a chief engineer and a qualified offsider.

Interesting he didn't even know about the hurricane when the captain talked to them. I wonder if some of the other crew hadn't heard of it? The whole world knew, but sometimes people in a close community might not watch TV etc.

His point about if he wanted to leave the ship it had to be immediately... No time to,think, no time to check the weather for themselves.... And where do they go when they leave the ship? No home, no car, no job....

Christians injuries suggest she was hit by the masts or rigging as the masts hit the water when the ship rolled on its side. Barksdale was caught three or four times.... It amazing not more crew were caught and drowned.

Barkesdale is brave and correct to come forward and be interviewed. I thank him for it.
He must have had a terrible time in that hot stinking water filled engine room. Terrible and terrifying.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> ....There has to be more to the story. We may never know the real reason. If I had to guess, some outside force was acting on Walbridge at that moment. " Get-homei-tis" or orders from his boss, or a wish for glory or hubris or... something worse.......


Could be, but the choice of saving the boat, without proper regard for the crew (complacency) is clearly possible in my opinion. The hurricane could have very easily ended up coming straight over any New England port. Most of us took preventative measures with that in mind. The boat could potentially have taken a hit right in New London. It may have been damaged or sunk if taken up the Hudson or Narragansett too.

Given the documented navigation of hurricanes in his past, it remains plausible that he was simply trying to save his ship. In fact, if the ship were destroyed, he would have been out of work.

Not saying I know this fact pattern to be correct, I'm only saying there doesn't have to be more to it.


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Barkesdale is brave and correct to come forward and be interviewed. I thank him for it.
> He must have had a terrible time in that hot stinking water filled engine room. Terrible and terrifying.


Yes Barkesdale is a true hero. To be working in the engine space while it is filling with water, wondering if the ship will suddenly sink, yet he kept performing his job as best as conditions would allow.


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Could be, but the choice of saving the boat, without proper regard for the crew (complacency) is clearly possible in my opinion. The hurricane could have very easily ended up coming straight over any New England port. Most of us took preventative measures with that in mind. The boat could potentially have taken a hit right in New London. It may have been damaged or sunk if taken up the Hudson or Narragansett too.
> 
> Given the documented navigation of hurricanes in his past, it remains plausible that he was simply trying to save his ship. In fact, if the ship were destroyed, he would have been out of work.
> 
> Not saying I know this fact pattern to be correct, I'm only saying there doesn't have to be more to it.


That is the way it looks to me. That ship was for sale at $4.5 million at the time. They (Capt and Bounty organization) were just trying to keep it a float so it could be sold. Does anyone know what the ship was insured for?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see no beauty in this "movie" Bounty ship. It was not kept in good condition, it could not sail well, it was not a replica in any way to the original Bounty. Like Hollywood, the ship was a fake.

It should have been burned after the first movie.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

casey1999 said:


> Yes Barkesdale is a true hero. To be working in the engine space while it is filling with water, wondering if the ship will suddenly sink, yet he kept performing his job as best as conditions would allow.


Also, if what the article said was right, he was the last to know they were abandoning ship. He came up when he knew he could do no more. He wasn't ordered up.

Yes. If it was a war you'd pin a medal on him.


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Also, if what the article said was right, he was the last to know they were abandoning ship. He came up when he knew he could do no more. He wasn't ordered up.
> 
> Yes. If it was a war you'd pin a medal on him.


Barkesdale's actions reminded me of the engine operators on the Titanic. They stayed with the engines and rode the ship down. For all Barkesdale knew, he could have been riding the Bounty to the bottom.


----------



## smurphny

casey1999 said:


> More on the ballasting changes:
> HMS Bounty, Replica, Restoration
> 
> Does not this show vessel inspection expired Sept 30, 2012?
> USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page


So, they attached/retrofitted 65000 pounds of lead to the underside of the keel....hmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> So, they attached/retrofitted 65000 pounds of lead to the underside of the keel....hmmmmmmmmmmm.


After taking 85,000 pounds off.

Now, why in the world would you do that?

So it didnt have to pass inspection?


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> (snip)That was not the kind of accidents I was talking about or the ones that interested me, than I keep on searching and the best I could find in what regards that kind of accidents was this chart, that I have already posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paolo, not sure you realize, but that graphic is cropped to the point of being meaningless. There are two different colors used in the bard "SAR Events..." but the descriptor for both has been trimmed after the word "Events" (on the right side of the graph). There would have to be a reason for two different colors, but we cannot see what it is due to the cropping.
Also, as has been pointed out by Take5, this graph is from the Satelite service, so of course the numbers would grow as the numbers of transmitters grow. Also, we have no way of knowing how they define and "Event" (e.g. are accidental activations excluded, etc). Lastly, a large portion of the "Events" shown on the map on their web page (which you linked to), were mainland locations, very few offshore.
Minus a LOT more information, the graph is pretty meaningless.


----------



## xymotic

Whenever we have even a mildly significant weather event here in Puget Sound, the Coast Guard periodically broadcasts on 16 telling you to tune to 21 for more information.

Does anyone know if they were doing similar broadcasts in New London at the time of the departure?

And of course the NOAA Weather stations seem pretty good about forecasting a week out. I suspect they must have been broadcasting a pretty severe warning? Anybody got any further detail about what was said and when?


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Paolo, not sure you realize, but that graphic is cropped to the point of being meaningless. There are two different colors used in the bard "SAR Events..." but the descriptor for both has been trimmed after the word "Events" (on the right side of the graph). There would have to be a reason for two different colors, but we cannot see what it is due to the cropping.
> Also, as has been pointed out by Take5, this graph is from the Satelite service, so of course the numbers would grow as the numbers of transmitters grow. Also, we have no way of knowing how they define and "Event" (e.g. are accidental activations excluded, etc). Lastly, a large portion of the "Events" shown on the map on their web page (which you linked to), were mainland locations, very few offshore.
> Minus a LOT more information, the graph is pretty meaningless.


It's Paulo. Yes, I have already explained that. You have you to add the two bars even if the two epirbs were not used for the same thing. The blue one, was the 121.5, it had a smaller range and was used mostly locally (coastal). The red one was the one that was used offshore and had a global coverage (406).

The black graphic on top is independent of both types and therefore is meaningful.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> ...It should have been burned after the first movie.


I'm willing to be that the story of Brando threatening to walk off the set unless they agree to keep her afloat was pure publicity stunt.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> I'm willing to be that the story of Brando threatening to walk off the set unless they agree to keep her afloat was pure publicity stunt.


No it wasn't, actually. It was at a time that Brando was out of control. He later apologized to just about everyone on that film, the other actors, the director and the producers. He was an ass!hole and admitted it. He nearly ran the production company broke and the only way they could finish the film was to agree to his demand and build an 18 foot replica and burn that!

Brando had just been sacked by Stanly Kubrick and caused the dismissal of a great direct on Bounty... Anyway read it here

Marlon Brando - Biography

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056264/trivia

Oh! And here's an interesting bit I must not have read correctly before now....



> . The ship became dangerously heavy during filming, due to all the cameras and equipment.


----------



## smurphny

MarkofSeaLife said:


> After taking 85,000 pounds off.
> 
> Now, why in the world would you do that?
> 
> So it didnt have to pass inspection?


Maybe because this thing was Tippicanoe II. CAMERA equipment was making it unstable????? Are we getting a picture of the stability of this boat?


----------



## xymotic

smurphny said:


> Maybe because this thing was Tippicanoe II. CAMERA equipment was making it unstable????? Are we getting a picture of the stability of this boat?


Yeah but to be fair that was a major hollywood production, lots of grips and other staff and cranes and booms and dollys etc. Shooting really heavy 35mm equipment. It would have weighed quite a lot. And Brando, don't forget Brando.


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> No it wasn't, actually. It was at a time that Brando was out of control. He later apologized to just about everyone on that film, the other actors, the director and the producers. He was an ass!hole and admitted it. He nearly ran the production company broke and the only way they could finish the film was to agree to his demand and build an 18 foot replica and burn that!
> 
> Brando had just been sacked by Stanly Kubrick and caused the dismissal of a great direct on Bounty... Anyway read it here
> 
> Marlon Brando - Biography
> 
> Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) - Trivia - IMDb
> 
> Oh! And here's an interesting bit I must not have read correctly before now....


No doubt there is truth in there. My father was an entertainment industry exec and knows these antics well. I should call him and see if he knows anyone with the real story here. The bad boy figure sells and they are still doing it today, it keeps people paying attention. Absolutely nothing is as it seems or as reported in Hollywood.

His famous line about "the talent", which he would ingrain in any staff new to the industry was "they're not normal and they're not your friend". Routinely, new staff would think they knew the actor(ess) from their work and they seemed so nice, then get their a$$ handed to them by some tyrant in real life.

From first hand experience, I will affirm, what you see on TV or in a movie has absolutely zero correlation to who the actor is as a person. They do know how to act afterall. 10% may actually be nicer, the rest are unstable. Hollywood and PR firms tell whichever story they think they are advantaged by.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

At least Linsay Lohan isn't unstable.


----------



## PCP

Another one being rescued:

J*ames Blackford was rescued by the crew of the motor vessel Global Explorer, a vessel registered with the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System..

Blackford was reportedly in good condition with no medical concerns. His vessel, the Makalii, was left behind and adrift.

Watchstanders were first notified of Blackford's situation when they received a Personal Locator Beacon alert from the sailing vessel Makalii at 8 p.m. Sunday.

An HC-130 Hercules airplane crew from Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point was launched at 10 p.m. Sunday to locate the vessel after attempts to contact it were unsuccessful.

The aircrew located the dismasted sailboat at 2:30 a.m. Monday. Blackford reported the vessel had been taking on water when his vessel was dismasted and later reported the flooding stopped.

The aircrew dropped a radio and a Self-Locating Datum Marker Buoy. It was reported that Blackford had food and water aboard.*

Mariner adrift in Pacific rescued | Coast Guard News

The Makalii was about 85 miles northwest of Palmyra Atoll Sunday when it issued a distress signal. The Coast Guard launched HC-130 Hercules aircraft from Barbers Point and located the sailboat, which had lost its mast, at about 2:30 a.m. Monday. The Coast Guard crew dropped a pump, radio and marker buoy to the sailboat, which had been taking on water. But boat master James Blackford said that problem was under control.

The Global Explorer, was diverted to assist Blackford.

Mariner rescued from disabled sailboat - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Some questions:

That boat is this one, a 1968 sailing boat, the only one I can find in the name of JAMES BLACKFORD?

MAKALII - JAMES BLACKFORD - Boat, Yacht, Ship Documented Information

If so how old was that mast and rigging?

They say that the boat was not making water anymore, that Blabkford was well and had food and water and that the boat was left adrift. There was a problem with the engine? How old was that engine?

Nobody says nothing regarding the boat having a problem with the engine and I find it odd. He run out of fuel?

Somebody knows more about this?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Lots of people slag deck stepped masts, but at least when they fall off the don't rip a hole in the deck!


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Lots of people slag deck stepped masts, but at least when they fall off the don't rip a hole in the deck!


I had nothing against either system but I don't get that. Normally when a mast broke is not by the base

I have seen photo of many boats with masts that seat on the keel broken but I don't remember to see holes on the deck (look at the google images for broken mast).

Do you know of a case where that happened?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

So is the lesson learned here is that you don't take a ship that was built for a movie production and later put it into service as a passenger vessel and travel all over the world with it?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> So is the lesson learned here is that you don't take a ship that was built for a movie production and later put it into service as a passenger vessel and travel all over the world with it?


Yes, Julie. It was designed for one downwind passage and to have deck space for actors to do their thing and for camera crews to put their cameras. Then burnt for the last scene. Who wastes money on that putting in the best? No one. They put in sufficient for that job.

Blighs boat was an ex coal ship, designed to haul the biggest loads in the North Sea, most treacherous waters. That's why so many explorers used them and not other types of ships. Capt Cook used one too, the Endevour.
Remember in the days of Bligh and Cook the Pacific was as far, or further, than the Moon. They took what was considered the best.
Hollywood makes cardboard look like cement... Those sets are an allusion.









This set is from 1960 so comparable with what they were doing at the time of the Bounty shoot.
Do the helicopters really fly in Hollywood?


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> It's Paulo. Yes, I have already explained that. You have you to add the two bars even if the two epirbs were not used for the same thing. The blue one, was the 121.5, it had a smaller range and was used mostly locally (coastal). The red one was the one that was used offshore and had a global coverage (406).
> 
> The black graphic on top is independent of both types and therefore is meaningful.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, sorry for my error on your name. I did see that you (musc later) noted the two colors represent the two freq.s. But without knowing how the satellite service defines an "event" it's still meaningless, including the black datum points. You also have not addressed the LARGE percentage that are NOT at sea.


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> I had nothing against either system but I don't get that. Normally when a mast broke is not by the base
> 
> I have seen photo of many boats with masts that seat on the keel broken but I don't remember to see holes on the deck (look at the google images for broken mast).
> 
> Do you know of a case where that happened?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I can't remember ever seeing a keel stepped boat with its mast snapped off but thinking about the physics of the event, it seems possible that the mast, after losing downward restraint, could wreak havoc inside the boat if it came out of the step, with the deck as the pivot point. There would be a lot of leverage there which could do internal damage and potentially rip right through the topsides. More likely it would just snap at the deck, leaving a stub below but if loose, anything could happen. At the very least, a hole would be open to seawater into which an emergency plug could be put pretty quickly.

I plan on eventually hinging my mast step so I can raise and lower the mast without having to find a ginpole. This seems to me to be a major plus for a deck-stepped mast.


----------



## casey1999

Sal Paradise said:


> Brando was right!! Are you kidding me?? Its to his credit! How may people enjoyed that ship in the 50 odd years since then. It would have been a crime to burn that ship.
> 
> Good catch Mark, on the camera weight. Interesting...


Should have been burned.


----------



## casey1999

Can anyone provide details about the "movie ship" Bounty?
1. Would it normally motor or sail?
2. How close to windward could it sail?
3. What tactics would it use in storm conditions (motor or sail)?
4. What wind ranges could it sail the best?
5. Typically how fast would it travel under motor and sail?
Regards


----------



## JulieMor

HMS Bounty
Built 1960
Length: 180 ft (54.9 m) sparred, 120 ft (37 m) on deck
Beam: 31.6 ft (9.6 m)
Height: 111 ft (33.8 m)
Draft: 13 ft (4.0 m)
Sail area; 10,000 sq ft (929 m2)
Engines: 2 × John Deere 375 hp (280 kW) diesel engines
Cruising speed ~ 4-5 knots
Maximum speed ~10 knots
Asking price 2012: US$4.6 million

164' Benetti StaySail Schooner
Built 1986
LOA: 164 ft 0 in
Beam: 30 ft 0 in
LWL: 118 ft 0 in
Maximum Draft: 14 ft 0 in
Bridge Clearance: 132 ft 8 in
Engines:2 x Caterpillar 3412 TAPC
Cruising Speed: 11 mph
Maximum Speed: 16 mph
Asking price 2012: US$3.95 million

So which one would you buy?


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Paulo, sorry for my error on your name. I did see that you (musc later) noted the two colors represent the two freq.s. But without knowing how the satellite service defines an "event" it's still meaningless, including the black datum points. You also have not addressed the LARGE percentage that are NOT at sea.


I don't understand your point. On top of the image it is said that those statistics refers to two different frequencies. How difficult it is two see that the two colors represent the two different frequencies? the larger percentage is at sea and as you can see regarding the number of people saved that percentage is even more significant. The black graphic regards nunber of people saved and since not only the percentage of sea rescues is bigger as it is much bigger the percentage of saved people I don't understand how can you say that the black graphic means nothing.

Note that I have already said that there is no statistical results that can made us affirm with absolute certitude that the number of SAR regarding high seas is increasing or decreasing. This data just points in that direction and I only said that it is more meaningful than the overall results of CG SAR whose bigger number does nor regard the rescues of boats offshore but to hurricane rescues, dinghy coastal accidents, fishermen falling on the rocks and so one. The accident type and frequency type regarding the overall number should not be very different than the one in UK, and we have information about that.




























Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> I can't remember ever seeing a keel stepped boat with its mast snapped off but thinking about the physics of the event, it seems possible that the mast, after losing downward restraint, could wreak havoc inside the boat if it came out of the step, with the deck as the pivot point. There would be a lot of leverage there which could do internal damage and potentially rip right through the topsides. More likely it would just snap at the deck, leaving a stub below but if loose, anything could happen. At the very least, a hole would be open to seawater into which an emergency plug could be put pretty quickly.
> 
> I plan on eventually hinging my mast step so I can raise and lower the mast without having to find a ginpole. This seems to me to be a major plus for a deck-stepped mast.


Yes you have seen plenty, at least on photo on the google. All racing boats have that kind of mast and because they are the ones that put more efforts on them they are the ones that break more masts (VOR, Open 60, Class 40 all have them).

That just does not happen, I mean " it seems possible that the mast, after losing downward restraint, could wreak havoc inside the boat if it came out of the step, with the deck as the pivot point". Never heard about that. Do you?

I am not trying to piss you but fact is that when the interior design needs are not the main priority regarding the type of mast (stepped or over the keel) builders opt always for the second type. You have just to look at the typical modern cruiser boats and you will have stepped masts, you look at performance cruisers or racing boats and they have the masts over the keel.

And it is not a builders preference, take a look at Benetau that on Oceanis series have stepped masts, on the First series they have masts over the keel.

I am not saying by any means that stepped masts are dangerous not even that I would not have a boat with a stepped mast. In fact I did have one, but if I was to choose I would prefer one with a mast over the keel. They have some disadvantages over stepped masts but not in what regards mechanical characteristics, resistance or safety.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny

I can't remember ever seeing a keel stepped boat *with its mast snapped off* ...


----------



## Brewgyver

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Yes, Julie. It was designed for one downwind passage and to have deck space for actors to do their thing and for camera crews to put their cameras. Then burnt for the last scene. Who wastes money on that putting in the best? No one. They put in sufficient for that job.
> 
> Blighs boat was an ex coal ship, designed to haul the biggest loads in the North Sea, most treacherous waters. That's why so many explorers used them and not other types of ships. Capt Cook used one too, the Endevour.
> Remember in the days of Bligh and Cook the Pacific was as far, or further, than the Moon. They took what was considered the best.
> Hollywood makes cardboard look like cement... Those sets are an allusion.
> 
> (image snipped in quote for folks on slow connections)


Mark, guessing you mean illusion, facade is a better term. Anyway, HMS Bounty was hardly EITHER of those. I have seen film shot by MGM during the building of the boat. I have not been able to locate it online, but did find this video on Turner Classic Movies site:
Tour-of-the-Bounty-1962-Original-Movie-Promo-.html
The video only covers her stops from Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and San Francisco. In just those fours stops close to a half million people toured her. That doesn't bespeak a fragile movie prop.

You state "They put in sufficient for that job" but you offer absolutely nothing to back that up that opinion.

Here's a contrasting opinion, that of former Bounty owner Robert Hansen:


> While Mr. Hansen understandably takes a modest amount of credit for Bounty's continued existence, he offers thanks to a special group of those who preceded him. "The only reason Bounty is here today is because those craftsmen (in 1960) built her to be an ocean-bearing vessel," he states emphatically.
> 
> "No one is building ships like this anymore," he continues. "To construct this today, it would probably cost $10 million (USD) to do it...maybe more. And that's if you could find a yard that would do it at all.


It's just not fair to dismiss it as nothing more than a prop.


----------



## PCP

smurphny said:


> I can't remember ever seeing a keel stepped boat *with its mast snapped off* ...


Sorry mate, give it a discount to my English. I agree that it is not likely to happen, in fact I did never saw it either.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Brewgyver said:


> Mark, guessing you mean illusion, facade is a better term. Anyway, HMS Bounty was hardly EITHER of those.


I meant illusion.
Hollywood uses illusions. The shop front in the photo is a facade, but the helicopter could be a quarter size model placed closer to the camera... "Trick photography".

I respect your research and yours is a good post.

But that ship would have been built to give the illusions needed for the film.... Deck space for the actors and the camera crews.
And the below decks didnt make money nor would ever be considered to be film able as the interiors would have been done on sets.

It may have been to many people eyes an ocean going ship but, it may seem strang, by Hollywood are a bunch of penny punchers, listen to the producer talking to the naval architect: 
three masts! 
But to hove to nicely in a storm, it needs.... 
Bull! I want three masts and there's no storm scene! And the forestry thingy needs to come back here so Brando can slide down it. Better reinforce it!

But we will never know quite how well it was constructed... The Captain obviously thought it was tough...



> Biography - Captain Robin Walbridge
> 
> According to Captain Robin Walbridge, Bounty has no boundaries. As her captain, he is well known for his ability and desire to take Bounty to places that no ship has gone before.


http://www.tallshipbounty.org/the-ship/RobinWalbridge.php

Some of the things he said may have been facade... Or illusion... Or worse, delusion.


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> Mark, guessing you mean illusion, facade is a better term. Anyway, HMS Bounty was hardly EITHER of those. I have seen film shot by MGM during the building of the boat. I have not been able to locate it online, but did find this video on Turner Classic Movies site:
> Tour-of-the-Bounty-1962-Original-Movie-Promo-.html
> The video only covers her stops from Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and San Francisco. In just those fours stops close to a half million people toured her. That doesn't bespeak a fragile movie prop.
> 
> You state "They put in sufficient for that job" but you offer absolutely nothing to back that up that opinion.
> 
> Here's a contrasting opinion, that of former Bounty owner Robert Hansen:
> 
> While Mr. Hansen understandably takes a modest amount of credit for Bounty's continued existence, he offers thanks to a special group of those who preceded him. "The only reason Bounty is here today is because those craftsmen (in 1960) built her to be an ocean-bearing vessel," he states emphatically.
> 
> It's just not fair to dismiss it as nothing more than a prop.


It was a movie prop, and now a prop at the bottom of the ocean. The ship was not built to sail, it was built to hold movie equipment and crew. And apparently recently the ballast was changed to even accomadate more passagers. The ship was not designed to the original Bounty specification in any way, the dimensions were much different.

Give me the specs of the "movie ship" Bounty;
1. Would she sail or motor on passages?
2. What were here storm tatics?
3. How close to the wind could she sail?


----------



## xymotic

I agree it almost doesn't matter how well it was built. The design specification was based on how it would look, not how it would float or sail.

Can we make it bigger to allow a camera dolly? "sure, OK"

THere was not a lot of calculation put in to righting moment and sail area or top speed, why would there be? And we do know that it was not built to the normal standard of the day for a ship of that type, the stringers were pretty far apart, etc. Whether or not it was 'strong enough' seems kinda irrelevant to me.


----------



## Brewgyver

JonEisberg said:


> (snippage)
> Well, people learning to first sail aboard more sensibly sized boats might be a start...
> 
> Among the boats I delivered this year were a Gozzard 44, and a Cabo Rico 42, to new owners... In each case, they were the FIRST boat - _of any size or kind_ - that either one had ever owned...
> 
> On the CR, I could hardly see around the plotter... (grin)
> (Image snipped for those on 1200 baud dial up  )


Jon, that seems like a really good point. Since we're waiting, may I interrupt to ask something? I'm on my first _sail_ boat (30' Catalina), and when I was shopping for it I wondered if I was pushing the edge of _too big_. I had found a good deal on a 25, but almost had a concussion trying to stand up in the cabin. So then it was between a 27 and 30. I have since been told by a couple of my saltier dockmates that the 30 was a good choice. I would value your opinion, along with the other more experienced posters here. TIA.


----------



## therapy23

Concussions suck.
Stay with having room to stand without injury.


----------



## chef2sail

30 Cat is a good boat. Is it a tall rig?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sal Paradise said:


> Do you really know that? I'm asking because I really would like to know. I read that it was built by a reputable ship building company.
> 
> .


It was. But the company had not built a sailing ship for 80 years!


----------



## casey1999

Found this vid, it answers some of my questions:

From comments on video:
"Sailing the Bounty II from Maine to Puerto Rico. In this video we're furling the fore-course sail because it's ripped up at one of the seams. *We didn't get to finish because the fore-topmast snapped above us while we were aloft. You can see it hanging in the last few seconds*. "

"We did do a lot of "motor sailing" to save time but when there's enough wind the engines don't really help much.﻿ *I think in this video we weren't﻿ using them, except maybe to run the generators*."

"And sorry, I don't remember how fast we were going but this isn't a﻿ particularly fast boat. I think 6 knots was about average but given these conditions we might've been going faster"


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> Found this vid, it answers some of my questions:....


Cool vid, but makes me laugh to think about people that say my cockpit is way too big to have the lines close enough on a blue water passage. I may keep this handy. 

Also, seeing a modern inflatable on the deck, just seemed wrong. Whatever salty credit was due for climbing the rigging, was negated in my book.


----------



## casey1999

Compared the Bounty video I just posted to this tall ship and let me know how you think they compare. Which would you rather sail on in a gale. What is the better designed ship? Which ship is designed to cross oceans safely?

Here are spec for the Soren:
http://sorenlarsen.co.nz/specifications.html


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

casey1999 said:


> Found this vid, it answers some of my questions:


Well there's a job you can shove up your bum.

The guy with he camera took 3:45 to get up to the yards. He should have been whipped!

Great vision on those Hero cameras.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

They did have the sails up in the hurricane. They had to reef them, that took courage going aloft.


----------



## PCP

I know how a boat like that is sailed (I like tall ships) and that's why I have said that sailing a boat like this in stormy conditions is not a thing for amateurs but for a very athletic and qualified crew and not a small one. For stormy conditions I don't mean a hurricane.

I really think you guys are exaggerating in what regards the sailing potential of the boat and in what regards boat condition and design. The boat was designed according to plans and made bigger. I bet that those alterations were made by a qualified NA. That alteration of ballast don't seem to me to have a great importance in what regards boat seaworthiness. It was projected by a NA and was designed to give the same RM that the boat had before. The alteration on the water line was not significant.

The boat was completely renovated few years ago and nothing remained from the original boat in what regards hull and rigs. On the shipyard where the boat was repaired recently, the same that made in the last years all the boat renew work, they said that the boat was in good condition.

What seems wrong to me was not properly the boat but the wiring we saw on the photos, the condition of the Generators (that they did not review on this maintenance) and the nonexistence of independent water pumps, namely diesel driven ones. That has special importance in a boat that the shipyard acknowledges that leaked. Some leaking can be normal on a wooden ship of that size but that only make more necessary to have a very good pumping system with an independent back up system and of course, clean bilges not to clog the pumps.

This is a XVIII century designed ship, that has the performance of a boat of that time and requires an athletic expert professional crew to be sailed in anything less than fair weather. Not even with a top crew a XVIII century captain would have sailed this ship to the proximity of an hurricane, if he could have avoided that.

Regarding the maintenance of the boat and its condition:

*Quote:

BRIDGEWATER - The replica of HMS Bounty returned to the water after a month of scheduled repairs just one week before it set sail from Connecticut on Capt. Robin Walbridge's birthday last Thursday.
...
Eric Graves, president of the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in Maine, said his yard completed about four weeks of routine maintenance on the vessel. The yard has also carried out two major refits of the ship over the past 10 years,

The work that was just completed included scraping and painting the bottom of the vessel, refinishing some interior woodwork and making three new spars.
.....
No planks needed to be replaced on the bottom part of the ship, but there was some "very minor" planking to do at the top of the hull, he said.
....
Graves said it was not included on the work order for his yard to check the generators, but he said the Bounty's maintenance crew checked them and there were no problems.

There have also been reports that the ship's hull leaked. Graves said while the shipyard did some caulking, it was "very minor; everything looked pretty good," and there was no concern of excessive leaking.

...Boothbay Harbor Shipyard built a new hull in 2002, including replacing all the bottom planking, the rudder and 95 per cent of all the frames.
...
A yacht brokerage firm also said the ship's John Deere engines were new in 2004 and that one of the 35-kilowatt John Deere generators was new in 2007 and the other was rebuilt that year.

The square sails and standing rigging were replaced at a boatyard in Alabama in 2005. In 2006, the Boothbay yard replaced much of the boat from the waterline up, including the ribs, the frames, bulwarks and planks on the deck. The interior was also changed, with four cabins and a new galley added.
...*

Shipyard: Months of repairs on Bounty rang no alarms | The Chronicle Herald


----------



## JonEisberg

Brewgyver said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> (snippage)
> Well, people learning to first sail aboard more sensibly sized boats might be a start...
> 
> Among the boats I delivered this year were a Gozzard 44, and a Cabo Rico 42, to new owners... In each case, they were the FIRST boat - of any size or kind - that either one had ever owned...
> 
> On the CR, I could hardly see around the plotter... (grin)
> (Image snipped for those on 1200 baud dial up )
> 
> 
> 
> Jon, that seems like a really good point. Since we're waiting, may I interrupt to ask something? I'm on my first _sail_ boat (30' Catalina), and when I was shopping for it I wondered if I was pushing the edge of _too big_. I had found a good deal on a 25, but almost had a concussion trying to stand up in the cabin. So then it was between a 27 and 30. I have since been told by a couple of my saltier dockmates that the 30 was a good choice. I would value your opinion, along with the other more experienced posters here. TIA.
Click to expand...

I've always reckoned 30' is at or near the upper limit of a reasonable size boat to learn to sail on... I'm sure you've made a good choice...

The reason larger boats are not as effective as learning platforms, is the difficulty for a beginning sailor to _feel the difference any of his inputs make_, whether it be modest steering adjustments, slight trim adjustments, whatever... That's why smaller dinghies or keelboats are so much more effective as learning tools, the feedback is instantaneous, and usually much more apparent... I just don't see how one can really learn much about sailing from a 44-footer with hydraulic steering, or certainly not very quickly, at any rate...

I suspect that's one of the reasons I see so many cruisers today motoring everywhere... So many started out big from the get-go, they never experienced that feel a small boat sailing in the groove, finding that sweet spot with one hand on the tiller, the mainsheet in the other, and the subtle interplay that makes sailing such a pleasure...

Good luck, you'll do just fine with your Catalina... One suggestion I'd make, try to do some racing as crew at every opportunity, you'll learn lots in a jiffy that way...


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> I know how a boat like that is sailed (I like tall ships) and that's why I have said that sailing a boat like this in stormy conditions is not a thing for amateurs but for a very athletic and qualified crew and not a small one. For stormy conditions I don't mean a hurricane.
> 
> I really think you guys are exaggerating in what regards the sailing potential of the boat and in what regards boat condition and design. The boat was designed according to plans and made bigger. I bet that those alterations were made by a qualified NA. That alteration of ballast don't seem to me to have a great importance in what regards boat seaworthiness. It was projected by a NA and was designed to give the same RM that the boat had before. The alteration on the water line was not significant.
> 
> The boat was completely renovated few years ago and nothing remained from the original boat in what regards hull and rigs. On the shipyard where the boat was repaired recently, the same that made in the last years all the boat renew work, they said that the boat was in good condition.
> 
> What seems wrong to me was not properly the boat but the wiring we saw on the photos, the condition of the Generators (that they did not review on this maintenance) and the nonexistence of independent water pumps, namely diesel driven ones. That has special importance in a boat that the shipyard acknowledges that leaked. Some leaking can be normal on a wooden ship of that size but that only make more necessary to have a very good pumping system with an independent back up system and of course, clean bilges not to clog the pumps.
> 
> This is a XVIII century designed ship, that has the performance of a boat of that time and requires an athletic expert professional crew to be sailed in anything less than fair weather. Not even with a top crew a XVIII century captain would have sailed this ship to the proximity of an hurricane, if he could have avoided that.
> 
> Regarding the maintenance of the boat and its condition:
> 
> *Quote:
> 
> BRIDGEWATER - The replica of HMS Bounty returned to the water after a month of scheduled repairs just one week before it set sail from Connecticut on Capt. Robin Walbridge's birthday last Thursday.
> ...
> Eric Graves, president of the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in Maine, said his yard completed about four weeks of routine maintenance on the vessel. The yard has also carried out two major refits of the ship over the past 10 years,
> 
> The work that was just completed included scraping and painting the bottom of the vessel, refinishing some interior woodwork and making three new spars.
> .....
> No planks needed to be replaced on the bottom part of the ship, but there was some "very minor" planking to do at the top of the hull, he said.
> ....
> Graves said it was not included on the work order for his yard to check the generators, but he said the Bounty's maintenance crew checked them and there were no problems.
> 
> There have also been reports that the ship's hull leaked. Graves said while the shipyard did some caulking, it was "very minor; everything looked pretty good," and there was no concern of excessive leaking.
> 
> ...Boothbay Harbor Shipyard built a new hull in 2002, including replacing all the bottom planking, the rudder and 95 per cent of all the frames.
> ...
> A yacht brokerage firm also said the ship's John Deere engines were new in 2004 and that one of the 35-kilowatt John Deere generators was new in 2007 and the other was rebuilt that year.
> 
> The square sails and standing rigging were replaced at a boatyard in Alabama in 2005. In 2006, the Boothbay yard replaced much of the boat from the waterline up, including the ribs, the frames, bulwarks and planks on the deck. The interior was also changed, with four cabins and a new galley added.
> ...*
> 
> Shipyard: Months of repairs on Bounty rang no alarms | The Chronicle Herald


*The video I posted was taken Dec 2010 (2 years ago). *This was after all of the work was done that you post above. This is from the poster of the video:
Uploaded by Marc Castells on Dec 15, 2010

"Sailing the Bounty II from Maine to Puerto Rico. In this video we're furling the fore-course sail because it's ripped up at one of the seams. We didn't get to finish because the fore-topmast snapped above us while we were aloft. You can see it hanging in the last few seconds. The royal yard is sitting on top of the t'gallant yard. I had to trim this video by 3 min for it to fit on youtube so if you actually watch it all the way through there will be some parts that skip. And again, the camera is tilted up a bit so you can't see what I'm doing with my hands but it makes for some cool shots of the bow while we're sailing."

If you look at the video at the very end, you will see the top mast broken and hanging, along with a lot of standing/running rigging. Lucky no one was injured. You wonder how the compelted the sail furl (as they state they did no finish because the top mast broke). In the video a lot of the rigging on the yard arm looks rusty (at the bolt connections). Imagine if the yard arm breaks loose with crew on it. If you pull up the video on youtube (not by watching on the posting), you will see all the interesting comments. Seems to me the "movie ship" Bounty was falling apart 2 years ago.

Search this on you tube to get the comments:
Furling fore-course sail on HMS Bounty and broken topmast


----------



## casey1999

This is another video from the same youtube poster as I posted a couple posts ago. This was taken Dec 2010 on the same trip Maine to PR. The video is describe as "Ship check while hove to":


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

casey1999 said:


> . I had to trim this video by 3 min for it to fit on youtube


He should have trimmed it by another 7 minutes to make it 3 minutes long. Great video quality but boring as bats piss/
if you have a video camera just remember that the story can be told in 3 or 4 minutes, whatever the story is.

Leaving dock blowing kiss to mum / getting underway / exiting harbour 3 minutes
Climbing the mast and playing with =the sail is one story. 3 mins
In the Galley preparing dinner and serving it / crew eating 3 minutes
Sleeping arrangement 3 mins
Being on watch 3 mins incl dolphin footage 
some drama/emergency etc 3 mins
what the engine room does 3 mins
arriving home/ waving good buy to ship 3 mins

And thats your whole TV commercial half hour program. thats what people are used to watching.

if you are really good you can do it in 60 second segments.

of all my videos on Youtube onely one is 4;15 the rest are shorter... some only just above 1 minute. even then some may think they are boring!

So if you buy a Hero camera EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Casey Edit the previous posters post!


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> He should have trimmed it by another 7 minutes to make it 3 minutes long. Great video quality but boring as bats piss/
> if you have a video camera just remember that the story can be told in 3 or 4 minutes, whatever the story is.
> 
> Leaving dock blowing kiss to mum / getting underway / exiting harbour 3 minutes
> Climbing the mast and playing with =the sail is one story. 3 mins
> In the Galley preparing dinner and serving it / crew eating 3 minutes
> Sleeping arrangement 3 mins
> Being on watch 3 mins incl dolphin footage
> some drama/emergency etc 3 mins
> what the engine room does 3 mins
> arriving home/ waving good buy to ship 3 mins
> 
> And thats your whole TV commercial half hour program. thats what people are used to watching.
> 
> if you are really good you can do it in 60 second segments.
> 
> of all my videos on Youtube onely one is 4;15 the rest are shorter... some only just above 1 minute. even then some may think they are boring!
> 
> So if you buy a Hero camera EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> And Casey Edit the previous posters post!


Mark,
Went to your web site looking for your videos, but could not find. There were however a lot of pics of beuatiful people and not so much of actual sailing. How about some more pics of sailing in some extreme conditions. Must have had a lot on a circumnavigation.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> *The video I posted was taken Dec 2010 (2 years ago). *This was after all of the work was done that you post above. This is from the poster of the video:
> Uploaded by Marc Castells on Dec 15, 2010
> 
> "Sailing the Bounty II from Maine to Puerto Rico. In this video we're furling the fore-course sail because it's ripped up at one of the seams. We didn't get to finish because the fore-topmast snapped above us while we were aloft. You can see it hanging in the last few seconds. The royal yard is sitting on top of the t'gallant yard. I had to trim this video by 3 min for it to fit on youtube so if you actually watch it all the way through there will be some parts that skip. And again, the camera is tilted up a bit so you can't see what I'm doing with my hands but it makes for some cool shots of the bow while we're sailing."
> 
> If you look at the video at the very end, you will see the top mast broken and hanging, along with a lot of standing/running rigging. Lucky no one was injured. You wonder how the compelted the sail furl (as they state they did no finish because the top mast broke). In the video a lot of the rigging on the yard arm looks rusty (at the bolt connections). Imagine if the yard arm breaks loose with crew on it. If you pull up the video on youtube (not by watching on the posting), you will see all the interesting comments. Seems to me the "movie ship" Bounty was falling apart 2 years ago.
> 
> Search this on you tube to get the comments:
> Furling fore-course sail on HMS Bounty and broken topmast


Casey, these boats were like that, they break a lot and need a lot of maintenance, specially in what regards smaller spars. That is why on the original Bounty crew (as in any other boat of that time) a carpenter and two helping hands (one of them qualified) were part of the crew. Some breakage was to be expected in any voyage.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Casey, these boats were like that, they break a lot and need a lot of maintenance, specially in what regards smaller spars. That is why on the original Bounty crew (as in any other boat of that time) a carpenter and two helping hands (one of them qualified) were part of the crew. Some breakage was to be expected in any voyage.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Realize that, but both the below deck and the sailing video show the ship in my opinion very poor condition. I have sailed on sqaure riggers and have climbed square rigger mast to furl and unfurl sails. I would be very nervous climbing the mast of the Bounty in the condition it is shown in the video.

The below deck video shows the ship to be a mess. Look at the engine room, parts all over the place, parts are loose and can be tossed around. Tools boxes with loose lids. The engine room looks like a fire hazard. Even the nav station looks to be a mess.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Mark,
> Went to your web site looking for your videos, but could not find. There were however a lot of pics of beuatiful people and not so much of actual sailing. How about some more pics of sailing in some extreme conditions. Must have had a lot on a circumnavigation.


Hum, I kind of of have the same problem in what regards to take photos with the boat at speed or in demanding occasions. On those occasions I am too occupied with the boat and have nobody else to take photos

If I leave the boat with my wife to pick a photo she starts to scream at me.
She is not afraid if I am at the wheel but she refuses to take the boat on demanding conditions and get scared of if I put the boat in auto-pilot...so, I have not photos at speed or with bad weather.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Hum, I kind of of have the same problem in what regards to take photos with the boat at speed or in demanding occasions. On those occasions I am too occupied with the boat and have nobody else to take photos
> 
> If I leave the boat with my wife to pick a photo she starts to scream at me.
> She is not afraid if I am at the wheel but she refuses to take the boat on demanding conditions and get scared of if I put the boat in auto-pilot...so, I have not photos at speed or with bad weather.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I am thinking mount a waterproof camera so that all you need to do is push a button when you want to start making those "action" videos.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I am thinking mount a waterproof camera so that all you need to do is push a button when you want to start making those "action" videos.


Yes, that's the way to do it


----------



## Brewgyver

chef2sail said:


> Yes, but that is left up to the states indigually and there are many variations. Some like Alaska, Montana, Texas....there is little real inspection except brakes. Some like Pa, MD California it is more extenisve (snippage)


Paulo and Dave, I don't know about other states, because I've only owned cars here in California, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that California does NOT have ANY mandatory inspections for private cars, light trucks or motorcycles, other than for emissions (Smog Check). As far as commercial vehicles go, large trucks have to stop at Calilfornia Highway Patrol truck inspection stations, but even that is usually a simple weigh-in, not an operational inspection.


----------



## PCP

Guess that are not only in pleasure boats that Europe has a different policy in what regards inspections. Here, and in all EC, cars have mandatory inspections regarding safety on the road.

If I remember right, a new car does not have inspections for 3 of four years, after that it has a mandatory inspection every year. a inspection is not expensive, 25 euros or so and it takes only half an hour. It is made on local inspection centers that are certified for that, very well equipped and everything is inspected in several complicated machines: Brakes, suspension, direction, structure, rust, lights, emissions, tires and some more things I have probably forget. If the car fails in anything you have a given period of time to fix it, otherwise the car will not get a licence to circulate.

If the police get's you on the road with a car without a valid inspection title you pay a huge fine and you have a time for getting it approved on a inspection other wise the car will be put out of service.

With boats it is much the same thing, except that it is less industrialized, I mean, the inspection.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

casey1999 said:


> . How about some more pics of sailing in some extreme conditions. Must have had a lot on a circumnavigation.


One doesn't have extreme conditions when one sails in the correct season!

That's why I am alive and certain captain is dead.






3 minutes





2:40 minutes





4 minutes


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> One doesn't have extreme conditions when one sails in the correct season!


Then your not really sailing. You do not have to die to sail in extreme conditions. Proper boat, equipment, and experience.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Realize that, but both the below deck and the sailing video show the ship in my opinion very poor condition. I have sailed on sqaure riggers and have climbed square rigger mast to furl and unfurl sails. I would be very nervous climbing the mast of the Bounty in the condition it is shown in the video.
> 
> The below deck video shows the ship to be a mess. Look at the engine room, parts all over the place, parts are loose and can be tossed around. Tools boxes with loose lids. The engine room looks like a fire hazard. Even the nav station looks to be a mess.


I had saw the movie in HD and understood what you mean. In fact there are ropes that have seen better days and should have been changed. Regarding the machine room, well, I had already suspected that by those photos that were posted. Yes, even if the guy with the Camera is pointing all around the global picture is very poor. Pity that he does not show with detail the electric installation and pumps, but given the global picture and the photos I have seen, that boat would not have passed in any serious inspection.

I guess that it was that part and not the hull or the structure that was in worse shape. It was not by accident that the guy from the shipyard says that the boat was sound (the hull, structure and rig) but says that he had not done any revision in what regards the engines or generators.

I was also impressed by the fact that with relatively stormy weather the guys and girls up on the rig doesn't seem to know what they are doing, with the exception of an older guy that alone have done more than all the other put together. I guess that with that weather the ones up there should have been the more able crewmen that were available so...I was really impressed with the quality,experience and efficiency of their most able crewmen 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> I don't understand your point. On top of the image it is said that those statistics refers to two different frequencies. How difficult it is two see that the two colors represent the two different frequencies? the larger percentage is at sea and as you can see regarding the number of people saved that percentage is even more significant. The black graphic regards nunber of people saved and since not only the percentage of sea rescues is bigger as it is much bigger the percentage of saved people I don't understand how can you say that the black graphic means nothing.


Paulo, I'm going to say it ONE more time. Without defining exactly how this BUSINESS defines the terms used in the graphics you posted, they are of little probative value.

The graphic uses the word "rescue" but we don't know what circumstances they are using to qualify an "SAR Event" as a rescue. Hell, we don't even know what circumstances constitute an "SAR Event". It is quite possible, even LIKELY, that they are counting every activation of a transmitter as an "SAR Event."

Now we can add to that issue the fact that you have actually CHANGED the words used. You used the word "saved" many times. The graphic doesn't use that word. "Save" has very specific implications.


----------



## GeorgeB

Here is a little video of our Atlantic crossing in 2011. The wide-angle lens in the Go Pro camera tends to flatten out the waves a lot. And ditto on not having any really good storm footage as you tend to concentrate on sailing the boat during those times and not channeling your inner Spielberg.


----------



## Brewgyver

JonEisberg said:


> Good luck, you'll do just fine with your Catalina... One suggestion I'd make, try to do some racing as crew at every opportunity, you'll learn lots in a jiffy that way...


Jon and others, thanks for the reply, pardon the minor thread hijack. I absolutely get what you mean about feeling the response. Crewing in some local races is a great idea, now just to find the time. I'm hoping to take a week or two next year for some formal schooling. And I hope to crew with my baby sister on her 30' in next year's Baja HaHa.
Thanks again!


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Paulo, I'm going to say it ONE more time. Without defining exactly how this BUSINESS defines the terms used in the graphics you posted, they are of little probative value.
> 
> The graphic uses the word "rescue" but we don't know what circumstances they are using to qualify an "SAR Event" as a rescue. Hell, we don't even know what circumstances constitute an "SAR Event". It is quite possible, even LIKELY, that they are counting every activation of a transmitter as an "SAR Event."
> 
> Now we can add to that issue the fact that you have actually CHANGED the words used. You used the word "saved" many times. The graphic doesn't use that word. "Save" has very specific implications.


This is not simply a SAR event, like the ones from the Coast guard. This is a SAR event that have taken place after an epirb activation. Obviously that they don't count false alarms.

Epirbs are used on the ground, by airplanes and by boats but not obviously by dinghies, beach boats, swimmers or victims of hurricanes in flooding areas. I have showed you Graphics that show that the bigger number of SAR deployed by an Epirp signal is due to boats and ships.

The number of people saved since 10 years ago has been on the rise with a very particular emphasis on what regards boats and ships. This can be due to a larger use of Epirb or because there are just more maritime offshore accidents.

I don't think that on the last 5 years the number of boats with Epirbs has been rising that much and so I think that points to a bigger number of offshore boat accidents but to be sure I would have to know if there are now more boats offshore with Epirbs than 5 years ago.

I have said, and I say again that I didn't saw any reliable data that can give us a definitive answer. I consider this one the best data that have been posted here even if it is inconclusive and give us just some hints.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Bountydaughter

PCP said:


> This was posted in another thread as if there was not already enought threads about the Bounty. I guess it belongs here. Comments please
> 
> *December 1, 2012
> 
> AN OPEN LETTER
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> It has been a month now since the USCG stopped looking for you. Claudene is dead and BOUNTY, like you, is lost at sea as a result of your decision to sail directly towards Hurricane Sandy. Your action reminds me of the movie "Hunt for Red October". I am thinking of that captain of the submarine hunting the other submarine. The captain on the hunt for the fleeing sub threw all caution away in his hunting effort. Why did you throw all caution away by navigating for a close pass of Hurricane Sandy? I was so surprised to discover that BOUNTY was at sea near Cape Hatteras and close to Hurricane Sandy Sunday night October 28th! That decision of yours was reckless in the extreme!
> 
> The outcome of your action makes you the only captain of the current crop of long experienced American maritime licensed sailing vessel masters' actually willing to voyage anywhere near a hurricane! Did you not remember the fate of the FANTOME? Like BOUNTY she was a slow, less than 10 knot capable vessel under engine power. Not fast enough to run out of range of the reach of Hurricane Mitch. Additionally the master of FANTOME had too much confidence in hurricane forecasting accuracy. Mitch made an unexpected left turn after consistent movement westward before slowing down to near stopped about the time FANTOME made her run eastward from Belize trying to escape Mitch. A stationary hurricane is nearly impossible to predict future motion. To the best of anyone's knowledge (FANTOME was lost with all hands) Mitch ran right over her. You, on the other hand, maneuvered directly toward a very accurately forecast and steadily moving Hurricane Sandy with a slow moving vessel of wood construction, FANTOME was of metal. Also, BOUNTY is quite a bit smaller than FANTOME. Still you aimed all but directly at Sandy. That was reckless my friend! Was it wise or prudent to set off into the teeth of Sandy in BOUNTY? Did it make any sense at all? Virtually all of your professional friends and colleagues back here do not think so, not at all.
> 
> You told everyone you were going east around Sandy. But you did not even try to do so. Your track line indicates unequivocally a trail all but directly toward Sandy. When I heard east around was the strategy I immediately wondered about it. I am not the only one to know that BOUNTY is not highly powered with her engines. You yourself are publicly recorded as saying BOUNTY is under powered. Looking at weather conditions east of Long Island for Friday October 26 it is clear there were northeast winds. They were not strong winds...near 5-10 knots at the buoy 50 miles SE of Nantucket with a slight sea of between 1-2 feet. But windage of any sailing vessel under auxiliary power is significant. A full-rigged ship has a whole lot more windage. 5 knots of boat speed into 10 knots of wind means a lot of drag slowing BOUNTY down...maybe with the underpowered engines BOUNTY could barely reach 5 knots of boat speed? Saturday Oct. 27 at the buoy wind had increased to around 15 knots NExE and sea had increased to around 3-4 feet. With staysails set and motor-sailing what would BOUNTY have been steering? Maybe something south of true East? What kind of speed would BOUNTY have made? On Sunday Oct. 28 wind had jumped to 30-35 knots NExE and the sea was up around 12 feet and building. Considering those big bluff bows of BOUNTY and massive windage in her rigging you probably decided to abandon the "go east around Sandy" strategy long before even trying it out because of the increasingly slow progress BOUNTY would eventually be making with ever increasing winds and swell from the northeast plus the knowledge the wind would eventually veer to east and on toward southeast as Sandy moved north forcing BOUNTY to turn southward and even southwestward and that would be back toward Sandy. You may also have still been doubtful of Sandy actually turning NW. Considering Sandy did go toward land rather than toward sea, had you tried to go eastward as you originally intended with any kind of will, BOUNTY might have wound up pretty far away from Sandy's center, but the storm was so big you might actually have met conditions somewhat similar to what you actually met by heading straight toward Sandy. Having to abandon BOUNTY well out to the eastward would likely have been at a location somewhat further away from rescue assets than you actually were. So, ironically, it may actually have been fortunate for your crew that you did not try to go eastward.
> 
> An even more distressing puzzle is brought forth by BOUNTY's steady movement directly at Sandy after you had abandoned your original notion of going east around. Friday Oct. 26 forecasting confirmed an even higher confidence Hurricane Sandy would turn left after some more time going north. But BOUNTY continued straight southward! Why did you not turn for New York Harbor? The light northeast flow I describe above was occurring all the way down past the mouth of the Delaware Bay. You could have gone way up the Hudson River. With the NE'rly wind behind BOUNTY is it likely speed might have been more than 5 knots on her way to New York? Alternatively, by my calculation, at 5 knots BOUNTY could have diverted toward Delaware Bay and gone up that bay and through the C & D Canal by late Saturday night. Wind in the Upper Chesapeake Bay Saturday night was light and variable with a forecast to increase from the NE overnight into Sunday before backing toward the north and continuing to increase overnight Sunday into Monday. At midnight Saturday northeast wind strength in Baltimore Harbor was actually 10 knots. Late Sunday wind had backed to north and increased to near 20 knots. If BOUNTY were in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore by early Sunday she would have been sheltered from wind by all of those tall city buildings that ring the north side of the Inner Harbor. There would have been no sea action. Harbor water levels did indeed increase above normal, but only by 3-4 feet. BOUNTY would not have floated over any dock. Even if she had, the damage would unlikely be the loss of the ship and certainly not the loss of any life!
> 
> So what was it you were thinking by not diverting toward shelter once you knew about the confirmed forecasting that not only continued to indicate Sandy going ashore in New Jersey but also Sandy would likely be the largest hurricane in some time? No slow boat was going to be speedy enough to get out of Sandy's long reach from where BOUNTY was on Friday. Certainly resurrecting the "east around" strategy would be impossible now that the distance to Sandy had reduced bringing with the reduced distance soon to increase NE'rly winds, soon to start a steady veer through East. But a slow boat would have had time to get inshore from where BOUNTY was on Friday before Sandy's strength was felt. Why did you persist in steering BOUNTY directly toward Sandy? Was it confidence in her physical strength after all of the rebuilding over the last several years? If that was the case, that is recklessly cavalier to the extreme! Not even the big powerful tug and barge combinations that regularly ply the East Coast were fooling around with facing Sandy! But you were. I find myself wondering again&#8230;What were you thinking?
> 
> On top of this, you told folks during the south bound journey directly toward Sandy that it was safer to be at sea. Hmmm...an interesting & vague notion that. It is true the US Navy in Norfolk goes to sea ahead of an approaching hurricane. But they are high endurance (high speed) ships with mariners trained and contracted to go in the way of danger, not young keen professionals & volunteers on an harbor attractions' vessel!
> 
> I understand there might be two reasons for sending a navy fleet out. One is their wind resistance at the dock&#8230;and probably also concern for extra high water from storm surge. That wind resistance could play great havoc keeping the ships tied to the dock. Maybe wreck the pier by the pressure against the dock. Extra high water causes all kinds of concerns. The other reason is our nation's security. A navy bottled up in port for a hurricane is not a navy able to provide for national defense. Meanwhile those navy ships have a lot of speed they are capable of. And they do not hang around at sea in the path of a hurricane. They keep going out to sea to get away from the rough seas that will be created by the approaching hurricane. Making 20 knots means they could be 480 nautical miles to the eastward in 24 hours. Something not possible with a smaller slow boat that departed closely ahead of Sandy with the idea of protecting itself from dock damage on the premise it would be safer instead to experience big seas as well big winds creating them. Now that is just plain illogical thinking! With a choice between suffering strong wind by being inshore while avoiding big seas verses being at sea with both big seas and strong winds you should have diverted Friday as soon as you got the updated weather forecasting confirming Sandy was going ashore in New Jersey.
> 
> Yeah, you were a reckless man Robin. I would not have continued to proceed as you did. Frankly, I do not know anyone with a lot of experience in large, slow (still faster than BOUNTY), strong, steel motor vessels like the powerful tug & barge combinations we see plying the East Coast would have considered heading toward a hurricane like you did with Sandy&#8230;not only forecast as going ashore rather than turning towards sea&#8230;but also described as a "storm of the century". Those tug & barge operators would seek shelter inshore or not proceed to sea at all. I also do not know any sailing vessel masters that would head toward a hurricane as you did with hopes of negotiating a pass like two vessels meeting head-on. The tug & barge industry has a lot of reason to stay on schedule. Lots of money at stake with timely delivery. But it is even more money if there is significant damage from big seas. Plus, if the cargo is chemical or oil there is the cost and criminal consequences of a polluting spill. I cannot imagine there was any reason existing that would force BOUNTY to directly approach a hurricane. Loss of BOUNTY is so permanent. No more voyages after losing the ship&#8230;don't you know!
> 
> But the loss of life is the most tragic. You not only lost your own, you lost that of Claudene's. Hell man, the BOUNTY can be replaced. But why ever risk loss when it is so much more important not to risk a crew member's life? Having BOUNTY remain in port, or seek port when it became evident Sandy was not going to turn eastward as most often hurricanes do, might have meant damage to BOUNTY, but unlikely any loss of life. If you found no dock willing to accommodate BOUNTY up the Delaware or in the Chesapeake Bay, put her in the mud and hang on. Doing that would mean no reason to fear sinking completely below water. Even if she were to roll on her side while aground she would not have sunk below the surface. Maybe she would have become a total loss, but the crew could remain sheltered in her hull, assuming there was no safe way to get off of her and ashore before high winds arrived. Putting BOUNTY aground for the winds of Sandy because of no dock option would have been a bold decision! Actually, I believe your request to get to a dock would not have been turned down. However, all of the above was avoidable by not going to sea at all. Your focus should have been the same focus of all of your East Coast sailing vessel contemporaries&#8230;not go to sea&#8230;rather get tied up in as safe a place as you could find&#8230;not waste time trying to gain some distance toward your intended destination.
> 
> Robin, for all of the experience you have, it was recklessly poor judgment to have done anything but find a heavy weather berth for your ship, rather than instead intentionally navigate directly toward Sandy with no thought given to deviate if the original plan of yours was not panning out. During the nineteen years you were master of BOUNTY you were the single reason she remained active. Under your command she went from being an aging wooden vessel with all of the typical problems age brings to a vessel, to a reviving vessel as a result of several significant re-buildings over the last several years. You were a hero in everyone's eyes. Deservedly so I will freely add!!! I so respected your even, steady persistence to celebrate what BOUNTY could be and as a result was becoming. After years of barely surviving coastal trips here in America, after significant rebuilding, you successfully managed two safe and productive European voyages. That success was surely destined for more voyages to ports thrilling throngs of public in love with BOUNTY's roll in Hollywood movies. But that future is gone now. Because you chose to do something that no one of your experience, and all those young professionals with less experience, several that sailed with you, would have done. Some might have sailed and diverted. Some might have sailed with the plan to get some distance south along the coast then duck inshore long before any real impact from Sandy would be felt. But most did not depart at all. They worked from the start locating as safe a harbor arrangement as could be figured out. Up there in Southern New England is the fine port of New Bedford with its storm dyke to protect the fishing fleet. Surely BOUNTY would have been welcomed? I cannot conjure any reason why your friends in New London would not have responded with welcome of shelter had you asked.
> 
> While there are many memories I have of conversing with you about things marine affecting what we do as masters of sailing vessels, we never discussed the topic of delivering on schedule as promised and the problems of failure to arrive as promised. This is coming oh so very much too late, but I feel compelled to share that during my many years as master of vessels, there has never been any pressure put on me to make sure promises of arrival were kept. What I was told is that safety was most important. Safety of the ship was desired. But safety of the crew was most essential. As a result I have been master aboard when I have had to inform the company the intended arrival would not occur as scheduled due to weather. Sometimes the weather concern involved a hurricane. Sometimes the concern was a cold front and resultant head winds or a typical mid latitude low passing by. The decision we were going to be tardy to the destination port had to do with risk of damage to the ship. Preventing ship damage most often meant there would be little to no additional risk of injury to the crew and in the case of an inspected vessel also the passengers. Yep, unlike BOUNTY, most of the sail training vessels in America are certified and inspected for underway activities; several in the American fleet are certified for ocean service. Those that are wood built are pretty strong. Yet they avoid hurricanes. Being tardy always meant there would be another opportunity in the future. With BOUNTY now gone, with you and Claudene as well, there is no future to share with Claudene, with you, with BOUNTY, for all of us&#8230;for everyone.
> 
> If confidence was the basis in your decisions, no ship is invulnerable. And in a career at sea one cannot avoid every gale or nasty storm - but you set out with the BOUNTY with whatever her strengths and weaknesses into the biggest one some of us have ever seen dominating the Western North Atlantic. Many stronger, faster ships than BOUNTY chose to stay in port for this one. What was your need?
> 
> Well my very recklessly cavalier friend. I cannot say I told you so. But I sure can say I am surprised! Not Robin! This stunt is so amateurish as to be off the scale! But stunning surprise of surprises! It is Robin! Heading directly at a hurricane in a small, slow boat. Instead of running and hiding...or not venturing out at all. You have provided everyone with a great deal of hurt and sadness and consternation as well a firestorm of gossip nearly full of blame and foolishness directed at the whole of our sailing community.
> 
> That is an inestimably be-damned legacy my friend.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Jan C. Miles*


My question to you sir, is why would you address a letter to a man who cannot respond? What is your intention of this letter? What do you aim to prove by writing it? Does it make you feel good to trash a man's reputation that is not here to defend himself? You refer to him several times as "my friend". Those words could not be more untrue. A friend would never put in print the words that you have even if they might be thought. Shame on you. You are not and obviously never were a friend of Captain Walbridge. The captain I know would not have put the lives of his crew in danger purposely. He was NOT reckless in any way. I am appalled at your words especially from someone he thought of as a friend.


----------



## PCP

Bountydaughter said:


> My question to you sir, is why would you address a letter to a man who cannot respond? What is your intention of this letter? What do you aim to prove by writing it? Does it make you feel good to trash a man's reputation that is not here to defend himself? You refer to him several times as "my friend". Those words could not be more untrue. A friend would never put in print the words that you have even if they might be thought. Shame on you. You are not and obviously never were a friend of Captain Walbridge. The captain I know would not have put the lives of his crew in danger purposely. He was NOT reckless in any way. I am appalled at your words especially from someone he thought of as a friend.


I hope you don't think that I wrote that letter. The one that wrote that was Jan C. Miles, a tall ship Captain and is not here to answer to you, but you may find him on Facebook that was where that was posted originally 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Flatballer

Bountydaughter said:


> My question to you sir, is why would you address a letter to a man who cannot respond? What is your intention of this letter? What do you aim to prove by writing it? Does it make you feel good to trash a man's reputation that is not here to defend himself? You refer to him several times as "my friend". Those words could not be more untrue. A friend would never put in print the words that you have even if they might be thought. Shame on you. You are not and obviously never were a friend of Captain Walbridge. The captain I know would not have put the lives of his crew in danger purposely. He was NOT reckless in any way. I am appalled at your words especially from someone he thought of as a friend.


People who aren't reckless generally don't brag about chasing hurricanes.

Just saying.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Minnewaska

Bountydaughter said:


> .....You are not and obviously never were a friend of Captain Walbridge. The captain I know would not have put the lives of his crew in danger purposely. He was NOT reckless in any way. .....


I think you may have a better understanding of how emotions drive what one says (types) than you know.

If I had a friend kill someone, I can't say I would no longer consider them a friend, but I may not. That wouldn't mean we never were.

Unquestionably, in my opinion, he was reckless on a least this one passage. If I take him at his word (interview, personal profile, etc), he certainly was reckless on other occasions as well. It had to be purposeful, as he would otherwise have to be incredibly incompetent not to know of the danger and that does not seem to be the case. I've know many kind souls who were reckless for a variety of reasons. The dearly departed Captain had gotten away with it before, which is the devil's way of getting you to be reckless again.


----------



## jameswilson29

MarkofSeaLife said:


> 3 minutes
> 
> What does Nicolle do at sea???????? - YouTube
> 2:40 minutes


Not only are you sailing in the correct season, you have also been blessed with a pretty wife! (I am assuming you are married, if not, go get that license quick.)


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

jameswilson29 said:


> Not only are you sailing in the correct season, you have also been blessed with a pretty wife! (I am assuming you are married, if not, go get that license quick.)


Lol she's the ex, actually.


----------



## chef2sail

From one opf your U Tube posts



> Navigational advice to the big ship...Hey mate f..ck off-Markseaof life


I am laughing lard


----------



## PCP

PCP said:


> yes, some of this new stuff could only come from Barksdale but it is meaningful that he is not directly quoted or interviewed like if he wanted to talk but not come openly publicly in what regards this. I guess that many would have wanted to interview him if he was available.
> 
> quote:
> 
> He had also had few conversations with the other crewmembers, which is why *he hadn't even heard that a storm was approaching*&#8230;.
> 
> "I know that some of you all have been getting e-mails and phone calls regarding the hurricane," Walbridge told his crew as he stood on the deck. *Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port*&#8230;..
> 
> When Barksdale saw the engine room for the first time, before the trip began, he wanted to clean it up, but there was no time for that. New fuel tanks had been installed, and he spent his first three weeks connecting the tanks to the engines, laying the pipes and securing the connections&#8230;.
> 
> Early Sunday morning, Barksdale* shut off one of the two generators for maintenance work*. &#8230;.
> 
> *As the generator cooled down*, Barksdale escaped the hot engine room for an hour. During that time, the gauge on the day tank, which contains a one-day supply of fuel for the engines, was smashed. Barksdale saw the damage when he returned, but he didn't notice that the tank was almost empty. According to the gauge, there was still enough fuel in the tank. Barksdale didn't notice the error until the generator failed&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> He was exhausted, the result of being thrown back and forth in the engine room. His body was covered with bruises, his leg hurt, he had injured his index finger and he could hardly breathe. Nevertheless, he managed to keep at least one generator running. But the water was rising underneath the floorboards. Barksdale noticed that *the power from the generator was fluctuating, and that the bilge pumps, which are supposed to pump water out of the ship, seemed to be clogged*. They weren't pumping quickly enough, and the water level kept rising. Taking on Water&#8230;.
> 
> The water was now almost two meters high inside the Bounty&#8230;.
> 
> At about 4 a.m., Barksdale realized that he had lost his battle against the water in the engine room.
> 
> A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News....


On another interview, or in the same but now published wit more details Barksdale says:

quote:

Barksdale said the ship was being hit by 70 mph winds and 30-foot seas. Over the next several hours, the main engines failed, leaving the boat without propulsion and without the hydraulic pumps. It became impossible to fight the water level inside the boat's hull, which was rising about 2 feet each hour, Barksdale acknowledged.

"It was clear the boat was filling with water but I don't understand entirely why that happened and I'm not going to speculate. We were taking on more water than we were pumping out." The second generator was the last to fail&#8230;.

Barksdale was being overwhelmed in the engine room and other crew members, including Walbridge and Svendsen, rushed to spell him, trying to keep the pumps free of clogging debris.
"I couldn't take more than an hour at a time in there," Barksdale said, describing how he was becoming increasingly seasick, drained by the 100-degree heat and battered as the ship twisted and turned in the waves and wind.

&#8230;"*You had to hold on to something solid with one hand and try to clear the pumps with the other, trying not to bang your head or crash against something the whole time*. I was just exhausted and so was everyone else," Barksdale said.

Read more: FOCUS: HMS Bounty's burial at sea - Fall River, MA - The Herald News..

He talks about 70mph winds and not 30 or 35k winds and from this it seems that really the boat had a big problem with clogged pumps.

...


----------



## JulieMor

Sal Paradise said:


> I find it strange that no one ever says why the engines "failed" ...


Cheap duct tape


----------



## PCP

Sal Paradise said:


> Seems like a rehash of an older article. I find it strange that no one ever says why the engines "failed" and why they couldn't restart them.


Yes, that is very important because two of the pumps, a all system, an hydraulic one, was directly connected to the engines and I don't know if it was not the main one.

In fact in the late 90's when the Bounty had an incident that does not seam very different than this accident (except in the outcome). The main pumping system was then a diesel one (that went out of service) and the back up system, the electric one, was not able to cope with the ingress of water. At the time CG delivered them some diesel pumps and they were able to save the boat.

They did not replace that diesel powered pump system and they seem to have replaced it with this hydraulic system driven directly by the two engines (two pumps).

I would like very much to know what was the main system (with bigger capacity) and the back up system. That never comes out and it is obviously very important.

Anyway it is very important to know why the engines stop working specially because they drove one of the pumping systems.

It is also very important to know if with the two pumping systems working the water coming in was more than the one they could send out and that lead to the flooding of the engine room that lead to engines out of service or the engines went out of service by any other reason and that lead to an insufficient pumping capacity and was a direct cause of the accident?

What was the role that clogging of the pumps by a dirty bilge has played in all this? The pumping capacity was Ok and the problem was the clogging? or the clogging was just a marginal problem?

These are some questions that Barksdale can answer and that I consider important to better understand better how it happened.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bluenotgreen

i had a chance to work/crew on that ship while she was in Fall River ma.!998? always loved square-riggers- she was leaking bad- coast guard wouldnt let her leave port to boston.. my frend (is a proffesional shipwright(HMS ROSE re-fit) ,we built the last(wooden)Wenaumet Kitten(catboat) together at Bigelow's Boats Bourne mass) warned me to stay away from her- she was built as a movie prop- cheap/fast- and he didnt consider her safe.oct. i sailed out of Edg.Mass (sat.late oct-after the n'easter right after Sandy) , had a clear window w/highs from mich. to bermuda-my destination.solo. on a columbia sabre that i adopted/strengthened... 3 days out/south Nantucket/off soundings/gulf stream 4pm sky turned black, seas built to 20-30'- even higher,criss-crossing behind me, pooped constantly/loss 12v/pump/VHF/GPS, made s/w when i could... after 6days of this freak n'easter (out of SE?) i was getting too tired to stay awake, realized i was gonna die if i didnt get inshore, and set my course/lashed tiller for WEST, got into green water, got my anchor ready and fell asleep from exhaustion, woke up 10pm boat ontop of tidal surge surfing into shore one mile out. got off wave,jib alone,tried turning when another 8'surge pooped me, couldnt find anchor shackle) grabbed my passport/wallet, 4,5 waves planted me on the beach-SouthernShores,OuterBanks NC,barely got my feet wet but homeowners 911 me to hospital- a little chilled but alive... fatigue/exhaustion had me a little confused/dis-oriented through the ordeal but thats the last time i nod off in a n'easter _gerald nordstrom


----------



## Bountydaughter

Flatballer said:


> People who aren't reckless generally don't brag about chasing hurricanes.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


He wasn't bragging, he was having fun with a reporter.. It's called a sense of humor. He didn't "chase hurricanes". It was one offhand remark to a small town reporter that has been totally blown out of proportion. You cannot judge a person based on one remark when you don't know the context or intent. He has dozens of other interviews but no one talks about those. People want a story, so they will sensationalize whatever they can. Capt. Walbridge had a deep respect for the sea and felt weather was something that you managed. It's so easy to pass judgement on someone who can't defend himself.


----------



## Bountydaughter

Minnewaska said:


> I think you may have a better understanding of how emotions drive what one says (types) than you know.
> 
> If I had a friend kill someone, I can't say I would no longer consider them a friend, but I may not. That wouldn't mean we never were.
> 
> Unquestionably, in my opinion, he was reckless on a least this one passage. If I take him at his word (interview, personal profile, etc), he certainly was reckless on other occasions as well. It had to be purposeful, as he would otherwise have to be incredibly incompetent not to know of the danger and that does not seem to be the case. I've know many kind souls who were reckless for a variety of reasons. The dearly departed Captain had gotten away with it before, which is the devil's way of getting you to be reckless again.


Could you provide examples of when he was "reckless on other occasions"?


----------



## Roger Long

Bountydaughter said:


> He wasn't bragging, he was having fun with a reporter..


Except that he was describing pretty much exactly what he did when the opportunity presented itself.

If a man is heard to say to his wife, "I'll kill you, *****.", and later backs his car over her in the driveway; maybe it was an accident but there will always be a suspicion.

We'll never know for sure exactly what was in his mind in the interview or in those final hours but he has left a legacy that will probably be part of the lore of the sea for as long as that of the Captain of the original ship.


----------



## xymotic

Bountydaughter said:


> He wasn't bragging, he was having fun with a reporter.. It's called a sense of humor. He didn't "chase hurricanes". It was one offhand remark to a small town reporter that has been totally blown out of proportion. You cannot judge a person based on one remark when you don't know the context or intent. He has dozens of other interviews but no one talks about those. People want a story, so they will sensationalize whatever they can. Capt. Walbridge had a deep respect for the sea and felt weather was something that you managed. It's so easy to pass judgement on someone who can't defend himself.


I would agree with that EXCEPT for he followed up the remark with a pretty detailed explanation about not getting in front of a hurricane and staying on the 'safe' side.

He also made comments about having been in 60' waves aboard bounty. I'd say that was pretty clearly an exaggeration for the reporter, but in retrospect sure seems like bravado. ANd as I said before there is a big difference between a 60' swell and a 60' breaking wave.

and THEN he told the crew:

"I know that some of you all have been getting e-mails and phone calls regarding the hurricane," Walbridge told his crew as he stood on the deck. Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port&#8230;.."

And THEN he in fact steered that ship towards a hurricane and as far as I'm aware was the ONLY mariner in the entire country that did so. The navy left port and ran away from the hurricane at high speed. I've not heard of a SINGLE other captain setting out at all, much less heading for "the graveyard of the Atlantic."

He should have been joking but clearly wasn't

I don't mean to offend, but is seems like your're a new user and your username indicates perhaps you may be a little too close to this event emotionally.


----------



## PCP

Bountydaughter said:


> Could you provide examples of when he was "reckless on other occasions"?


The crew and himself had said that the Bounty had sailed already in several hurricanes. I would call an reckless act to sail that ship near any hurricane. The fact that he had get away with it on previous occasions does not make that less reckless than on this occasion, only more lucky.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## xymotic

HMS BOUNTY: Many Unanswered Questions


----------



## Minnewaska

Bountydaughter said:


> Could you provide examples of when he was "reckless on other occasions"?


Welcome aboard. I guess your screen name indicates your interest in this topic and you've made it clear that you intend to be defensive.

The other occasions are well documented in interviews with the crew and his wife and, I believe in his and/or the ship's blog, which have all been discussed and linked in this thread.


----------



## Faster

xymotic said:


> ............ seems like your're a new user and your username indicates perhaps you may be a little too close to this event emotionally.


This is a good observation and it would probably help this discussion if Bountydaughter would clarify her relationship/interest in the Bounty scenario.

Hopefully she's clear on the source of the letter referred to earlier.. it was not the work of any Sailnet member, but in fact an acquaintance of the skipper..


----------



## chef2sail

> Originally Posted by xymotic
> ............ seems like your're a new user and your username indicates perhaps you may be a little too close to this event emotionally.
> 
> This is a good observation and it would probably help this discussion if Bountydaughter would clarify her relationship/interest in the Bounty scenario.
> 
> Hopefully she's clear on the source of the letter referred to earlier.. it was not the work of any Sailnet member, but in fact an acquaintance of the skipper..


That may be correct and I also thought so.

This is a quick and easy way to possibly dismiss someones opinion which they have a right to and carries just as much validity as anyone elses. Why i understand the logic it can be flawed and to dismiss out of hand an opinoin because they had a close realtionship to the crew without investigating is dismissive. It means you cannot have an opinion which is relevant or correct which is not so. It was the primary reason I did not disclose my relationship to the Captain as many would just pooh pooh my opinions as because I was knew him.

Thats like saying we shoulkd dismiss Minniewaska opinions about an airplane crash because he is a pilot and knew the pilot and we know he will side with the pilot to the death and cant be objective. ( Sorry to use you as an example)

If the opinions are STRICTLY emotional and not centered in some kind of logic or reality, that is a good reason to question.


----------



## JulieMor

xymotic said:


> And THEN he in fact steered that ship towards a hurricane...


According to the Weather Channel documentary and testimony from the crew, the Bounty headed SSE out of New London, CT. One of the crew (I think it was Doug Faunt) said that at one point they adjusted course to head SW toward the leeward side of the hurricane.

Josh Scornavacchi said when they all had been given the choice to stay ashore or sail into the hurricane, they all chose to go because they had faith in the captain and themselves and had been in storms far worse than Hurricane Sandy.

All three crew members who were interviewed in the documentary said the entire crew was aware of the intent by Walbridge to sail Bounty into a hurricane.


----------



## Minnewaska

JulieMor said:


> According to the Weather Channel documentary and testimony from the crew, the Bounty headed SSE out of New London, CT. One of the crew (I think it was Doug Faunt) said that at one point they adjusted course to head SW toward the leeward side of the hurricane.


Of course, you have to sail SE to get out of Long Island Sound from New London. I don't recall seeing much, if any, SE progress long after they cleared Montauk.



> Josh Scornavacchi said when they all had been given the choice to stay ashore or sail into the hurricane, they all chose to go because they had *faith in the captain and themselves* and had been in storms far worse than Hurricane Sandy.
> 
> All three crew members who were interviewed in the documentary said the entire crew was aware of the intent by Walbridge to sail Bounty into a hurricane.


How could they possibly have been able to rationally process their faith in themselves? How many indicated that they had been in a hurricane before? How many had heavy weather experience on Bounty, let alone a Tall Ship, let alone any ship?

Faith in the Captain, for sure, but that's obvious from the fact they stayed aboard. The Captain had to have given them reason to believe this was an acceptable risk.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I am sorry, Julie but none were given an option to stay on shore.
They were given an option to be SACKED IMMEDIATLY!

none were offered alternate transport to the next port. they were given one hour to be thrown out of their HOME.

With NO MONEY

NO TRANSPORT

NO PLACE TO SLEEP.


Now, if I arrive at your house tonight and offer to chuck you OUT with no money, no car and no place to stay what do you do?


Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

And making it known that you don't have loyalty to a captain of 17 years on that same ship.

Nor loyalty to the rest of the crew.

And you are a whimp who doesn't like waves.



No. The peer preasure of bullying is right in this one.

"If you can't hack it you can go. NOW!"


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I am sorry, Julie but none were given an option to stay on shore.
> They were given an option to be SACKED IMMEDIATLY!
> 
> none were offered alternate transport to the next port. they were given one hour to be thrown out of their HOME.
> 
> With NO MONEY
> 
> NO TRANSPORT
> 
> NO PLACE TO SLEEP.
> 
> Now, if I arrive at your house tonight and offer to chuck you OUT with no money, no car and no place to stay what do you do?
> 
> Mark


Do you know for a fact they were never offered alternative transport?

How does volunteering as a crew on a boat make that one's "HOME"?

Say you've just taken your seat aboard a commercial flight about to depart from SFO, and the captain welcomes you aboard with an announcement of his stated attempt to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge before proceeding to Sydney... Are you gonna remain aboard that plane, simply because you're uncertain about where you might wind up having to _SLEEP_ that night?


----------



## JulieMor

Minnewaska said:


> Of course, you have to sail SE to get out of Long Island Sound from New London. I don't recall seeing much, if any, SE progress long after they cleared Montauk.
> 
> How could they possibly have been able to rationally process their faith in themselves? How many indicated that they had been in a hurricane before? How many had heavy weather experience on Bounty, let alone a Tall Ship, let alone any ship?
> 
> Faith in the Captain, for sure, but that's obvious from the fact they stayed aboard. The Captain had to have given them reason to believe this was an acceptable risk.


The WC documentary said something about being around 90 miles SSE of New London. Faunt said he wasn't sure who made the decision to change course but that they headed SW from that point.

In the ABC interview one of the crew said he had been in at least two other hurricanes with the Bounty. In the WC doc, Scornavacchi and Faunt both said they had sailed in heavy weather before Sandy. Scornavacchi, after having experienced Sandy, said that they had been in weather worse than Sandy before. So at least three of the crew members testified they had been in serious storms before leaving New London.



MarkofSeaLife said:


> I am sorry, Julie but none were given an option to stay on shore.
> They were given an option to be SACKED IMMEDIATLY!
> 
> none were offered alternate transport to the next port. they were given one hour to be thrown out of their HOME.
> 
> With NO MONEY
> 
> NO TRANSPORT
> 
> NO PLACE TO SLEEP.
> 
> Now, if I arrive at your house tonight and offer to chuck you OUT with no money, no car and no place to stay what do you do?
> 
> Mark


Mark, I am only relaying what the crew said. In both the ABC interview and the WC doc, they made it sound like Walbridge was being very understanding if anyone chose not to go with him out of New London. But I agree with you, had they chosen to stay ashore they would have been left stranded and probably been immediately replaced, that is if there was anyone hanging around the dock at the moment ready to sail into a hurricane.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> And making it known that you don't have loyalty to a captain of 17 years on that same ship.
> 
> Nor loyalty to the rest of the crew.
> 
> And you are a whimp who doesn't like waves.
> 
> No. The peer preasure of bullying is right in this one.
> 
> "If you can't hack it you can go. NOW!"


Do you happen to have a cite for the evidence of such "pressure" applied by Walbridge prior to leaving New London?

As in, what he said precisely, to "make that known"?


----------



## Minnewaska

I don't think we know what alternative offer was made to the crew, but the peer pressure argument is likely to stand, in my opinion. 

At best, they were told they would keep their job, be put in a hotel, flown to FL and rejoin the crew. So, one would have to think what that would be like. To potentially rejoin a crew that just survived a hurricane and you didn't have the cajones to go along.


----------



## JulieMor

JonEisberg said:


> How does volunteering as a crew on a boat make that one's "HOME"?


Some of the crew members said the Bounty was their home and the crew their family. I'm not saying that answers your question Jon, just pointing out the opinions of some of the crew who thus far have given interviews.


----------



## xymotic

Just curious, when has there even been a 'worse' storm than Sandy? It had already killed 70 people before they left. And in terms of damages it's easily the worst Hurricane that's ever hit the US. I mean you can split some hairs and say a smaller area but cat 5 is 'worse' in some respects but I think overall that Sandy was a beast, and that was well known at the time.


----------



## lancelot9898

I'ld like to know the names of those other hurricanes that they sailed in that were "far worse than Sandy". Even though I'm not sure if they made it beyound the tropical force winds of Sandy.


----------



## JulieMor

lancelot9898 said:


> I'ld like to know the names of those other hurricanes that they sailed in that were "far worse than Sandy". Even though I'm not sure if they made it beyound the tropical force winds of Sandy.


At the time they were picked up by the Coast Guard, the Coasties reported 30' seas and 50 knot winds. So maybe to the Bounty crew, this wasn't the worst they had ever seen. That would certainly be true if they had actually been in hurricane force winds before. What made Sandy the worst in terms of loss was the failure of both generators _(one was said to be non-functional when they left New London)_ which led to the inability to pump out any water, the sinking and the loss of life.

But that's an interesting question about what hurricanes they had previously sailed in before. The survivors can all say they sailed in Hurricane Sandy but, according to the CG, they were not in hurricane force winds at the time of the sinking. So the crew's claim they had sailed in hurricanes before could have meant simply being out on the water during a hurricane and skirting the outer edges. Walbridge did say something to that effect when he described how he "sails into hurricanes."

In the Halloween Storm of 1991, data buoys recorded wave heights over 100' yet that storm was not as damaging as Sandy because much of it was out at sea. Hurricane Grace didn't make the left hook like Sandy did and Grace wasn't nearly as big as Sandy but, with two other storms, produced some extremely dangerous conditions at sea (100 MPH winds and 100' seas). I have not seen any reports stating Sandy equaled or approached those conditions.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Do you know for a fact they were never offered alternative transport?
> 
> How does volunteering as a crew on a boat make that one's "HOME"?
> 
> Say you've just taken your seat aboard a commercial flight about to depart from SFO, and the captain welcomes you aboard with an announcement of his stated attempt to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge before proceeding to Sydney... Are you gonna remain aboard that plane, simply because you're uncertain about where you might wind up having to _SLEEP_ that night?


I think it was a paid crew. Not properly professionals, most of them, but paid anyway.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## NCC320

In Walbridge's comments about chasing hurricanes, he stated that he went for close to the eye of the storm and to the southeast quadrant. From what I understand, having listened to many reports from such storms, and experienced a good number (on shore), the highest winds are near the center, and winds generally lessen the further you get away from the center. Even seeking the southeast quadrant is not best...southwest quadrant is a better place, and heading for the eye is going to make the situation worse. And, given the eratic nature of hurricanes, any sudden change of movement direction, even a small one, by the hurricane could put you on the wrong side of the hurricane eye and into the deadly northeast quadrant. He also stated that you didn't want to be in front of the hurricane, but that's exactly where he was for Sandy.
That comment regarding being close to the eye is really puzzling to me.


----------



## chef2sail

> I think the simplest explanation is that Walbridge left so suddenly Thursday to prevent the crew from catching on to how scared everyone else was and balking- Sal Paradise


Highly doubtful, highly speculative, and really doesnt mean anything

By Thursday everyone south of there was already geared up and ready for thestorm where we were. The Weather Channel and news had been forecasting for days. Unless his people were ostriches,,,didnt have any cell phones, werent internet connected at all, and lived as hermits and didnt talk to ANYONE at the docks for a week before then you could possibly be right.

They al have said they were goven the choice by Walbridge and choose to go for whatever reason. We can add your speculation to the heap of others wild speculations


----------



## chef2sail

> In Walbridge's comments about chasing hurricanes, he stated that he went for close to the eye of the storm and to the southeast quadrant. From what I understand, having listened to many reports from such storms, and experienced a good number (on shore), the highest winds are near the center, and winds generally lessen the further you get away from the center. So while seeking the southeast quadrant seems appropriate, heading for the eye is going to make the situation worse. And, given the eratic nature of hurricanes, any sudden change of movement direction, even a small one, by the hurricane could put you on the wrong side of the hurricane eye and into the deadly northeast quadrant. He also stated that you didn't want to be in front of the hurricane, but that's exactly where he was for Sandy.
> That comment regarding being close to the eye is really puzzling to me NC320.


so you take this boasting and bragging for TV and effect to be serious. He also said he sailed in 70 ft seas.....hmmm not likely


----------



## Minnewaska

I don't feel like flipping back in the thread. Didn't the engineer say, in his interview, he had not heard of the incoming hurricane until that briefing where he was offered the chance to disembark?

I may recall it incorrectly, but the fascination with being "back in time" would be correlated with being out of touch with mainstream information.

This winter, I expect to be out of touch for an entire week in the islands.


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> so you take this boasting and bragging for TV and effect to be serious. He also said he sailed in 70 ft seas.....hmmm not likely


I think he was boasting also. I don't believe that they had experienced 95 mph winds, or 70 ft. seas, nor headed for the eye. And regarding the southeast quadrant, that's not where you want to be either, it's the southwest quadrant that is safest (my mistake in earlier post). But he did seem to be one who wanted to challenge storms a bit, based on his and other crewmates statements. And being at sea during a hurricane doesn't mean you have experienced a hurricane either. But maybe he began to believe his own sea stories....I don't know.


----------



## JulieMor

This is the list of survivors:


Daniel Cleveland, 25
 John Svendsen, 41
 Matthew Sanders, 37
 Adam Prokosh, 27
 Douglas Faunt, 66
 John Jones, 29
 Drew Salapatek, 29
 Joshua Scornavacchi, 25
 Anna Sprague, 20
 Mark Warner, 33
 Christopher Barksdale, 56
 Laura Groves, 28
 Jessica Hewitt, 25
 Jessica Black, 34

The names in red were in the WC doc. The names in blue, plus Faunt and Scornavacchi, spoke in the ABC interview. Here's what they said in the ABC interview relating to the incident:

*Laura Groves* describing what it was like being in the storm: "washing machine, in an earthquake, going down a slide"

*Douglas Faunt*: The weather was so bad. We had so little control.

*John Svendsen*: It took every ounce of my strength to focus through, to survive. We had to determine a safe time when we knew that the ship would still be stable, that we could get get everyone on deck and change our focus from saving the ship to saving every life.

*Daniel Cleveland*: I've been through two other hurricanes with Robin on The Bounty. The ship was in great shape. We were literally going to be getting up and launching the liferafts and she went over.

*John Svendsen*: _(in reference to the survival suits and strobes Walbridge had for the crew)_ I give my life to Robin, to the ingenuity, to his leadership, that I'm here today.

_Svendsen was the only surviving crew member who never made it to a life raft. He was pulled directly from the sea by the CG._

*Douglas Faunt*: _about Claudene Christian,_ She was having the most fun ever on the best ride ever. She was so happy.

As the crew speaks more, we will know more. Maybe they are already doing so in social media?


----------



## JulieMor

Minnewaska said:


> This winter, I expect to be out of touch for an entire week in the islands.


Would it be un-PC of me to say I hate you?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> so you take this boasting and bragging for TV and effect to be serious. He also said he sailed in 70 ft seas.....hmmm not likely





chef2sail said:


> Highly doubtful, highly speculative, and really doesnt mean anything


I disagree with you, Chef.

I think he was a bullsh!t artist who began to believe his own bull and was caught out by his own bullsh!t once too often.

I think after bragging that he could handle 70 foot seas in a million knot winds then when confronted with a real hurricane he had to put up or shut up. He saw what he thought was a 40 knot extra tropical storm and thought he could better predict it than NOAA. So he slipped on his sash of courage, cojoled the crew to follow him and leapt out to sea. At sea he didnt even try to go south east but he went south trying to outwit a storm carefully predicted by NOAA. Then when he realized his mistake he baulked and turned South West into certain doom and committed suicide on ordering abandon ship because he knew he would, rightly, be vilified if he survived.

I know he was your friend, so I won't ask you to agree with me, and I don't think investigations will have the guts to agree with me, but that's what I think has happened. Aiding and abetting his bullsh!t was the woeful way he kept his ships engineering.

If I am right it is a terrible disaster, but not the worst of the year... Concordia killed over 30 people while the captain was screwing some ballerina.

All I can say is the audacity of the so called "professionals" compare to us so called "amatures" sux. We sail-boat cruisers sometimes know vastly better!

Mark


----------



## PCP

Sal Paradise said:


> Not entirely speculative - he did say he knew they (the crew ) were getting e-mails and calls warning about the hurricane and he decided they were leaving in an hour. According to the news accounts that is exactly what he said when he assembled the crew.
> 
> In what scenario is he NOT trying to get them off the dock ASAP before they get too scared? The only possible other one is " heading east" which he did not do.


It was also at that time that he said to them that it was more safe to be in sea than in port. I guess that if he really wanted to sail out (whatever the reason) that was a possibility. They were receiving e-mails and in some time some credible guy could come and say that the Captain was mad into sailing out and that they would be madder if they sailed with him. So why wait for that possibility? He could not sail out without a crew.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

PCP said:


> He could not sail out without a crew


I think, as has already been suggested, once one "defected" the rest would follow. What most of us will never understand is why? What was it so important that they had to do what no one else at that time was willing to do?

And that may be what drives us nuts.

Or maybe it's the possibility that one day we may be in the same kind of situation (follow me or else) and then what?


----------



## chef2sail

> All I can say is the audacity of the so called "professionals" compare to us so called "amatures" sux. We sail-boat cruisers sometimes know vastly better Markseaof life!


I totally agree



> I think he was a bullsh!t artist who began to believe his own bull and was caught out by his own bullsh!t once too often.Markseaoflife


So lets looks at this intelligently vs hysterically. Almost to a man or woman everybody including me, his crew, people who have sailed with him before, a few people on here (SN) who met him like wingnwing....NONE, not one of us say what you said above or had that *first hand *impression of him..

Then you say


> ...I know he was your friend, so I won't ask you to agree with me,-Markseaof life


, others have said my friendhips clouds my opinions. It doesnt actually it may make me emotional about his reputation, but my opinions are based on factual evidence.

And after all that is the point isnt it really. Not just me...many others have talked about him with respect and say he was a quality man this is where I have fault on this thread. People who *do not know him *making judgements and building cases on only snippets of information on what they read or make up in their own minds. Bringing in facts which only support their positions or posting facts which are not entirely accurate or complete.

Then when the people who knew the Captain* in person *state a diffferent story, they are dismissed as having a personal relationship with him or they were cult members following him blindly. Give us more credit than that.

So then I ask you who is probably right here and who really has more credibility...the internet social media writers who have never met him and only have to go on what they make up in their own minds ( because they arent reading this from first hand survivors) or the people who met him* in person*,* knew him sailed with him*, the choice of who is more accurate to acccesss the Captain is an obvious choice. In person knowledge of the Captain superceeds secondhand knowledge or thoeries fabricated in individuals minds.

There is a reason that first hand knowledge ( direct testimony) trumps heresay or speculation all the time in places like a court of law.

What the Captain friends and aquaintences cannot undertsand or reconcile, just like the rest of social media writers on here and other sites, is what drove an experienced captain who loved his crew, had a wealth of experience to sail off into a hurricane. Simple as that.

This conspiracy that he rushed everyone onto the boat in an hour so they would think or complain, so he could subject them to what turned out to be a tragic journey on purpose does not make sense to the people who really knew this man and how he acted and treated people.

I for 1 person who knew him still do not understand what drove the man I knew to a decision of poor safety and endangering other people in his steed, especuially how I noticed FIRST HAND how he felt about survivasl gear and emergency procedures. This decision was so out of character to the man we knew.

None of this abbrogates him from the repsonsibility he had in the tragedy.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> So lets looks at this intelligently vs hysterically. Almost to a man or woman everybody including me, his crew, people who have sailed with him before, a few people on here (SN) who met him like wingnwing....NONE, not one of us say what you said above or had that *first hand *impression of him..
> 
> Then you say, others have said my friendhips clouds my opinions. It doesnt actually it may make me emotional about his reputation, but my opinions are based on factual evidence.
> 
> And after all that is the point isnt it really. Not just me...many others have talked about him with respect and say he was a quality man this is where I have fault on this thread. People who *do not know him *making judgements and building cases on only snippets of information on what they read or make up in their own minds. Bringing in facts which only support their positions or posting facts which are not entirely accurate or complete.
> 
> Then when the people who knew the Captain* in person *state a diffferent story, they are dismissed as having a personal relationship with him or they were cult members following him blindly. Give us more credit than that.
> 
> So then I ask you who is probably right here and who really has more credibility...the internet social media writers who have never met him and only have to go on what they make up in their own minds ( because they arent reading this from first hand survivors) or the people who met him* in person*,* knew him sailed with him*, the choice of who is more accurate to acccesss the Captain is an obvious choice. In person knowledge of the Captain superceeds secondhand knowledge or thoeries fabricated in individuals minds.
> 
> There is a reason that first hand knowledge ( direct testimony) trumps heresay or speculation all the time in places like a court of law.
> 
> What the Captain friends and aquaintences cannot undertsand or reconcile, just like the rest of social media writers on here and other sites, is what drove an experienced captain who loved his crew, had a wealth of experience to sail off into a hurricane. Simple as that.
> 
> This conspiracy that he rushed everyone onto the boat in an hour so they would think or complain, so he could subject them to what turned out to be a tragic journey on purpose does not make sense to the people who really knew this man and how he acted and treated people.
> 
> I for 1 person who knew him still do not understand what drove the man I knew to a decision of poor safety and endangering other people in his steed, especuially how I noticed FIRST HAND how he felt about survivasl gear and emergency procedures. This decision was so out of character to the man we knew.
> 
> None of this abbrogates him from the repsonsibility he had in the tragedy.


This are not about impressions Dave. I am quite sure the man was a very agreeable person. Neither it is about "snippets of information" neither about hysterically people making unfounded judgments, but about facts.

The Captain took his ship to the pass of an hurricane when he knew he was there and could avoid it, staying in port, diverting to a safer port or sailing in the opposite direction of the Hurricane path.

He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).

He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.

It is known (by the several statements from the crew, the wife and the organization) that this was not an isolated incident and that he had sailed several times the ship near or on hurricanes.

That ship is not a boat that could be sailed safely through or near an hurricanes.

He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> I think it was a paid crew. Not properly professionals, most of them, but paid anyway.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I don't know, seems far from clear to me, according to their website...

Sounds like a whole lot of "volunteering" going on there, to me...



> *The HMS Bounty Volunteer Programs for Restoration and Crewing*
> 
> Your skills are needed and can be put to good use!
> 
> There are many opportunities to become part of the Bounty Family. As a volunteer you will become one of our crew. You will work along side the professional crew doing as they do. One minute you may find yourself manning the helm or painting the 'tween decks. *In order to be considered for a volunteer crew position on Bounty you must first volunteer your time towards Bounty restoration or dockside maintenance programs.* Some people enjoy bringing their daily skills to the ship, and others want to escape and learn new skills. The Bounty does not require any previous sailing experience or special skills. We are unique in that our first requirement is a strong desire to be on the ship. And of course the Bounty provides food and housing. Many of our "paid positions" come from the volunteer core.
> 
> TallShipBounty.org


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> So then I ask you who is probably right here and who really has more credibility... [people] who have never met him and only have to go on what they make up in their own minds


There's an interesting point. Because the Judge and the Jury in law cases are always people who do not know the person on trial. And they only have to go on what they are given in that trial.

It kinda mean the dispassionate viewing of information (hopefully good information) can lead to a different outcome than the viewing of others.

Look at it this way, if there is ever a jury selected to judge the facts of this matter they won't be seafarers... They will be "normal" people from city's, towns, farms, factories far removed from the sea... And they will be instructed by a judge whose longest voyage was the ferry to Coney Island.
But we will know that they will do a,pretty good job in resolving issues we are arguing about.



Or I hope so anyway!


----------



## chef2sail

> Because the Judge and the Jury in law cases are always people who do not know the person on trial. And they only have to go on what they are given in that trial-Markofsealifes.


True about the judge and the jury, however the people posting are neither the judge nor the jury. They are the prosecution. The people posting her are the prosecuters....trying to submit heresay evidence and conjecture as fact. We are not talking about the obvious facts that he sailed away from the dock. But what he was thinking in his mind...and his leaving in one hour thats a fact so they could not refuse to leave is the fiction. It is the conclusions drawn from the facts which are posted as facts by some are merely speculation.



> The Captain took his ship to the pass of an hurricane when he knew he was there and could avoid it, staying in port, diverting to a safer port or sailing in the opposite direction of the Hurricane path.


- thats a fact
Thats what he did and that was a terrible error in judgement which makes him responsible for the loss of life and the ships sinking



> He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).


 the fact is he made a statements the Bounty would be safer at sea than port. the speculation- that they were absurd and that he made the statement to convince the crew to follow him



> He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.


the facts- the bilges were not clean, the pumps clogged and he sailed into bad weather/ the speculation- the water ingress was normal and the failed pump was caused by a clogged pump not operator error



> He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions


.

See I could agree with this if the statement said he was a reckless Captain in this instance, but thats not what is meant. Now you are trying to say he was always a reckless Captain in general.

the facts- he was a professional captain, the statements about his seasmanship from first hand observers was that it was good and knowledable, NO ONE of the first hand observers, crew or people who had ever been with him ever said he was a reckless captain. That does count for something, inn fact that superceeds and speculation that he was a reckless captain in the past
the speculation- from only the social bloggers not the first hand observers that he was reckless

It makes no difference to me that he was a nice man...thats an attribute you are putting on me and others. That isnt germane to this discuission. To dismiss what I or others say based on that we think is is a nice man, is failing to recognize we think he was a professional, experienced, knowlegeable leader who made a terrible mistake thats all. Thats a pretty simple explainaton for what happened and usually the simple explaination is the easiest to prove by fact. The contiual theories and conjecture base on a few snippets of information is actually reckless in itself.

What they and I have said was that he was professional, he was experienced, he was knowledgeable. Those are facts borne out by statements. The other fact is that this professional, knowledgable, experienced man made a mistake/ error in judgement which caused a loss of life and ship. The speculation- he was a cult leader, they followed him because they were mesmerized, he left in an hour so they couldnt get more information to not go, he was a reckless captain all the time and before, the ship was in bad repair, the ship couldnt survuve the weather it had countless times before, he was a ******** artists.

Try and* really *differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.

Truth of the matter is tghis man has been in control of this ship for 17 years. This is the first time he made an agregious error which he was brought up on charges for or being cited for.

Because you get caught speeding...doesnt mean that you are a reckless driver all the time and a terrible driver. It means that partuicular time you were. Because you have a car crash doesnt make you a reckless driver for all of history...it does for that particular incident. There is danger is extrpolating a statement to define the Cpatian by this one incident in his life. Albet he will be defined by it by many and the aggregious mistake/ error in judgement he made.

Funny though the ones who knew him first hand, even the crew who was on the boat during the sinking find that not to be true. Why is that do you think? Why dont you hear them all saying he was reckless, a ******** artist and going after him for what shppened?

These are the first hand people now? Listen to them carefully, you dont hear any referneces to many of the speculative things attrributed tot he Captain posted here. Note none of us defend him in this incident of having good judgement.

Why cant the explaination just be a simple one. It doesnt get good press/ It makes for boring posts. There is no spectacle. All the things why some ridicule the CG invetigation. If it doesnt come out with the results they expect, or they think it should we have already seen a number of posters say it isnt correct before it happens.


----------



## lancelot9898

After all is said and done...I still say to just follow the money.

1. The boat was built as a movie prop to be burned at the end of the filming.

2. Brando did not want it burned even though I suppose that he read the ****** before taking the part. Not sure as to when he voiced his objection.

3. For X years it set at a dock as a tourist attraction until Ted Turner aquired it when he bought the movie rights to many of MGM films. When he learned that he had the Bounty he told his accountants to get rid of it and donated it to Y

4. Y may have sold it to Z etc etc but during this period it was being "updated" to take volunteers out for sailing adventures

5. How many times has it been up for sale during this period? It was up for sale when it met its demise off of Hatterous. Look at the Insurance situation all during its life...it's maintenance/operating costs and retro fit costs....its income stream and who or what last owned it

Just follow the money..


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> *Quote PCP:*
> He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).
> 
> ... the speculation- that they were absurd and that he made the statement to convince the crew to follow him.


Sometimes I think, that you did not learn anything with this thread and did not really changed opinion regarding the first statements you have made here.

It is obviously a very stupid and wrong thing to say that a XVII century designed wood ship is more safe in a port than at sea in what regards facing a hurricane. This is no speculation is a fact. Regarding a ship the first concern of a no reckless captain is not with his boat but with his crew and they would be much safer on land than out on the sea facing an Hurricane. Where is the speculation here?

If not to dismiss the huge risk the crew would take sailing into a hurricane and to convince them to follow him in this adventure why do you think the Captain had said then that the Ship would be more safe at sea than in Port?

Where is the speculation here



chef2sail said:


> Try and* really *differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.
> 
> *Quote PCP:*
> He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.
> 
> ... the speculation- the water ingress was normal and the failed pump was caused by a clogged pump not operator error


Here I have some difficulty in understanding what you mean but that should be my bad English as you are always pointing out

*"The water ingress was normal"*???

I did no state that the water ingress was not normal, or abnormal I just stated that the boat was making water and that the Captain new that. Where is the speculation here?!!! I did not state that the pumps had failed because they were clogged, I stated that they were clogged and that had obvious consequences on their poor performance. Stated also that the Captain knew that the Bilges were dirt and that would cause the clogging of the pumps in the eventuality of prolonged use.

Where is the speculation here? All facts.

Operator error on the pumps???? if someone on that boat deserves credit is Barksdale, the one responsible by engines and pumps working.

It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.



chef2sail said:


> Try and* really *differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.
> 
> *Quote PCP*:
> He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions
> 
> See I could agree with this if the statement said he was a reckless Captain in this instance, but thats not what is meant. Now you are trying to say he was always a reckless Captain in general.
> ...
> 
> ....


I am not trying to say that he, as a Captain, was reckless, I am stating that.

And I am saying that because unlike what you are saying this was not an isolated incident, it was just the one where he run out of luck. He was taking unreasonable risks with that boat and the crew for a long time.

As it was stated by him, the organization, the crew and his wife, the ship had been sailed by him previously several times in hurricanes or near hurricanes. Considering that XVII century designed wooden ship that is a reckless behavior that only a reckless captain would indulge.

No speculation, here, just facts.



chef2sail said:


> the speculation- from only the social bloggers not the first hand observers that he was reckless... The contiual theories and conjecture base on a few snippets of information is actually reckless in itself.
> ....


You mean, reckless the ones that consider him reckless based in facts???

Dave, that does not make sense!

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> I don't know, seems far from clear to me, according to their website...
> 
> Sounds like a whole lot of "volunteering" going on there, to me...


Jon, I am not interested in discussing this further and I think it does not matter. As you say they would have to work on the boat before being accepted as "voluntaries" but it turned out those voluntaries were paid, at least if we accept what they have said on that other professional forum, I mean people from the Bounty.

I am quite sure that the payment had nothing to do with the one of a professional mariner and they were not professional mariners, since as you have pointed out anybody could be a voluntary if he worked some time for free.

The important thing here is that they were not professionals, but amateurs and that a sailing experience was not even required to become part of that symbolically paid crew. That movie that was posted showing them working with some heavy weather on the rig is very illustrative about their level of qualification as crew for a tallship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Look at it this way, if there is ever a jury selected to judge the facts of this matter they won't be seafarers... They will be "normal" people from city's, towns, farms, factories far removed from the sea... And they will be instructed by a judge whose longest voyage was the ferry to Coney Island.
> But we will know that they will do a,pretty good job in resolving issues we are arguing about.
> 
> 
> 
> Or I hope so anyway!


Yes, we always hope that. Sadly, the rules of the court and the occasional incompetence of a lawyer work against that outcome.



lancelot9898 said:


> After all is said and done...I still say to just follow the money.


I agree. If, as it has been reported, one of the generators wasn't working, why not? If Walbridge was the captain he's been reported to be, one would think he'd be asking the owners for the money to fix whatever he couldn't or at least to supply the money for the parts so he could fix it.

Christian said they were always fussing over the engines. On a well kept vessel (and everyone who knew it said it was costly to keep it up, that's why Turner got rid of it) there wouldn't be any need to always fuss over the engines if they were kept in good working order. It seems more likely they were kept in barely working order. For a conscientious captain, that's usually due to lack of funds.

But what I find curious is while practically the entire world is saying the chosen path of the ship was suicidal, not one of the crew thus far has criticized Walbridge for taking that path.

In the ABC interview, John Svendsen said, "I give my life to Robin, to the ingenuity, to his leadership, that I'm here today." When I heard that I couldn't believe my ears. I understand respecting the dead but saying such a thing is so contrary to the fact that if Walbridge hadn't made the decision he had Svendsen wouldn't have been donning an immersion suit. He wouldn't have been thrown into 30' seas in gale force winds. He wouldn't have had to rely on "the ingenuity" of his captain in putting strobes on the immersion suits that called attention to the CG. And he wouldn't have been pulled out of the ocean by a helicopter during a hurricane. So to say, "I give my life to Robin" seems very strange.

Every crew member so far has been quiet about criticizing the captain. Walbridge did something no one in their right mind would have done (and no one else did), he sailed into the direction of a monstrous hurricane, already predicted to be the mother of all storms for the northeast coast. Maybe they are under order not to speak factually about the captain but to say, "I give my life to Robin"


----------



## chef2sail

> Sometimes I think, that you did not learn anything with this thread and did not really changed opinion regarding the first statements you have made here.


Paulo,

Beleive it or not, I dont think I can learn anything from you in regards to the Bounty nor did anyone apoint you the authority or teacher here. While you are somewhat of a good reasource on boats you have shown to be less than knowledgeable about many other subjects I have seen you post about. You continue to post these giant posts of other statements or authors and consider them fact. They are not fact sir.

Also even if you were somewhat of an authority on something its very difficult to get past your ridiculing others oppiniopns by calling them stupid and many other words. In your last post alone is an example.

See the problem here is you cand play in the sandbox and accept others have opinions without ridicule. You say you want people to learn but *no one learns *from someone who puts down others. I also recognize that I have not been perfect in this to others and will work on that. The first part of realiziing there is a problem is to recognoize that yourself, which you fail to do.



> It is obviously a very stupid and wrong thing to say





> Operator error on the pumps???? if someone on that boat deserves credit is Barksdale, the one responsible by engines and pumps working.


And you know this how, by his own statement. Did it ever occur to you it was self serving? He admitted turning one off.



> It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.


And he said he never saw the Captain.



> And I am saying that because unlike what you are saying this was not an isolated incident, it was just the one where he run out of luck. He was taking unreasonable risks with that boat and the crew for a long time


Prove it
What you are saying here is really based on some of the other statements made in the past and your humble opinion that you neleive that he was reckless in the past.

See Paulo there is a fact that is irreuftable. NO ONE who has sailed with him has said this about him. NO ONE who has sailed with him said he was reckless in the past. NO ONE who knew him personally even remotely says what you preach about him.

*Heres a fact*. You are sitting in front of your computer in Portugal making statements you call fact which really are nothing than YOUR OPINION. The fact is you have no first hand knwledge. The fact is you generalize and post incomplete data, The fact is you ridicule those who do not deleive what you say. The fact is the people who really knew this man DO NOT say anything which even remotely supports you theory about this man. You misuse the English language constantly calling your opinions facts.

Here is the Oxford Dictionarys definituion of the word fact



> noun
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true: the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas [mass noun]: a body of fact
> •
> (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article: even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts
> •
> (the fact that) used to refer to a particular situation under discussion: despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive
> •
> [mass noun] *chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation*: there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter


Paulo, you know what doesnt make sense here, is that despite be challenged by myself and others on your use of things you consider FACTS and your definition of that you dont even learn from that you overstep and dont know the difference between your opinion and facts. You keep ramming thes down mine and others throats and I guess I am stupid enough to have taken the bait and keep responding to your mistaken statements of fact.

What is funny here is that we all are expected to have opinions here as this is an internet blog site. You seem to the one fixated that your opinions are facts though. I dont feel my opinions are facts just one humble sailors opinion from my perch here in the US.



> As it was stated by him, the organization, the crew and his wife, the ship had been sailed by him previously several times in hurricanes or near hurricanes. Considering that XVII century designed wooden ship that is a reckless behavior that only a reckless captain would indulge.


 *the fact *in this is that he said he sailed in hurricanes previous*.....your interrpretation *is that this was reckless behavior.
Why was he never brough up on charges if this was reckless behavior?

I have learned some things on this post from others Paulo. I learn a lot on this forum called Sailnet. I have stated many times that the Captain is responsible for this tradgedy. Icannot wrap my head around why he would sail into a hurricane or anywhwre near one. I am not trying to figure out why, because I dont understand it from my refernce point and experience and he is not here anymore to ask him. Therefore I have to live with that. He did it. I will never know why and that anyone who attributes a reason why is just hypothesizing as no one can prove it factual. Its bad enough he did this and cost lives. I dont need to build some ever growing hypothetical story around it. 
Along with him, I await ( in years I am sure) the results of the inquirey for some of the factors which actuyallu phsically caused the sinking which maybe we can learn from and prevent to amke things safer in the future ( IE construction, certifications, build quality, ballast, pumps, engines, crew etc.). That is where the learning will take place..not acusing the dead captain of further eckless behavior and denigrating his person.

I dont think we can find a way to test or predict when people make aggregious decuisions ahead of time, so this will happen again. Every day in fact. The facts from the investigation which may turn up physical problems we can remedy will be the only learning experience which we can help makes things safer from.

Since it appears that we will not ever agree on things concerning this topic, I suggest in fairness to others we stop burdening them with the obvious disagreement between us and hold of posting responses to each other in this thread. It serves no purpose. I will not answer your posts in this thread anymore, but will continue to correspond with others. Lets just call it an agreement to disagree. Can you do that.....or do you still need the last word here.

dave


----------



## chef2sail

> Julie I also note the tone and content of what the crew does and does not say. Its a bit strange. Maybe its loyalty, maybe naivete, maybe something else. Maybe cluelesssness. I don't know. They seem to give the company line too.


Or maybe........like most of us who really met and knew him keep saying

They truly just beleive what they are saying. I know its not as much fun and you cant write lots of stories about that, but at least give credence to it. Why is it so hard to beleive what EVERYONE is saying. It would be harder to keep a conspiracy together/


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Quote:
> It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.
> 
> 
> 
> And he said he never saw the Captain.
Click to expand...

Minor clarification here... Barksdale's comment about "never seeing the captain" was in reference to only what he saw after being called up on deck for the final time, and being told by other crewmembers it was time to abandon ship...



chef2sail said:


> *the fact *in this is that he said he sailed in hurricanes previous*.....your interrpretation *is that this was reckless behavior.
> Why was he never brough up on charges if this was reckless behavior?


Again, the only "fact" here, is that it has been _claimed_ the BOUNTY had sailed "in", or "though", at least 2 prior hurricanes (His wife has claimed the number was "too many to remember", but, hey - why quibble over numbers?) As I've stated about 300 posts ago (grin), I will be VERY surprised if we EVER learn the names, dates, or relative positions of those encounters... His claim that he experienced 70' seas from a storm a few hundred miles distant extablishes no "fact", other than the one that he was apparently talking out of his butt in making such a ridiculous claim...


----------



## chef2sail

> Again, the only "fact" here, is that it has been claimed the BOUNTY had sailed "in", or "though", at least 2 prior hurricanes (His wife has claimed the number was "too many to remember", but, hey - why quibble over numbers?) As I've stated about 300 posts ago (grin), I will be VERY surprised if we EVER learn the names, dates, or relative positions of those encounters... His claim that he experienced 70' seas from a storm a few hundred miles distant extablishes no "fact", other than the one that he was apparently talking out of his butt in making such a ridiculous claim..JonEisberg.


I totally agree thats why to build hypopthesis and theories on this unsubstantiated hyperbole or to continue using these statements in the explaination just leads to no credence in those theories.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> *Quote PCP:*
> Sometimes I think, that you did not learn anything with this thread and did not really changed opinion regarding the first statements you have made here.
> 
> Beleive it or not, I dont think I can learn anything from you in regards to the Bounty nor did anyone apoint you the authority or teacher here. While you are somewhat of a good reasource on boats you have shown to be less than knowledgeable about many other subjects I have seen you post about. You continue to post these giant posts of other statements or authors and consider them fact. They are not fact sir.
> 
> Also even if you were somewhat of an authority on something its very difficult to get past your ridiculing others oppiniopns by calling them stupid and many other words. In your last post alone is an example.


jesus Dave, I am not talking about learning with me, I am talking about learning with all contribution made on this thread that lead to a consensual opinion. I certainly have learned with this thread and that's why I am still around.

I didn't call stupid to anybody: I have said the captain made a stupid statement not that he was stupid. Maybe you not but most along our lives had said stupid things, things that only later and because we are not stupid we found that they would only qualify as that. That don't makes us stupids.

A professional Captain saying that a XVIII century design wooden boat would be safer sailing a Hurricane than being in port, specially considering the safety of the crew, that should be the most important to any captain, is a pretty stupid thing to say.



chef2sail said:


> *Quote PCP:*
> Operator error on the pumps???? if someone on that boat deserves credit is Barksdale, the one responsible by engines and pumps working.
> 
> And you know this how, by his own statement. Did it ever occur to you it was self serving? He admitted turning one off.


He said that he had turned it out *for maintenance*. Why the hell do you think he have stropped a generator in the middle of a storm to make maintenance except it the thing needed it urgently otherwise it would blow apart?



chef2sail said:


> *QuotePCP*:
> It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.
> 
> And he said he never saw the Captain.


Dave, go back to the article and read it better. He says he did not saw the Captain when the boat was sinking and we went up to the deck and says:

Quote: 
Barksdale was being overwhelmed in the engine room and other crew members, including Walbridge and Svendsen, rushed to spell him, trying to keep the pumps free of clogging debris.

FOCUS: HMS Bounty's burial at sea - Fall River, MA - The Herald News



chef2sail said:


> *QuoteCP*
> And I am saying that because unlike what you are saying this was not an isolated incident, it was just the one where he run out of luck. He was taking unreasonable risks with that boat and the crew for a long time
> 
> Prove it
> 
> What you are saying here is really based on some of the other statements made in the past and your humble opinion that you neleive that he was reckless in the past.


Dave it seems that you have to re read the thread: He said that he had sailed hurricanes, his wive had said he had sailed on hurricanes the crew said that he had sailed hurricanes, the bounty organization said that the Bounty had sailed hurricanes.

It seems that none of them seemed to see anything wrong in sailing hurricanes or sail near them with a wooden XVII century designed boat, the captain even had that strange idea that that the Bounty had no limits and accordingly they all consider that the Captain was not reckless but a great sailor.

However in In my opinion, that is sustained by much more knowledgeable opinions, sailing a ship like a Bounty in a hurricane or near it is an irresponsible act and a very unsafe thing to do. The Captain had done it not one time, but several times and that was reported by several credible sources. This makes this incident not an isolated one but just the one where the Captain run out of luck. It also shows a repeated reckless behavior of the Captain in what regards ship and crew safety. This make him a reckless captain.

Why do you think poor Claudene stated that "Bounty loved hurricanes" before being in one with the ship?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

Seems this sailor thought the Bounty did the right thing, interesting arcticle, a view point we have not seen from an experienced sailor:

HMS Bounty Falls Victim to Hurricane Sandy | PRI's The World

From above:

The US Coast Guard is searching for two missing crew members from the tall ship, HMS Bounty.

The ship ran into trouble Monday as as the crew tried to escape Hurricane Sandy's fury - off North Carolina's Cape Hatteras.

Fourteen other crew members were rescued early this morning.

The ship itself is reported to have sunk.

The HMS Bounty was built for MGM studios in 1960 for the classic movie, "Mutiny on the Bounty", starring Marlon Brando.

It was built according to the plans of the original 18th century ship.

The Bounty also appeared in one version of Treasure Island, and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

For the last 20 years or so it's served as an educational vessel.

Sailors say heading out to sea in a storm is quite normal.

*"Ships are meant to sail," says one former sailor, Kelsey Freeman. "And they generally are going to float a lot better when they're out to sea than if they're tied to a dock."*
Freeman spent seven years working on tall ships.

In a storm like this, says Freeman, where the waters rise because of a storm surge, you have to leave extra slack on the ropes. As a result the ship will "move around a lot and probably dash itself to bits on the rocks."

*Looking at the map, says Freeman, it seems the Bounty just didn't have enough room to skirt the storm.

But the Bounty encountered a more critical problem according to the ship's official Facebook page. It lost power.

"If your only pumps are electrically based and you lose your electricity," says Freeman, "then it becomes an issue of when you will sink, not if."*
As of 1615 EDT, the US Coast Guard was continuing the search for the two missing seamen.

*Read the Transcript*The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI's THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to [email protected]. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI's THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: The US Coastguard is searching for two missing crew members from the tall ship HMS Bounty . The ship ran into trouble as the crew tried to escape Hurricane Sandy's fury off North Carolina's Cape Hatters. Fourteen crew members were rescued early this morning. The ship itself is reported to have sunk. The HMS Bounty was built for MGM studios in 1960 for the classic Film "Mutiny on the Bounty"� starring Marlin Brando. The Bounty also appeared in one version of Treasure Island and in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. For the last 20 years or so, it has served as an educational vessel. Kelsey Freeman is an experienced sailor. She spent about a third of her life crewing tall ships. Kelsey, we don't know why in particular headed out to sea as Hurricane Sandy approached, but why generally is this a common practice, that when a storm comes near, ships head out into the ocean?

Kelsey Freeman: Well, Lisa, ships are meant to sail, and they are generally going to float a lot better if they're out to sea than if they're tied to a dock. Especially in a storm like this, where you have a very, very high storm surge, because it's going to rise-the water's going to rise. You have to have extra slack in the lines. In order to have that much slack, the ship will move around a lot. It will probably dash itself to bits against the docks that it is tied to.

*Mullins: It seems counter-intuitive that a ship would go out right in the path of a hurricane. You're saying that, even that, is safer than being tied up?

Freeman: Ideally, you don't want to head directly to the hurricane. It's my understanding, since I was looking at maps of where the Bounty had gone, they had pins showing it's path; it looked like they were heading out to sea and generally attempting to stay out of the path of the hurricane. And it looks like the storm is so big that there wasn't really anywhere that they could go that would be safe. They couldn't skirt it enough.*
Mullins: You yourself were what's called a topmen when you served on tall ships.

Freeman: Yes.

Mullins: You were one of the high climbers who worked on the highest of the sails.

Freeman: Yes.

Mullins: We've all seen what kind of images of this. I don't know what it's like-what the view is like up there. Maybe you can tell us and also what the experience is like when you're furling sails in gale-force winds.

Freeman: Ya, it can be quite scary because ships are basically reverse pendulums. So if you're all the way at the top, the ship I sail on was quite large, the royal yards where I worked were a hundred feet up. So you're swaying quite a bit. *Though the ideal situation is - let's say you're on a ship like the Bounty that has an engine which you do not want to use your sails during a storm because they do a wonderful job of catching the wind, and can take you in directions you don't want to go or they can flat-out rip off. So ideally, you want to send people into the rigging before a storm to actually furl up the sails and switch to using an engine. And I understand that, that was part of the problem with the Bounty is that they were using their engines and they lost electrical; And when you lose your propulsion, you can't steer. *
Mullins: The on-shore staff reported on Facebook is received a distress call from the Bounty at about 6:30 last night saying that the ship had lost power and the pumps were not able to keep up with the dewatering.

Freeman: Yes.

*Mullins: So basically they were trying to bail out but didn't have the electrical pumps at their service.

Freeman: And that's the thing that historically, ships had hand-pumps, which I think in this situation, even then they would have had difficulty, but if your only pumps are electrically based, and your electricity becomes an issue of when you will sink not if you will sink. I was reading on there - on the Bounty's Facebook page - they said that when they sent on the distress call, they were taking on two feet of water and hour, and they decided to abandon ship when they had reached 10 feet. I've seen the Bounty in person. Taking on ten feet of water means the ship was almost *awash which means it was almost sunken when they were leaving the ship.

Mullins: Have you had that kind of experience where the ship is tilted enough that you're almost at a 90 degree angle if you are way, way up there?

*Freeman: Yes. I was sailing on Lake Heron, and we actually - we were up by the dock, and we actually left to dock to head out into a squall that was coming in. For the same reasons, you don't want to be close to anything the ship can be dashed against.* So we sailed out into it, and we were actually moving very, very quickly, because we had to sails up. So I had to go up and help furl up the sails, and I remember and I even have a photo of this -that the ship was beyond a 45 degree angle on its side heeled over because there was so much wind on the sail. And I was on the leeward side, and I remember that it wasn't that I could literally reach out and touch the water, but at one point it was heeled over so much that I felt like I was going to fall off into the water because it was that close and it was heeled over that much.

Mullins: How come you didn't fall in?

Freeman: Because I was tied to the yard. You wear protective harnesses that little clips so when you're climbing up there - when you're climbing, you're not attached to anything, but once you get into place, you're hooked in to a protective line so that even if you do fall off, you'll be just kind of hanging there.

Mullins: All right, thank you so much. Kelsey Freeman, teacher, freelance photographer, based in Alexandria, Virginia served seven years working on tall ships. Very nice to have you on the program.

Freeman: Thank you


----------



## JulieMor

In a court of law, hearsay is inadmissible. Evidence by eyewitnesses is usually given more weight over everything else. Expert testimony is always given more weight over other testimony. Interpretation is given weight based on who is doing the interpretation. It's the same for opinions.

But above all else is fact, not assumptions. At this point we don't have enough facts to be able to say why the captain set sail into the direction of a hurricane. We don't even know if the crew was aware of the potential of the hurricane. We only have supposition. It's possible the crew can provide facts but they can never say what the captain was thinking unless he told them directly. As of this writing, I know of no crew member who has made any statement regarding the captain's state of mind.

A serious human flaw is the almost inherent quality to be unable to repeat verbatim, to another person, what someone has just told them. That's why hearsay is inadmissible in court. For this discussion, we need quotes, and that means from the people on the dock who talked to captain and crew prior to departure and from the crew directly. What we THINK is only that: what we think. 

The only people who can shed any further light on this subject are the crew and people who spoke with Walbridge at or around the time he was in New London or during the time he was at sea. I have not heard of there being anyone other then the crew who communicated with Walbridge once they cast off.

So that really leaves the crew and thus far they have not said one disparaging word about Robin Walbridge, that I know of. If and when there comes a time that they do, we will know who is right here and who isn't, provided what they have to say relates to this discussion. Until then we can't know. All we have are our opinions. It's better for all when we remember that.


----------



## PCP

Sal Paradise said:


> You going to PROVE your relationship and fill us in on this special knowledge of Walbridge?
> 
> Post some pictures of the two of you sailing together and maybe some excerpts from your many e-mails where you learned what type of captain he really was. How else can we know what you are talking about? Something that shows how his charecter was always to put his crew first even if it meant he had to sacrifice his own ego or goals. How about a copy of his safety manual with his persoanl handwritten notes?
> 
> Because until you do, and fully apprise us what specific knowledge you have of him that contradicts what everyone else is writing - it means absolutely nothing. This is the internet after all. I mean we all know people. I know Morgan Fairchild. In fact I'm married to her. :laugher
> 
> As for what they believe, thats their business - I am noting a real lack of details, a real lack of coherence and continuity in all the various accounts. Some of that I can attribute to beleif or whatever, some of that i can attribute to sloppy journalism, but even accounting for that - I still hear in their statements a vague evasive disingenuous tone. This is my opinion. Nothing more.
> 
> Also Dave,buddy, your hostility is showing again.


Is true that Dave is many times hostile without a reason to be, or at least I see it that way, but I don't like your post.

Why should you or anybody doubt that Dave knew Bounty's Captain?

Unless you know for sure that it is not true what leads you to doubt his word on that?

That fact that he knew it or not as not any relevance to what we are discussing except that makes more comprehensible his attitude on this discussion. After all all the crew and Bounty people regarded him as a great Captain and a great guy. They also thought it was OK to sail hurricanes with the Bounty and used to say that the Bounty loved hurricanes.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Seems this sailor thought the Bounty did the right thing, interesting arcticle, a view point we have not seen from an experienced sailor:
> 
> HMS Bounty Falls Victim to Hurricane Sandy | PRI's The World


One really has to question how "experienced" that guy is, if indeed he thinks that the only two options available to Walbridge were to remain either tied to the dock in New London, or to put to sea, and sail directly into the path of the storm...



> ...it looked like they were heading out to sea and generally attempting to stay out of the path of the hurricane. And it looks like the storm is so big that *there wasn't really anywhere that they could go that would be safe.* They couldn't skirt it enough.


Either he lacks access to charts, or suffers an extreme poverty of imagination... (grin)


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> One really has to question how "experienced" that guy is, if indeed he thinks that the only two options available to Walbridge were to remain either tied to the dock in New London, or to put to sea, and sail directly into the path of the storm...


I agree, but it does give us a perspective into the mindset of some of these square rigger sailors, and maybe some of the crew (and maybe Captain) aboard the movie ship "Bounty".

I also thought it was interesting that the apparent high wind tactic aboard some tall ships is to furl the sails and start the engines.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> ..
> But the Bounty encountered a more critical problem according to the ship's official Facebook page. It lost power.
> 
> "If your only pumps are electrically based and you lose your electricity," says Freeman, "then it becomes an issue of when you will sink, not if."[/B]
> ...


Just a small additional information regarding the Bounty's pumps. They add actually two systems, one connected to the engines (an hydraulic one) and not dependent on the generators and other one electrical. It is not clear what was the main and the back up system but we know that the engines were not in working condition (even if we don't know why) so that system was the first to be put out of service.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I agree, but it does give us a perspective into the mindset of some of these square rigger sailors, and maybe some of the crew (and maybe Captain) aboard the movie ship "Bounty".
> 
> I also thought it was interesting that the apparent high wind tactic aboard some tall ships is to furl the sails and start the engines.


He states that he had been in a somewhat similar situation:

*Freeman: Yes. I was sailing on Lake Heron, and we actually - we were up by the dock, and we actually left to dock to head out into a squall that was coming in. For the same reasons, you don't want to be close to anything the ship can be dashed against. So we sailed out into it, and we were actually moving very, very quickly, because we had to sails up. So I had to go up and help furl up the sails, and I remember and I even have a photo of this -that the ship was beyond a 45 degree angle on its side heeled over because there was so much wind on the sail. And I was on the leeward side, and I remember that it wasn't that I could literally reach out and touch the water, but at one point it was heeled over so much that I felt like I was going to fall off into the water because it was that close and it was heeled over that much.
*

But this is just a squall, not an hurricane and almost took the ship down (these are not like our sailboats, a 45º angle is a very dangerous angle of heel for one of these boats).

I guess we can expect to hear all opinions but this is just a sailor with experience in tall ships. We have heard the opinions of several tall ship captains that said that the Bounty should have not sailed out and none from a tall ship Captain saying otherwise.

Casey regarding storm tactics and sails on a tall ship I don't know, I guess it depends on the intensity of the wind. But the boat had no engines anymore and we have heard a crew man stating that the boat become uncontrollable after the storm sail that they were using to control the boat was blown away.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> You going to PROVE your relationship and fill us in on this special knowledge of Walbridge?


You serious

Even Paulo who I dont agree with much in this thread rebuked you.



> Is true that Dave is many times hostile without a reason to be, or at least I see it that way, but I don't like your post.Why should you or anybody doubt that Dave knew Bounty's Captain?- PCP


Did you ask that of wingnwing when she said she met the captain? I have to pass YOUR litmas test? You...who has absolutley no credibility. Why would I say it if it was not true? Post my e mails between us....silly boy you have lost it, post pictures...silly boy you have lost it more. Some on here have actually met me in person and spent time with me. First hand knowledge of a person again.

I knew the Captain. I said I had met him on more than one occasion. I never said anything about a special relationship, those are your words of hyperbole. Suffice it to say my statements about the Captain are reflected by others who knew him and have been interviewed. You cant seem to digest that can you. The have NO NEGATIVES You cant refute it either. Again note this is FIRST HAND opinions of those who have met or served under him.

Sal,
So again what we have here in your case specifially is you...( I hate to go back to this but I guess I must) *sitting in front of your computer*...no first hand knowledge, no facts other than what you read, pleanty of interpretation and conspiracy theories dreamed up in your own mind creating all sorts of opinions in your "dark ngative" room.

On the other side, you have eye witnesses, people who knew Walbridge for years, people who entrusted their lives with Walbridge, people who were aquantiances ( me) people who wre professionally involced with him....and they all say the same thing....which when comapred with what you say about Walbridge....makes your opinions about Walbridge look like a load of crap. Read JulieMors post it puts it in maybe better perspective than I can.

Now who has the credibility here...you behind you computer with little sailing knowledge or the people who have sailing knowledge wirtht him directly and knew him first hand....duh

I think it is your hostility that has begun to show through. Actually your posts in respoinse to mine since the smallboatlover thread have a distinct pattern to them/


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> He states that he had been in a somewhat similar situation:
> 
> *Freeman: Yes. I was sailing on Lake Heron, and we actually - we were up by the dock, and we actually left to dock to head out into a squall that was coming in. For the same reasons, you don't want to be close to anything the ship can be dashed against. So we sailed out into it, and we were actually moving very, very quickly, because we had to sails up. So I had to go up and help furl up the sails, and I remember and I even have a photo of this -that the ship was beyond a 45 degree angle on its side heeled over because there was so much wind on the sail. And I was on the leeward side, and I remember that it wasn't that I could literally reach out and touch the water, but at one point it was heeled over so much that I felt like I was going to fall off into the water because it was that close and it was heeled over that much.
> *
> 
> But this is just a squall, not an hurricane and almost took the ship down (these are not like our sailboats, a 45º angle is a very dangerous angle of heel for one of these boats).
> 
> I guess we can expect to hear all opinions but this is just a sailor with experience in tall ships. We have heard the opinions of several tall ship captains that said that the Bounty should have not sailed out and none from a tall ship Captain saying otherwise.
> 
> Casey regarding storm tactics and sails on a tall ship I don't know, I guess it depends on the intensity of the wind. But the boat had no engines anymore and we have heard a crew man stating that the boat become uncontrollable after the storm sail that they were using to control the boat was blown away.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I agree, I posted it because it gives another perspective (could be right or wrong).

The final Coast Guard report will be interesting. Curious if the Coast Guard report will address the following: storm tactics of the ship (engines vs sails), experience of crew and captain, condition of the ship (rig, hull engines, pumps, electrical, communications), decision steps made when deciding to set sail and try to out manuver the huricane.


----------



## JulieMor

JonEisberg said:


> One really has to question how "experienced" that guy is...


C'mon Jon! You know! In this country experienced means having done something for a long time. How well that person does it does not take away from he or she being experienced.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ... Why would I say it if it was not true? Post my e mails between us....silly boy you have lost it, post pictures...silly boy you have lost it more.
> 
> ...


and I don't like your tone too.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

JulieMor said:


> C'mon Jon! You know! In this country experienced means having done something for a long time. How well that person does it does not take away from he or she being experienced.


In my opinion there are exceptions but as a rule an experienced professional sailor deserves more credit than an amateur one and a Professional Tall Ship Captain deserves a lot more credit than a professional sailor, even a tall ship sailor.

A Tall ship Captain credit in what regards this is only comparable to the opinion of Naval Designers with experience on this type of ships. Maybe a tall ship NA deserves even more credit than a tall ship Captain in what regards the credibility of his opinion.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## NCC320

Chef, 

Is SAL really that bad? Maybe he overstepped in asking you to prove your relationship with Bounty's captain, but he has some good ideas/opinions too. And if he overstepped a bit, is it right to trash him? It seems to me that there were some really mean statements made against him.....and not justified in my book. 

You are a defender of captain based on your take of the available information and some personal knowledge of the man. That is your position.

Others look at the available information and draw different conclusions. They are unlikely to convince you of their position, nor will you convince them to change their position.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sal Paradise said:


> You going to PROVE your relationship and fill us in on this special knowledge of Walbridge?


Sal, I agree with the others. Put a lid on it.

Let's all move on and be happy


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320,

His overstepping was really a questioning of integrity, and you sought to chastise me and minimize his indescretion. Clearly you are biased..enough said about it. Your opinion is noted.

Back to the thread.....the Bounty.

While more and more first hand knowledge and opinions about Captain Walbridge have started surfacing, it appears that almost every one of them paint him as a respectable, knowledgeable, dedicated Captain who for the most part was deidcated to safety of his crew and vessel. FIRST hand interviews have said this time and time again. Interviews with surviors of the ordeal paint him still with a realatvely positive reference. Other people have come forward who knew the Captain or met him first hand have spoken as to his qualities and almost all of them paint him in the same light. These are the facts. They are irrefutable.

So we are looking for lessons to be learned from this. Well I want to include another one. Rushing to judge someone, without questioning the people around them who have first hand knowledge of the person, without questioning the survivors of the incident who paint a differing story of the Captain but the same as the people who knew him is just plain unforgiveable.

I have from the very beginning supported and been able to support those of you who found extreme fault with the decision to leave the dock into the hurricane. I have never thought that this was anything but an aggregious mistake and poor judgement in this instance and that he should ultimately be held responsible as the Captain is for this decision. This responsibility holds even if they find contributing factoprs ( design, pumps, engines, strycture, ballast etc.). He is responsible.

What I cannot support and find dehumanizing is the attck mode some of you have been on to paint this man as a crazy, suicidal, cult leader with little experience or reagrd for his fellow man. Some have very agressively keep accusations about the Captain on incidents other than this one where there were never any questions or charges ever. The only people thinking this way are the attackers. Its like they dont want to admit that even a good Captain, knowledgeable in his craft can make a bad mistake and error in judgement. Sometimes good people do bad things. Sometimes we do.

But for ALL OF US amateur slueths to go on a continual witchhunt directed always back to Walbriodge analayzing structuire and displacement changes, failed pumps for who knows what real reason, pumps may be independent of the motors and any number of technical issues which I would be none of us have expertise in should really be left up to the experts as the constant comjecture and speculation is nothing but that. Some even have mistaken the difference between a fact and their fact which is really an opinion. Having the right to have an opinion is what this forum is about. No opinion really is right or wrong its yours, but thats how it should be stated. SloopJonB and Jon Eisberg are very carefull when stating things as their opinion to note that. What is dangerous is for some newbie to come along and here some spouting outlandish unporved accusations and hypothesis as facts. The initial group of Walbridge rebutation bashers have had to retreat back to where we should have started in the beginning before the hysteria started to questioning the other facts surrounding this. But they were so intent on thorttling those who supported the Captain as a qualified man who made a mistake, they lost sight of what really happened. Now the survuors and the people who new him speak up...and the bashers really have no credibility compared to them.

There will always be questions about his sailing in hurricanes ( if he truly did or it was just a boast), but up until the day he left the dock in New London I have yet to see any evidence/ opinion / post/ citation accusing him of being reckless, suicidal, cult leader etc. All of these accusations or theories have come after the sinking of the Bounty. As I said early on a Rush to Judgement is dangerous as it can lead you to form opinions which really cannot be substantiated with backup* facts *.

Some of you cant seem to comprehend that these people wont say bad things about him. You continue bashing by saying they must have a reason not to....why cant they see what I see from behind my computer. There must be a conspiracy with ALL of them including the people who have known him and sailed with him for years to not say something bad here. Simplicity is the truth.\\

IMHO the reason we, and I include myself with those who were aquaintances as I was, are stunned by this, stunned to think this really good man with all this experience would make a decision to leave in the face of a hurricane. We are stunned with the inexpliticity of it. It is so out of character as to seem surreal is did it and is gone.

Some of you who have remained mostly silent and quiet may also have come to this conclusion as his friends have. You have not been blinded by a rush to judge and it shows a real strength in your character and sense of fair play. I cant say I have stood with you as I stand accused of judgimg those who judged him which makes me just as bad as them. I have posted out of defense of him, sometimes in a way which was as bad as the bashers which therefore makes me hypocritical. My good freind Mainsail pointed this out to me. Others have also through PMs I agree I am guilty of that. For that I apoligize. I thanks those of you who wrote that to me also, for making me look at myself. Lets see how many of the others apoligoize now for rushing to judgement or will the continual to defend their actions forever.

Robin was a good kind, smart, experienced boastfull, teacher and 17 year Captain of the Bounty.
This good man screwed up big time. It happens we are all humans. His was worse...it cost lives including his own, it cost his good reputation of over 25 years, gone in the instant of a bad decision. As I said sometime good people do bad things. Lets not make him out to be this ogre cult leader who was really suicidal in nature who wanted to put people in danager all the time. Doesnt ring true with the truth. Lets just agree that he screwed up and is responsible which unfortunatley we cant predict or correct in the future because GOOD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS SOMETIMES

Lets see if we can continue to find some of the thigs we can chance to prevent what happened to the Bounty once they were out there in trouble. One thing I cansay is that he trained his crew extremely well what to do in an emergency...that is why they almost all survived. It also goes back as an indication of his underlying commitment to the crew and safety. Why he did thta and thenleft the dock the ultimate unsafe thing to do I cant explain and neoither can anyone else.


----------



## therapy23

chef2sail said:


> This decision was so out of character to the man we knew..


Comment deleted by tdw


----------



## therapy23

Plus, I can't take any more of this thread so will sign out. 

Someone please PM me when the CG is finished.

Thanks.


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> This is not simply a SAR event, like the ones from the Coast guard. This is a SAR event that have taken place after an epirb activation. Obviously that they don't count false alarms.


Paulo, I took some time to search the supporting document on the web site that contains the "stories" of all the SAR events they counted for 2010. They do in fact appear to weed out the false alarms in their final stats, but that doesn't mean there weren't SAR resources put into action for those false alarms. They just leave those out of their SAR stats. You can still find many of them in the "stories" section.

The majority of Maritime SAR Events listed in fact appear to be commercial vessels of one kind or another. It's difficult to tell, as the description is frequently "trawler" or "fishing boat" without actually stating whether commercial or private.

Quite a few were DINGHIES on the Auz coast.

Worldwide, there were 61 involving sailboats. Then, when you actually read the details, quite a few of them were cases that only required a tow - no life threatening circmstances - yet the persons on board were still counted as "Rescued." There were also a handful that were on rivers and lakes. The total persons rescued from sailboats was 157. And even that number included 22 illegal immigrants being smuggled into Greece, a dozen or so on several boats that acutally continued to port under their own power, etc.

Oh, and on the point of GPS, etc, "emoboldening" people, etc, the number of sailboats in the report making ocean crossings or long passages (more than 20 nm offshore) I counted 17.

61 sailboats, world-wide, over a whole year.


----------



## Midnightflyer

O.K. I've HAD IT! All you arm chair sailors quit your bitchin'! You have kicked this dog down
the road far enough.


----------



## tdw

OK then .... I think we've reached a "cool it you lot" moment. 

This is not off topic .... rules re abuse are much more strictly enforced here than in the sewer. I'm not going back to edit out the offences thus far perpetrated but more than one of you need to put a sock in it.


----------



## Minnewaska

We can make 2000 posts easy.

By the way, PCP, your english is outstanding. Anyone that can debate in a foreign language has it down, regardless of whether they are right.

My son is taking German as his required language at an Ivy League college. He was laughing, when I saw him over Thanksgiving, that he had a conversational exam with his professor. He was asked what he knew of Alaska. He gave some reply in German that included knowing there were bears in Alaska. Then we was asked what he knew of the bears. He suttered and all he could muster up in German was, "they're brown".

You've got the language down.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

I am copying the majority of a post I made on a gCaptain forum, something I have been following re:Bounty since soon after she went down. Clearly I have too much time on my hands to be reading all these forums, but well, I have no excuse other than a frozen lake in winter.

Some background on me: I have nearly six years of experience as crew on various Tallships, ranging from 60-150 feet, and sailing in and around both US coasts, the FL Keys, and many many islands in the South Pacific. Professionally, I met Captain Walbridge twice to speak with him about working for Bounty, seen the boat, lived aboard her while at dock, and know many former crew members (I have never sailed aboard Bounty). I also know Captain Miles (the author of the "my friend" letter), and have sailed as a volunteer on the Pride of Baltimore II (he was co-captain of the original Pride, and has been captain of Pride II since her creation).

Please forgive me, I know this is long-winded, but I'd like to share the "tallship sailor's side," if you will.

I have not talked about the Bounty publicly (either in forums, Facebook, etc) out of respect for her crew (some of whom are friends), and I believe that is why the TallShip community as a whole has been quiet. It has NOT been to protect the name of the Bounty by any means, but the actual people. However, it has been several weeks, and I am incredibly frustrated by most of what I've read on this forum and others, not to mention the Bounty Facebook page. I am not defending the Bounty, Captain Walbridge or the decision to go to sea. I only wish to defend the rest of the Tallship Community/Industry (I refer to both because I feel that this is both a career to many of us, and it is also a very small, tight-knit community) who are being grouped in with the Bounty defenders. Nor are probably 99% of those posting inane comments on the Bounty Facebook page or elsewhere.

1. The crew that makes up the base of the TSCI are supported by a large percentage of volunteers. Sometimes those crew volunteered in order to be "promoted" to paying jobs, other times they were retirees or weekend warrior types. Some TallShips have "pay-to-play" or "trainee" type programs, like the Picton Castle. PC left recently for a circumnavigation (notably postponing leaving Nova Scotia until Sandy was out of the way), and "pay-to-play" is how she funds her overhead costs. Most other Tallships are funded by donors, educational field trips, "appearance fees" (though this has become more rare), and passenger fees on daysails/overnight sails. I have volunteered occasionally, though my first gig on a TallShip was as paid crew. Whether they were paid, paying, or volunteer crew, quite often a ship is a sailor's "home." For the majority of the last 6 years, I lived aboard the boats I worked on, and had mail forwarded to friends or family. On top of this, most TallShips don't pay much. Over the years, depending on the organization that owned the boats and my experience or position, I was paid between $400-1400 a month (the lower end of the scale 90% of the time). I'll come back to it, but note that if a sailor were to leave Bounty (former crew have told me they made $200-240 a month, with officers not making much more. Bounty was notorious for low pay.) a few nights in a hotel or a flight home would be a month's pay.

2. In the TallShips Community, Bounty was an anomaly. There are a small handful of other Tallships that are privately owned, and not managed by a non-profit. In essence, the USCG saw her as a yacht (which is why she was an "uninspected" vessel), not much different than a private motor yacht. On the other hand, Lady Maryland, for example, is a 104-foot wooden schooner built in 1986 by the Living Classrooms Foundation. She operates March-November with an ecology based program, teaching 4th-12th grade students and sailing with them in the Chesapeake Bay, as well as in New England. To do this, she is inspected every year by the USCG (not only checking the hull, rig, and maintenance, but also making us crew “re-enact” man-overboard, fire, and evacuation drills), has all the proper paperwork showing exactly how many crew and what licenses (and what size) are needed to operate, as well as watertight bulkheads, etc, and amount of sails and size she can carry (i.e., LM can only sail with her main topsail if there are no passengers aboard). Bounty did not have to go through any of this, and might only have a very basic inspection, and carried a six-pack, or 6 passenger max (some people say 12pax? I'm just going off conversations with crew from years ago), uninspected vessel license. There is a world of difference between the way she and the majority of Tallships are operated. Why did she advertise school/corporate sails on her website? I don't know how the office planned on making that happen, but I have never heard of that happening aboard Bounty, with the exception of the occasional paying passenger. So why did she not have subchapter T certification? I can't answer that question, only the office or Walbridge can. The problem comes when you begin to think about why a vessel like Bounty should be inspected. Because she carries passengers/pay-to-play? Technically as long as it's six/12 or less, she doesn't need any bigger certification. Because she is a large boat? There are private motor/sailing yachts that size that don't need inspection. Because she's old/wooden/replica? There are again, many many privately owned vessels that old or older that remain uninspected (a friend of mine is restoring a 1920s schooner to use as a charter boat with six passengers, so he won't need any inspection).

In all reality, if USCG rules are changed, that's a hell of a lot more paperwork/manpower/regulation that will have to be put into place, for every single “old boat,” or vessel over such-and-such feet.

3. Many other sailors had heard “sea stories” about her, though I know a lot of us wrote these off as hyperbolic (because sea stories usually are). Since this story and the “we chase hurricanes” interview have come to light, it appearing obvious that many of the stories are not as overblown as we thought they were. I must admit, I have warned friends away from working on the Bounty, and I know I am not the only one.

4. Most Tallships carry greenhands. That’s how we learn. In weather like this hurricane, with as much forewarning as there was available, Bounty should never have left the dock especially with newer crew (even with my experience - the biggest seas I've seen are 20ft, and 50-60knots - the thought of sailing toward a hurricane makes my stomach turn over). She did have eight “experienced” crew with licenses/AB cert, and several others with a couple years of experience, but the rest were all new, including Claudene (note: I don’t consider six months aboard a sailor’s first boat “well-seasoned”). To be honest, Bounty was kind of a "green boat." That is, she often had crew fresh off the dock, and many of her officers were crew that had mostly or only sailed Bounty. That can be a good thing, as her older crew are extremely familiar with her nuances, but it can also mean that her crew have a lackadaisical approach when on another vessel (we never did that on the Bounty, etc). 

5. In addition, the ship’s engineer in a recent interview (who boarded the ship in Boothbay, where the ship was hauled out) stated "at that point in time, I didn't know a hurricane was coming" and “we didn’t realize the magnitude of the storm.” That blows my mind. I have to wonder, because of their naivety about the weather (I have to admit, sometimes life aboard a Tallship can become very insular with little news of the rest of the world “outside,” but I try to take opportunities to watch news in the bar, or catch the front page of newspapers, etc, and most definitely pay attention to the weather reports on the VHF) was Walbridge able to psyche the crew up for a “wild ride” and get them to follow him?

6. Finally, if you are a crew member at the dock and hear about Hurricane Sandy, what do you do? Do you jump ship and leave your crewmates behind? Remember, not only does this look bad on your part, but you have also left your friends, and home. If Walbridge hadn’t said that he wouldn’t hold it against them if they left, in the small community of Tallships, this is possibly a blacklisting offense. As crew, where do you go? What if you left and the ship made it to Florida safely? All kinds of things could be said against you. If you incite others to leave, when does it become mutiny (and if other captains hear this, why should they trust and hire you, when you didn’t trust your captain’s judgment)? Other posters on this forum wondered why in the 15+ years that Walbridge was captain on Bounty, why no one said anything about him. What do you say? If something happens that causes you as a sailor to lose your trust in your Captain, where do you go? Do you tell another captain? The USCG? That’s hearsay, and certainly your word as a deckhand versus a captain. If you as a captain of another Tallship hear a sea story that makes you question Walbridge, you’re repeating hearsay and possibly ruining Walbridge’s reputation if it was only a false rumor. 

7. In defense of Captain Miles' letter, I do not know the exact extent of his relationship with Captain Walbridge, but I do know they were at least friendly and good acquaintances. I think his reasoning for addressing Walbridge as "my friend" was twofold; they were friends and had very similar social circles, but also he was perhaps using "friend" as a way of softening a blow when the letter needed to be said. It comes back to the TSC not addressing the situation other than with condolences because many of our friends are former crew. I know as a majority, the TSC let out a sigh of relief when we read Captain Miles' words. He is extremely well-respected for his experience and knowledge in the community.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> We can make 2000 posts easy.
> 
> By the way, PCP, your english is outstanding. Anyone that can debate in a foreign language has it down, regardless of whether they are right.
> 
> My son is taking German as his required language at an Ivy League college. He was laughing, when I saw him over Thanksgiving, that he had a conversational exam with his professor. He was asked what he knew of Alaska. He gave some reply in German that included knowing there were bears in Alaska. Then we was asked what he knew of the bears. He suttered and all he could muster up in German was, "they're brown".
> 
> You've got the language down.


Thank you. It is one of the reasons I hang here. Just to improve it. I have started recentely on an Italian forum with the same purpose, but that is a bit more difficult since I had not any formal education whit it.

No the German is another thing, I can understand something in what regards reading, but speaking... no way. My wife speaks reasonably well German and reads books without difficulty. I have tried to learn but the grammar and all those declinations are just a pain in the ass. I understand quite well your son's dificulties

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

sparklepl3nty said:


> ... I know as a majority, the TSC let out a sigh of relief when we read Captain Miles' words. He is extremely well-respected for his experience and knowledge in the community.


Thanks for your post and your explanations. I had the intuition that TSC wanted badly not to be confounded with the Bounty and you make that clearer as already had done another poster that crews on tall ship Gazela.

I love tall ships and traditional wooden boats so I understand very well your concern with the repercussions this sad adventure with a bad ending can have on the Tall Ship Community. I hope CG can find a balanced compromise between the needs to regulate the ships and crews in a way to warrant a good level of safety and sustainability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Thank you forn your post. Hopefully you dont join make one post and run. You post was very informative and excellent and provides insight and also raises questions which I hope you are willing to or can answer.

Since you spent so much time in MD on the Pride, Do you know the captain of the tall ship Witchcraft stationed in Pasadena Maryland? What kind of classification would that boat be in terms of tall ships. What kind of liscencing would he need?



> What do you say? If something happens that causes you as a sailor to lose your trust in your Captain, where do you go? Do you tell another captain


This is a question I have kept asking. Sorry, but I need more clarity from you about your answer. I understand the blacklisting/ mutiny thing, but now since the Captain is being accused by some of deriliction all along ( we all pretty much agree about his responsibility in the leaving of port to sail into sandy), why are there still no stories or posts from others as to previous instances. Surely there are forum like this one, where your anononimity would be protected and you could air your concerns. maybe had you since you carefully talk around them and others had air concerns about this vessel and crew they would have been looked at more closely.



> Many other sailors had heard "sea stories" about her, though I know a lot of us wrote these off as hyperbolic (because sea stories usually are). Since this story and the "we chase hurricanes" interview have come to light, it appearing obvious that many of the stories are not as overblown as we thought they were. I must admit, I have warned friends away from working on the Bounty, and I know I am not the only one


Why? 
What are you not saying directly here? 
Was there a problem with the Captain here?
Was there a problem with the crew? 
Was there a problem with the Ship? 
Was there a problem with the company which owned the ship?.

Can you be specific as to what the reason you warned your friends from working on the Bounty? Just saying you wouldnt work on the vessel or wouldnt want your friends to implies irregularities. Mmre than just poor pay.

I look forward to reading your answers.

Dave


----------



## jameswilson29

Minnewaska said:


> By the way, PCP, your english is outstanding. Anyone that can debate in a foreign language has it down, regardless of whether they are right.


You add a great deal to the conversation on Sailnet, PCP. In addition to your command of the English language and your articulation of a European perspective on boats and sailing, you research your points and provide objective third-party support for your views - a rare breath of fresh air in a listserv where too many take the easy way out and just want to spout out unsupported subjective biases.


----------



## PCP

jameswilson29 said:


> You add a great deal to the conversation on Sailnet, PCP. In addition to your command of the English language and your articulation of a European perspective on boats and sailing, you research your points and provide objective third-party support for your views - a rare breath of fresh air in a listserv where too many take the easy way out and just want to spout out unsupported subjective biases.


James, thanks. It is nice to have a so positive feedback. I would say that the same applies to you in what regards a legal perspective of many situations. That is rare. Normally lawyers are too much occupied earning money to "lose" time in a forum.

Also it is a fresh breath of air to have intelligent younger guys like you and some few others posting. Most are older guys like me that had more time to learn not to be too dumb Cheers to all younger posters around.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

sparklepl3nty, for the most part, what you wrote, and I read every word, didn't surprise me. It sounded a lot like the land based working world. "Keep your mouth shut if you want a job." I'm not saying Walbridge was like that but, like you said, those things can go through someone's head when they are thinking of criticizing the boss.

That speaks to the mentality of keeping quiet to CYA so common in the working world. Ten people can trash talk a boss and it will be they who find themselves out of a job. But one boss can destroy the reputation of as many people he or she wants and it will rarely affect the job status of that boss. I've been on both sides of that fence so I know what I'm talking about.

What did surprise me was your statement about the general knowledge in the TSC to stay away from the Bounty and the relief felt my many in the community when Miles posted his letter on FB. Miles got pretty well trashed here for doing that.

When you apply that CYA mentality to the crew of the Bounty and the situation they were faced with at the dock when Walbridge told them of his plans to sail towards Sandy, one can just imagine what went through the minds of the crew. It wouldn't surprise me if they swallowed hard, crossed their fingers and stepped aboard hoping for the best.

Practically all the crew of the Bounty is on Facebook and not one has posted anything negative about the Bounty or its captain. There are many others on FB who have crewed on Bounty and they too have nothing bad to say about the ship or the captain, even the ones no longer working in the TSC.

We're in tough economic times. Combine that with the lure of the sea many of us have, the romanticized images that may float through one's head just looking at these majestic tall ships and the desire to sail a tall ship, and it's easy to see how someone who crews on a tall ship would feel it wise to speak nothing negative about their experiences or their captain. 

But, if that is in fact the case here, that silence cost the loss of ship and crew and will probably do so again unless regular inspections become mandatory. I fear the odds of that are very slim. The only other option is for those who have knowledge of poorly maintained vessels or reckless leadership to report that to the proper authorities. If the TSC is anything like the regular working world, there's almost no chance of that happening either. 

Thank you for your insight, your honesty and your willingness to speak out.


----------



## Minnewaska

I seem to recall there being three separate professionals from the TSC hat have now opined that the Bounty, as whole, was a inferior operation to their standards. I've read reference to her physical condition, propensity to take on danger and the relative lack of professional crew. That all adds up to a cultural problem with Bounty.

It doesn't make than all the Captain's fault, but he would be the leader responsible for it.

As speculation, I can image a laid back culture would be very attractive to some. Less structure, fewer rules, not living under the tyranny of "the man". I have no way to say that was the culture, I'm only pointing out how a very distructive one could still cause its members to think it was great and retain admiration for its leadership.

My point is that the general support of the crew for their Captain does not convince me that he was a good leader. In some cases, the best leaders are not the most liked.


----------



## chef2sail

I am hoping sparlepl3nty will return and post again and answer some of the questions I posed to him/ her. 

Without starting a storm here, a one post contributer in the past has raised suspicions. Dont read into what I am saying here. I am just folowing a tradition which has been in effect on SN by asking.

I would like to hear what specifically they were worried about instead of trying to guess it. The culture, the ship, the Captain, the owner. Just throwing out generalities only fuels the speculation more. 

If the TSC was so worried about the Bounty and now it has sunk and is gone and they are so united about the ship, surely there will be no repercussions about speaking frankly about what SPECIFICALLY was wrong on the Bounty. You would think they would want to try and make it narrowed to the Bounty so that the spotlight isnt cast on the whole industry. Surely you would also think that if there were these specific p[roblems abaord this ship they would be identified so they dont happen again on other tall ships.

That would be part of the learned lesson we are asking for here. 

So Sparkelpl3nty speak back up. Let everyone know what it was specifically so we can correct it going forward and it doesnt cost someone their lives again. Its obvious the silence before hand about this didnt work by your own admission. After all this may benefit you and your freinds in this industry which you is aparent oin your passion, which may have safety and culture issues as is now being speculated that can be corrected for all TSC members..


----------



## JulieMor

chef2sail said:


> If the TSC was so worried about the Bounty and now it has sunk and is gone and they are so united about the ship, surely there will be no repercussions about speaking frankly about what SPECIFICALLY was wrong on the Bounty.


Unless there is a fear of being a whistle blower and/or opening up a can of worms.


----------



## Brewgyver

MarkofSeaLife said:


> There's an interesting point. Because the Judge and the Jury in law cases are always people who do not know the person on trial. And they only have to go on what they are given in that trial.
> (snippage)


Here's another interesting point: Anybody who posted in this thread would be disqualified from sitting on the Jury, if either counsel (defense or prosecution) were doing their job. In addition to that, many of the people who post on Sailnet and other sites, who clearly have a great deal of practical knowledge about sailing and seamanship, would most likely be excluded. They WANT jurors who don't have a great deal of personal knowledge and/or experience in the key matters of the case being tried.


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> He said that he had turned it out *for maintenance*. Why the hell do you think he have stropped a generator in the middle of a storm to make maintenance except it the thing needed it urgently otherwise it would blow apart?


Paulo, that would definitely NOT be called "maintenance." The ONLY reason to stop an operating generator in such circumstances would be to effect and EMERGENCY REPAIR. I'm not quibbbling about semantics - no engineer worth the name would do that, and then call it "maintenance".


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> Paulo, that would definitely NOT be called "maintenance." The ONLY reason to stop an operating generator in such circumstances would be to effect and EMERGENCY REPAIR. I'm not quibbbling about semantics - no engineer worth the name would do that, and then call it "maintenance".


The guy is not an engineerit is an handy man.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sparklepl3nty

I have to work and sleep a little! Don't worry, I will try to continue to post and be as honest as I can. Thanks for your kinds words, too.



chef2sail said:


> Since you spent so much time in MD on the Pride, Do you know the captain of the tall ship Witchcraft stationed in Pasadena Maryland? What kind of classification would that boat be in terms of tall ships. What kind of liscencing would he need?


I am not familiar with Witchcraft or her owner, so I Googled her. (theyachtwitchcraft.com) To be honest, she's kind of in an odd position.. I personally would describe her as classic boat or yacht. "Tall Ship" to most people are traditional sailing ships, but more in the pre-1900s style than anything else, with stepped masts. Classic boats can fall into that category, but it becomes fuzzy. (I hoped I didn't offend anyone here. I love classic wooden boats, and have had the pleasure of sailing on a few). The website doesn't mention any charter sailing, or taking any passengers out, so really, the owner/captain doesn't need any licensing. (Now, I do wish more states would require boaters to go through some sort of safety class. Florida has only just implemented one, but the older boaters do not have to legally take the class, and frankly, FT Myers has some god-awful boaters. But that's another discussion.)



chef2sail said:


> This is a question I have kept asking. Sorry, but I need more clarity from you about your answer. I understand the blacklisting/ mutiny thing, but now since the Captain is being accused by some of deriliction all along ( we all pretty much agree about his responsibility in the leaving of port to sail into sandy), why are there still no stories or posts from others as to previous instances. Surely there are forum like this one, where your anononimity would be protected and you could air your concerns. maybe had you since you carefully talk around them and others had air concerns about this vessel and crew they would have been looked at more closely.


The TSC in all reality is a loose group of vessels. While we may see each other at Tall Ship Festivals (each summer, a group of TallShips sail between ports on the East Coast, West Coast, or the Great Lakes, and there is often a "reunion" of sorts for crews), or reunite with a former crewmember on another ship, there really isn't one main "forum," if you will. Facebook *has* changed a lot of that, though many folks don't either have internet access or desire to join Facebook or similar websites. I myself didn't know this was here until a week or so ago. (Though I think I've floated through the forums when trying to find info/opinions on tools, etc, in the past.) I think we do still worry about anonymity no matter where we are, because the TSC core is very small.

I also wonder if those of us who had our doubts and opinions might have wondered if we were making a mountain out of a molehill, or if we would be judged.

These "sea stories" that I talk about were very one-on-one communication, either through email (I have certainly emailed friends to ask their opinion of vessels/captains when thinking of working for them) or in person.

It all really comes down to she-said-he-said, though. I think the biggest reason is that nothing was "said" about Captain Walbridge or Bounty is because we (those of us who hadn't sailed on Bounty) had no proof and for the most part only rumors. Like I said in my earlier post, most of Bounty's crew started green, and many didn't have anything to compare it to. There is also a thought of "well how else are we going to get xyz done? If I don't do it, someone else will." I certainly have thought that when faced with a task (say, attaching stays aloft).



chef2sail said:


> Why?
> What are you not saying directly here?
> Was there a problem with the Captain here?
> Was there a problem with the crew?
> Was there a problem with the Ship?
> Was there a problem with the company which owned the ship?.
> 
> Can you be specific as to what the reason you warned your friends from working on the Bounty? Just saying you wouldnt work on the vessel or wouldnt want your friends to implies irregularities. Mmre than just poor pay.


I really don't want I'm saying to be used as fodder. What I will say is that when I first saw the Bounty in 2005, I was working for a sailing museum (I had yet to sail and would join my first ship a year later). I was interested and afterhours, introduced myself to the crew and they showed me around the boat. One of the crew asked if I wanted to go aloft and asked the captain for permission to show me. I was terrified of heights, but he was a cute boy and I certainly didn't want to miss out, so we climbed up to the main course or so, and he pointed out the rig, including describing certain yards as "unstayed" (the lifts were wonky and loose). In 2006 or 2007, she underwent a major yard restoration, and left for what was supposed to be a recreation of the original Bounty voyage. (I heard she ran out of funds, and just went to Europe.) A friend who was crew during this trip told me that in yard, "someone" had forgotten to put a seacock in, so a few days into the transAtlantic voyage, the crew noticed she was taking on water from the "hole" in her hull.

Naturally this stuck with me, and when I saw her again for a Festival in 2008, I was amazed she had looked so different and in much better shape. However, I did have conversations with one of the mates (a friend I met when he was sailing another boat) about why he trusted Walbridge, and how he felt about the boat. It came down to her restoration, and that Walbridge was convinced the ship would survive (I do remember my friend saying Walbridge said Bounty has a "positive buoyancy," that she would not sink completely).

A few years later (this story is related to me from captain friend, and eye-witnessed by his entire crew), Bounty was tied up to dock, and her crew and captain on deck for the morning muster. My friend said that wake came into harbor (his boat was tied on the opposite side of the pier), and Bounty, her docklines still tight from the tide coming in, started bouncing against the dock. My friend and his crew, who were also mustering on deck, watched this happen, and said none of the crew looked over the rail at the taut lines, or even moved. When Bounty started bouncing her "rub rail" (trim along the fore-and-aft midsection) and cracking it on the cement dock, Bounty crew finally noticed and eased her docklines. (Some of Bounty crew came up to my friend's crew and said they should have pointed out the tight lines. My experience as crew is that we ease lines for tide, and often operate a "pee watch" to adjust lines as well - that is, if you get up to pee in the middle of the night, check docklines.)

I really don't want to discuss details further, as some of them are more personal. When I've warned friends, I've often described the boat as "mis-handled." That is not to say Walbridge didn't know the boat.. I've seen him sail onto and off the dock, which is pretty crazy with a large boat. I think overall she was just not a safe boat, due to a lot of green crew, and much lower pay than most of the industry meant she may not have the best or most experienced crew. (I do know that for many years, her first and second mate were the same people, who had spent the majority of their TallShip experience on Bounty. As far as I know, they were excellent mates.)

Lastly, I know very little about the company. Those saying she was left for insurance money, or because she was for sale... frankly, she's been for sale for years, at least since 2010 that I know of. Several Tall Ships are. It's really just a matter of these boats often being more expensive upkeep than the owners realize, or hard times, especially in the last couple years.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

JulieMor said:


> What did surprise me was your statement about the general knowledge in the TSC to stay away from the Bounty and the relief felt my many in the community when Miles posted his letter on FB. Miles got pretty well trashed here for doing that.


I think a lot of it boils down to being green. The TSC is kind of divided (at least to crew) into a couple categories. There are boats you sail on to get your foot in the door (sometimes as volunteer, sometimes paid), other boats whose crew is very qualified and experienced. Some boats only offer "booze cruises" out of the same port, others that travel along the coast with children or students, and still others are "voyaging" and travel just to travel. Many boats offer a mix of this, as Pride II is a "goodwill" ship. She does carry passengers for daysails, and sometimes between ports, but the majority of her time is traveling for appearances.

So if you are new to the TSC, you may not know all the nuances or rumors about boats. 


JulieMor said:


> When you apply that CYA mentality to the crew of the Bounty and the situation they were faced with at the dock when Walbridge told them of his plans to sail towards Sandy, one can just imagine what went through the minds of the crew. It wouldn't surprise me if they swallowed hard, crossed their fingers and stepped aboard hoping for the best.


I have to agree with you here. It would be a tough decision (weighing finances, letting your crew down, your next move as a sailor, etc) no matter what boat you're working for.



JulieMor said:


> Practically all the crew of the Bounty is on Facebook and not one has posted anything negative about the Bounty or its captain. There are many others on FB who have crewed on Bounty and they too have nothing bad to say about the ship or the captain, even the ones no longer working in the TSC.


Remember, not everyone has their Facebook public, and what we do say/have said/will say is likely private from the snooping eye. I wouldn't assume that just because you haven't seen it, it isn't there. Not to mention we are all hyper-aware of people looking for dirt.



JulieMor said:


> We're in tough economic times. Combine that with the lure of the sea many of us have, the romanticized images that may float through one's head just looking at these majestic tall ships and the desire to sail a tall ship, and it's easy to see how someone who crews on a tall ship would feel it wise to speak nothing negative about their experiences or their captain.
> 
> But, if that is in fact the case here, that silence cost the loss of ship and crew and will probably do so again unless regular inspections become mandatory. I fear the odds of that are very slim. The only other option is for those who have knowledge of poorly maintained vessels or reckless leadership to report that to the proper authorities. If the TSC is anything like the regular working world, there's almost no chance of that happening either.


I will say it again. Bounty was an irregularity. If you look at Tall Ships America's webpage, or wikipedia for info, you will find that at least 90% of these ships are inspected and have extremely high regulations. I have felt very secure on nearly all the vessels I have worked on, and trusted my captains.


----------



## Brewgyver

PCP said:


> The guy is not an engineerit is an handy man.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I agree, and that is why I said "no engineer worth the name..." It would have been more accurate to say "no Engineer worth the title." If the Bounty actually had an experienced Engineer aboard, it is quite possible that we wouldn't be talking about it for 1200 plus posts.


----------



## chef2sail

Thank you for comming back and replying and giving us a further glimpse into what you saw.



> I am not familiar with Witchcraft or her owner, so I Googled her. (theyachtwitchcraft.com) To be honest, she's kind of in an odd position.. I personally would describe her as classic boat or yacht. "Tall Ship" to most people are traditional sailing ships, but more in the pre-1900s style than anything else, with stepped masts


.

I am actually quite suprised you have never heard of Witchcraft before. She is a staple of the classB tall ships in the Baltimore area and is berthed in my marina 2 slips from me. She participates yearly in all of festivals in the area and many times over the years and now accompanied both the Pride of Baltimore and the Pride of Baltimore II in events on the Chesapeake. I beleive you mention you sailed on Both. The Captain of the Witchcraft also served on both Prides. He knows the Captain of the pride II and he knew Walbridge even. We spoke about this a week ago and I spoke with him today and showed him your post. Thats why I though you may have certainly run accross him as the Tall ship community here in the Chesapeake is a small one and they do a lot of travelking toigether to many of the festivals on the Chesapeake together.. You are correct that it is now a personal yacht and does not take passangers .

From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen. Even the most basic seaman amongst us know about slacking lines through tidal changes and the effect on lines of a tidal change. In one way it sounds as if those who were on the Bounty were trying to live the dream of the Tall Ship era without the proper vessel, training and funding.

It almost sounds from what you say that them even taking this vessel out of the harbor is something they were not really qualified for by your description of dock lines and the thru hulls. No wonder you had no confidence in allowing your friends to board her in any way other than the dock. I guess she should have just stayed a dockside attraction some
where and not moved. Wow and to think this veessel went accross the Atlantic, San Diego, Peurto Rico with all this potential critical stuff just waiting to be exposed and sink her.

You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. You probably are not suprised that she sunk and assumed some tragedy would eventually befall her sooner or later...Sandy or not. The other TSC boats propbablky though it was grossly unfair all the regulations/ certifcations you had to undergo, while the Bounty went many places and didnt have to go through the same paces. They essentially got a free ride while you were under a microscope/

I bet she was a true embarrassment to the rest of the "real" tall ships in terms of professionalism as she really wasnt of the same ilk, and caliber and discipline or esprit de cor that you had on the "real" tall ships. She was truly the ugly ducking who called her self a tall ship but in your and others minds was really a wannabe tall ship and was just acting the part. It propably miffed many that the Bounty received so much attention and admiration from people because in your mind and the other TSC community she was really not of the same class as your ships. In your minds she was truly just a movie prop, not built to be a working tall ship like the Pride of Baltimore and Pride 2, which you sailed on or many of the other tall ships.

But as you have said the ship because it is reallly a large personal yacht in terms of classifcation does not have to pass any real CG or stringent inspections. Had this just been any other yacht which had sank, it propably would not have had the noteriety.

People do stupid things on ships and boats far worse with more loss of life than two people and dont get nearly the noteriety and play in the press as the Bounty has. Even her in the shark tank of sailnet, the Bounty has had so many permutations as to cause and hypothesis that havent been afforded other ships or vessels which have sunk. It may beg back to a questuion to which JulieMor asked in the beginnning, why does this Bounty evoke so much response?

No wonder you and some in the TSC now want to distance your self from them. I guess you couldnt when they were alive as you were collegues and didnt want to be tagged with being jealous of the publicity and noteriety this wannabe tall ship received. Also you want people to know that you have more stringent qualifications as far as crew and condition of your ships. You are the serious tall ships after all and the Bounty was just playing at it.

Maybe you could go back to some of your frriends and have them post similarly as you or at least come forward some way annonomously to weigh in on this Bounty in this or other forums. Now that you have made it apparent that she really was the outcast, the black sheep of the tall ship community, there shouldnt be any type of black listing or retributions from telling the truth as you indicate most in the TSC beleive as you did.. By doing this maybe you would all be doing this to prevent a similar situation from occuring again and can save lives.

It seems as though this poster indicates it was inevitable that something would happen to the Bounty every time she left the dock. Sailing off into a hurricane insured that it happened that day.

Again thank you for posting. You as a first hand account and professional of this TSC certainly are a breath of fresh air in this thread where lots of conjecture and hypothesis without first hand knowledge have been swirling. Its great to receive a post firsthand,
Your posts so far having given me another way of looking at this terrible tragedy.

Feel free to continue to add where you think you can without putting yourself in a compromising position.

.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Brewgyver said:


> I agree, and that is why I said "no engineer worth the name..." It would have been more accurate to say "no Engineer worth the title." If the Bounty actually had an experienced Engineer aboard, it is quite possible that we wouldn't be talking about it for 1200 plus posts.


I wish you would stop speaking like a jerk. You have good intelligent things to say but the bravado, or twaddle you surround them with drops your IQ to sub normal. Just be real.

Yes. I agree that if there was a proper Maine diesel engineer, and maybe an apparentice or offsider, it could have survived more hours. I doubt for long as the weather was deteriorating and they were driving further into the Gulf Stream where the waves would have been bigger.

I am amazed the US Government allows these sort of vessels to run "uninspected" where ther is no law, no fault, no restrictions... Look up Uninspected Vessel and see what they get away with.

I think Bradesdale did a wonderful, heroic job, but he is a home handyman, not a qualified marine diesel mechanic of many years standing. 
The poor bugger was only on board a few weeks and never was given the chance to cleanup the engine room let alone get to grips with it.

I would never slag him, but I do the authorities who allowed it, and the authorities who desired it... The captain and the owners. Again the captain comes directly not play. A fool who didnt want a marine diesel mechanic.

Mark


----------



## NCC320

sparklepl3nty,

Thanks for your informative posts. But take care for your own personal interests. As you said, you are in a small community, and the word has a way of getting back, especially if someone was to decide to get themselves involved where they don't belong. As I'm sure you have seen, when people restate things they don't really say what you said and they read more into it. I would hate for this community to cause you trouble after you came forward. Be careful of leading questions. The more you say, the more that someone will be able to identify you and then cause trouble for you in your field. I've seen that happen before in other places. 

Again thanks, but please be careful.


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> Thank you for comming back and replying and giving us a further glimpse into what you saw.
> 
> .
> 
> I am actually quite suprised you have never heard of Witchcraft before. She is a staple of the classB tall ships in the Baltimore area and is berthed in my marina 2 slips from me. She participates yearly in all of festivals in the area and many times over the years and now accompanied both the Pride of Baltimore and the Pride of Baltimore II in events on the Chesapeake. I beleive you mention you sailed on Both. The Captain of the Witchcraft also served on both Prides. He knows the Captain of the pride II and he knew Walbridge even. We spoke about this a week ago and I spoke with him today and showed him your post. Thats why I though you may have certainly run accross him as the Tall ship community here in the Chesapeake is a small one and they do a lot of travelking toigether to many of the festivals on the Chesapeake together.. You are correct that it is now a personal yacht and does not take passangers .
> 
> From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen. Even the most basic seaman amongst us know about slacking lines through tidal changes and the effect on lines of a tidal change. In one way it sounds as if those who were on the Bounty were trying to live the dream of the Tall Ship era without the proper vessel, training and funding.
> 
> It almost sounds from what you say that them even taking this vessel out of the harbor is something they were not really qualified for by your description of dock lines and the thru hulls. No wonder you had no confidence in allowing your friends to board her in any way other than the dock. I guess she should have just stayed a dockside attraction some
> where and not moved. Wow and to think this veessel went accross the Atlantic, San Diego, Peurto Rico with all this potential critical stuff just waiting to be exposed and sink her.
> 
> You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. You probably are not suprised that she sunk and assumed some tragedy would eventually befall her sooner or later...Sandy or not. The other TSC boats propbablky though it was grossly unfair all the regulations/ certifcations you had to undergo, while the Bounty went many places and didnt have to go through the same paces. They essentially got a free ride while you were under a microscope/
> 
> I bet she was a true embarrassment to the rest of the "real" tall ships in terms of professionalism as she really wasnt of the same ilk, and caliber and discipline or esprit de cor that you had on the "real" tall ships. She was truly the ugly ducking who called her self a tall ship but in your and others minds was really a wannabe tall ship and was just acting the part. It propably miffed many that the Bounty received so much attention and admiration from people because in your mind and the other TSC community she was really not of the same class as your ships. In your minds she was truly just a movie prop, not built to be a working tall ship like the Pride of Baltimore and Pride 2, which you sailed on or many of the other tall ships.
> 
> But as you have said the ship because it is reallly a large personal yacht in terms of classifcation does not have to pass any real CG or stringent inspections. Had this just been any other yacht which had sank, it propably would not have had the noteriety.
> 
> People do stupid things on ships and boats far worse with more loss of life than two people and dont get nearly the noteriety and play in the press as the Bounty has. Even her in the shark tank of sailnet, the Bounty has had so many permutations as to cause and hypothesis that havent been afforded other ships or vessels which have sunk. It may beg back to a questuion to which JulieMor asked in the beginnning, why does this Bounty evoke so much response?
> 
> No wonder you and some in the TSC now want to distance your self from them. I guess you couldnt when they were alive as you were collegues and didnt want to be tagged with being jealous of the publicity and noteriety this wannabe tall ship received. Also you want people to know that you have more stringent qualifications as far as crew and condition of your ships. You are the serious tall ships after all and the Bounty was just playing at it.
> 
> Maybe you could go back to some of your frriends and have them post similarly as you or at least come forward some way annonomously to weigh in on this Bounty in this or other forums. Now that you have made it apparent that she really was the outcast, the black sheep of the tall ship community, there shouldnt be any type of black listing or retributions from telling the truth as you indicate most in the TSC beleive as you did.. By doing this maybe you would all be doing this to prevent a similar situation from occuring again and can save lives.
> 
> It seems as though this poster indicates it was inevitable that something would happen to the Bounty every time she left the dock. Sailing off into a hurricane insured that it happened that day.
> 
> Again thank you for posting. You as a first hand account and professional of this TSC certainly are a breath of fresh air in this thread where lots of conjecture and hypothesis without first hand knowledge have been swirling. Its great to receive a post firsthand,
> Your posts so far having given me another way of looking at this terrible tragedy.
> 
> Feel free to continue to add where you think you can without putting yourself in a compromising position.
> 
> .


 Chef,

The above are your words. sparklepl3nty said exactly what is posted under sparkle3nty. Why is it necessary to play the game of restating/overstating what the poster has said. So if the poster answers more questions, amateur "Columbos" will not be satisfied, and will ask more until they can identify the person. And then someone who feels strongly about the Bounty will likely go to the tall ship community and get the poster blackballed. Maybe the poster has already given too much information.

Along that line, why would you show the post to the captain of Witchcraft? And even asking about the Witchcraft seems like a trick question, but I could be wrong.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> I am actually quite suprised you have never heard of Witchcraft before.


Can't say that I have. It has been two years since I lived in MD, and I've bounced between coasts in the previous years. Also, I never sailed on the original Pride (I was born after she went down) and sailed as volunteer on Pride II whenever I could.



chef2sail said:


> From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen..
> 
> It almost sounds from what you say that them even taking this vessel out of the harbor is something they were not really qualified for by your description of dock lines and the thru hulls. No wonder you had no confidence in allowing your friends to board her in any way other than the dock. I guess she should have just stayed a dockside attraction some
> where and not moved...
> 
> You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. You probably are not suprised that she sunk and assumed some tragedy would eventually befall her sooner or later...Sandy or not. The other TSC boats propbablky though it was grossly unfair all the regulations/ certifcations you had to undergo, while the Bounty went many places and didnt have to go through the same paces. They essentially got a free ride while you were under a microscope/
> 
> I bet she was a true embarrassment..


Whoa, I sense a lot of animosity here, and I'm not sure why. There was certainly no case of "well-funded" vs. "underfunded," as most TallShips are not well-funded. In the last four years, a handful of TallShips have gone out of business (many are non-profits, by the way), or lost their funding (Pride II is not funded by the city or state anymore, and is now maintained by donors and a non-profit). I have only worked on one vessel where money was seemingly "unlimited;" usually we even re-use our chip brushes to save money.

So no, we didn't see her as an embarrassment, or ask why we had to jump through hoops for our COI and regs, or why she got attention (sometimes, but not always true).

I and the TSC would NEVER want a boat to sink, fall into disarray, or go out of business, no matter the ship. I as well as many of the TSC heard the news and were stunned and mourned the loss of one of our own, as well as Captain Walbridge and Claudene Christian. For several days my close sailing friends texted and called each other with the news and cried. There was no sigh of relief that she went down, if that's what you are inferring.

As for Bounty getting "a free ride while [we] were under a microscope," I don't feel that that was the case at all. Sure, regs and inspections can be a pain (having to re-set and drop two tons of sail three times, then a MOB drill is exhausting!) but I know we as crews were proud of being well-trained and proud of our tidy bilges. Not to mention, it also was a standard to how safe our ship was. We all knew that the more we trained, the less stressed we'd be if a situation were to occur.

This isn't to say she didn't undergo any inspections at all as she still had inspection as a dockside attraction. It was just different regs.


----------



## PCP

Brewgyver said:


> I agree, and that is why I said "no engineer worth the name..." It would have been more accurate to say "no Engineer worth the title." If the Bounty actually had an experienced Engineer aboard, it is quite possible that we wouldn't be talking about it for 1200 plus posts.


Or, as was mentioned in a GCaptain forum after they had looked at photos of the engine room, any professional mariner engineer would have run away fast from that boat after looking at the installations 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I would never slag him (Barksdale), but I do the authorities who allowed it, and the authorities who desired it... The captain and the owners. Again the captain comes directly not play. A fool who didnt want a marine diesel mechanic.


"Want" may have had nothing to do with it. Walbridge may have been a man who loved what he was doing and simply didn't have the money to keep Bounty well maintained and couldn't leave the ship he loved no matter what shape she was in.

I think every boat owner here and elsewhere would keep their vessel in pristine condition, both mechanically and aesthetically if money was no object. And those who love their boat but don't have that kind of money do the best they can with what they have.

If the crew was some of the least experienced and lowest paid, one would think the primary reason was available funds. At the captain's level, it may have meant the owners gave him only enough to keep the ship afloat. (I have a hard time believing Walbridge was pocketing available funds for his piggy bank.) At the owner's level it may have meant an inability to maintain and crew the vessel properly due to lack of funds or the owners had the money but refused to put any more than they did to keep her afloat. As it has been suggested that the crew was putty in the captain's hands, it could easily have been true that the captain was putty in the owner's hands.

But give me a sailboat that makes my heart pound and enough money to do what I want with it and it will be the best maintained and best looking sailboat wherever she goes. I have a feeling Robin Walbridge would have done the same with Bounty, if he had the money available to him.

That said, it doesn't release him from allegations of being the primary reason why Bounty set sail when a major storm was approaching.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> "Want" may have had nothing to do with it. Walbridge may have been a man who loved what he was doing and simply didn't have the money to keep Bounty well maintained and couldn't leave the ship he loved no matter what shape she was in.


Then he should have had the fortitude (guts) to say: " I live sailing in hurricanes, but I don't have an engineer qualified to work on the miscreants of engines that I have so therefore I will stay in port."

But he didnt and that's complacent with the negligence he has shown elsewhere. IMHO.

But the the last post of mine had a iPad changed word... "becomes directly not play" should have read, "becomes directly into play"
But you realized the typo 

Mark


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> But as you have said the ship because it is reallly a large personal yacht in terms of classifcation does not have to pass any real CG or stringent inspections. Had this just been any other yacht which had sank, it propably would not have had the noteriety... It may beg back to a questuion to which JulieMor asked in the beginnning, why does this Bounty evoke so much response?
> 
> No wonder you and some in the TSC now want to distance your self from them. I guess you couldnt when they were alive as you were collegues and didnt want to be tagged with being jealous of the publicity and noteriety this wannabe tall ship received. Also you want people to know that you have more stringent qualifications as far as crew and condition of your ships. You are the serious tall ships after all and the Bounty was just playing at it.


 I'm finding this all pretty offensive, but I will address the notoriety question.

1. She's a famous boat, due to being a replica and traditionally designed (tens of thousands of visitors would see her, then walk away thinking she was a pirate ship simply because of appearance), as well as being in the Mutiny movie, Pirates of the Caribbean, and other movies. Naturally, much of the public is going to recognize a name in the media like Bounty and get carried away.

2. I was mate a couple years ago on a "booze cruise" schooner in Florida. Even though we charged the same, our boat was lovely and we provided an experience that was like no other in that area, there was a motorized "pirate boat" (Google search "pirate cruises") that was packed to the gills every day when we went out with a few. It just is the way it is. People are crazy over ships that look like "pirate ships."

3. Other ships have gone down, or lost crew over the last decade. In part because of social media, this story has become even bigger.

4. In all reality, no matter what ship I was crew on, there was notoriety. People often would be crowding the docks when we arrived, and eager to see us sail or explore the boat. We certainly never worried about being ignored!

All in all, please keep your allegations to yourself. We are still mourning the loss to our community.


----------



## PCP

I am a bit confused here. The Witchcraft that chief is talking about is this one?










This is not a Ship, much less a Tall ship. This is a Classic yacht and not even a big one with 60ft. A nice one I would say.


----------



## chef2sail

> Along that line, why would you show the post to the captain of Witchcraft? And even asking about the Witchcraft seems like a trick question, but I could be wrong.


Simple answer, I thought it was pretty self evident though unless you are looking for something. I am also not sure why I would even have answer this, but I guess I shall since your inuendo is I was doing something "tricky". I talked to him because he is a Tall Ship Captain, a member of the TSC and I wanted to see what his opinion was that seems kind of obvious isnt it.

Remember his Tall ship occupies a slip to from mine. When he and I talked a week ago down at the boat, while he helped me winterize my boat. We talked extensively about the Bounty, Tall ships and the community and the regulations that are they undergo. He gave me a lot of insight into something I didnt have much information on. We talked about his experiences. I didnt post them on here yet, but I may still.

Since then Sparklepl3nty has posted, so I showed him was he/ she said about the Bounty.

But why are you asking. First one poster here wants to see proof through pictures and emails of my relationship with Walbridge, Now you wants to know why I talked with my friend...2 slips down from me in a marina who is the Captain of a registered Tall Ship classB about what another Tall Ship Community member said?? I thought I made that clear.

So what was the trick question? Do you know the Captain of the Witchcraft? Is the only what you were refering to. I dont get it...why would that be a trick question. Why would I even ask a trick question? What would I gain from that? Mark, maybe you can shed some light on your assertion as maybe not didnt really take away from it.

I posted an ariel view of the slip where by boat is and I am in the slip . Witchcraft is actually three down from me and must have been out for a sail this day ( Thats for you doubters ). Do you need an affadaviet notorized from the Captain of the Witchcraft top prove I am his friend or we belong to the same club?

TerraServer - Aerial Photos & Satellite Images - The Leader In Online Imagery


----------



## chef2sail

> This is not a Ship, much less a Tall ship. This is a Classic yacht and not even a big one with 60ft. A nice one I would say.


I am getting so tired of this. Having to prove everything I say, and having everything I say get challanged. Well really only by two of you who seem to have a vendetta

Paulo..Please get you facts straight again. Witchcraft IS considered a ClassB Tall ship. Now maybe it doesnt meet your standards, or whatever you have dreamed up for us what the standard is, but it seems to meet the standards for the OP Tall ship celebration in Baltimore held this summer.

Tall Ships


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ....
> From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen. ....
> 
> It seems as though this poster indicates it was inevitable that something would happen to the Bounty every time she left the dock. Sailing off into a hurricane insured that it happened that day.


You are talking saying things and implying others that clearly were not said or meant by the tall ship sailor (sparkle) on his post. Other tall ship sailor had said, already by other words, about the same thing that was said by sparkle. He had gave not any example of incompetence in what regards seamanship, as Sparkle, but said also that the boat had a bad reputation and green sailors.



chef2sail said:


> You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. ...
> 
> *I bet she was a true embarrassment to the rest of the "real" tall ships in terms of professionalism as she really wasnt of the same ilk, and caliber and discipline or esprit de cor that you had on the "real" tall ships. *
> 
> ... It propably miffed many that the Bounty received so much attention and admiration from people because in your mind and the other TSC community she was really not of the same class as your ships.
> ....
> No wonder you and some in the TSC now want to distance your self from them. I guess you couldnt when they were alive as you were collegues and *didnt want to be tagged with being jealous of the publicity and noteriety this wannabe tall ship received.* Also you want people to know that you have more stringent qualifications as far as crew and condition of your ships. You are the serious tall ships after all and the Bounty was just playing at it.
> 
> Maybe you could go back to some of your frriends and have them post similarly as you or at least *come forward some way annonomously* to weigh in on this Bounty in this or other forums. Now that you have made it apparent that she really was the outcast, the black sheep of the tall ship community...


And your tone here is really wrong. You are implying that Sparkle is cowardly and anonymously making insinuations about the Bounty, when it was you in first place that asked him his opinion about the Ship, that as I have said, is much the same of another tall ship member that had posted already about that.

That is ugly and not a way to treat a new member that had the kindness to answer the best way he could the questions you have made to him.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> I'm finding this all pretty offensive, but I will address the notoriety question


Sparlepl3nty

Sorry if you find this offensive. I understand the questions are difficult ones. I am just trying to get my head around why this boat was allowed to be sailed at all if it as substandard and as big an accident waiting to happen as YOU have said. If others who had more experience concerning this wouldnt even let their friends go sail on it. It must have been pretty bad.

If you read all the previous posts you will see that I have been a big defender of the Captain as well as the crew and have taken a lot of guff for it. In fact I had met him a few times, met his wife and saw him fairly recently and even let my daughter sail with him years ago. She in fact met his step daughter on another trip on a tall ship. I have been accused on here incessantly that my opinions are emottionally based on the fact that i knew Robin Walbridge



> All in all, please keep your allegations to yourself. We are still mourning the loss to our community


.

I share your loss even from a personal perspective. You are not the only one mourning Robin. If you truly have read these threads you will see that I have pretty much carried the flag in his support. The others posting on this thread have been the ones carrying on about his recklessness, his boasting, his cult figure brainwashing of the crew, and his what they called a suicide mission. I will always defend what I knew to be an honorable man who made a tragic mistake and paid for it.

Lastly I draw you attention to part of my very first post the Bounty on page 19 for which I have been lambasted continously about



> Slow down here, two people have died......hardly any of the facts are in yet. The ship left on the 25th,THE CG is remarkable. Those are really the only facts which are really undisputed and have been verified. There will be plenty of time to understand and process the facts and I am sure it will be done by real experts on the field and real lawyers rather thean the computer screen lawyers here. Then and only then will we really have the truth about this. Until then tell me....what pleasure do you derive from speculating on this.-Chef2sail


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I am getting so tired of this. Having to prove everything I say, and having everything I say get challanged. Well really only by two of you who seem to have a vendetta
> 
> Paulo..Please get you facts straight again. Witchcraft IS considered a ClassB Tall ship. Now maybe it doesnt meet your standards, or whatever you have dreamed up for us what the standard is, but it seems to meet the standards for the OP Tall ship celebration in Baltimore held this summer.
> 
> Tall Ships


Not my standards. A tall ship sailor had said to you that is not a tall ship as any knowledgeable person would tell you. I guess that you even don't need to know nothing about tall ships but only about boats and ships to know that is not a ship. A ship with 60ft? Come on.

Classifications are what they are, the Tall Ship Bounty has classified as a non inspected 12 passenger vessel, the same classification that is given to big yachts and Bounty was certainly not a big yacht.

Here you have a reasonable explication about what is a tall ship and what qualifies a *Ship* (not a boat or yacht) as one:

quote:

"A tall ship is a *large*, traditionally-rigged sailing vessel. Popular modern tall ship rigs include topsail schooners, brigantines, brigs and barques. "

Tall ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Simple answer, I thought it was pretty self evident though unless you are looking for something. I am also not sure why I would even have answer this, but I guess I shall since your inuendo is I was doing something "tricky". *I talked to him because he is a Tall Ship Captain, a member of the TSC and I wanted to see what his opinion was that seems kind of obvious isnt it.*
> ....
> But why are you asking. First one poster here wants to see proof through pictures and emails of my relationship with Walbridge, Now you wants to know why I talked with my friend...2 slips down from me in a marina who is the Captain of a registered Tall Ship classB about what another Tall Ship Community member said?? I thought I made that clear.
> 
> So what was the trick question? Do you know the Captain of the Witchcraft? Is the only what you were refering to. I dont get it...why would that be a trick question. Why would I even ask a trick question? What would I gain from that? Mark, maybe you can shed some light on your assertion as maybe not didnt really take away from it.
> 
> ...


And why for having the opinion of the Captain of the Witchcraft about the Bounty you would need or have to show to him Sparkle post?

It seam to me that what you have done was to check directly with him what Sparkle had posted regarding the Bounty, replying to a question that you asked him.

I did not liked Sal to have asked you to prove the veracity of your statements regarding your friendship with Bounty's captain and I don't like what you have done with the Sparkle post, regarding checking the plausibility of its content directly with Witchcraft's Captain. Both things are not very different to my eyes.

You not only have done that as you have posted that you have done that. Why do you have posted that you have checked Sparkle post with Wichcraft Captain if not to intimidate him?.... on the same post that you said that he "come forward some way annonomously".

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Wrong again Paulo....as I stated Witchcraft is classified by convention a *CLASS B TALL SHIP*

About Tall Ships



> About Tall Ships
> Learn the Ropes > About Tall Ships
> What is a tall ship?
> The term "tall ship" is a generic term used to describe large sailing ships, most often representing historical vessels or replicas. The term may have had limited use throughout history; an experienced sailor likely would have referred to a ship by the design of its rig. The term "tall ship" probably took on more widespread use following the publication ofJohn Masefield's poem "Sea Fever"in 1902.
> 
> Tall ships come in many shapes and sizes. The size of the vessel and its type are often determined by its mission and where it will sail. The first distinction between tall ships is the difference between a square-rigged vessel and a fore-and-aft rigged vessel.
> 
> Square riggers have vertical masts that are crossed by yards, large wooden or steel beams that run perpendicular to the length of the ship's hull. Sails spread below each of these yards. Large square-rigged vessels may have yards on one or more of its masts, and spread many acres of sails. They may also have some sails that run fore and aft, along the length of the ship. Fore-and-aft rigged tall ships have sails that only run along the length of the ship, from the bow toward the stern. Some of these sails may be attached to a gaff or a boom, a wooden or steel beam similar to a yard, but running on a fore and aft axis with the ship's hull.
> 
> Square-rigged ships have an advantage when using the trade winds, which blow in circular patterns across the earth's surface and can power a sailing ship across vast expanses of ocean. Fore-and-aft rigged ships can generally sail at an angle closer to the wind and were often used for coastal trade. These are not hard and fast rules, and many hybrids, like the Baltimore clipper (a square topsail schooner), were built to take advantage of both types of sails.
> 
> (Information above courtesy ofOpSail 2012 Virginia.)
> 
> Tall Ship Rig Descriptions
> (Click on thumbnails for larger images.)
> 
> Full-rigged ships have three or more masts, all square rigged.
> Amerigo Vespucci is a full-rigged ship.
> 
> Barquentines (or barkentines) have three or more masts, with the foremast square-rigged and the others fore-and-aft rigged.
> Gazela Primeiro is a barquentine.
> 
> Brigs have only two masts, both of which are square-rigged.
> Niagara is a brig.
> 
> Brigantines have only two masts. The foremast is square-rigged, but the aft mast is fore-and-aft rigged.
> Soren Larsen is a brigantine.
> 
> Schooners have two or more masts and may have both fore-and-aft and square-rigged sails. Schooners rigged with three or more masts have spars and rigging of uniform dimensions and scantlings for all masts, except the main boom of the aft mast, which is heavier and longer.
> 
> Square topsail schooners have both fore-and-aft and square-rigged sails. A topsail schooner can be distinguished by square sails on the foremast, but differs from the brigantine and barquentine by having a gaff sail aloft the foremast.
> Pride of Baltimore II is a square topsail schooner.
> 
> Gaff-rigged schooners have fore-and-aft rigged sails attached to spars that are hoisted up the masts.
> Virginia is a gaff-rigged schooner.
> 
> Staysail schooners have fore-and-aft rigged sails only, but not the large spars found on other schooners.
> 
> Ketches have two masts, each carrying a gaff-headed or jib-sail. They differ from two-masted schooners in that the larger mast and sail stand foremost, whereas in the schooner the reverse is true. The mizzenmast is stepped forward of the sternpost.
> 
> Sloops have only one mast.
> 
> This is only a partial list of rigs. Visit Learn More&#8230;for links to sites with additional information about tall ships.
> 
> *Class Descriptions*
> 
> Class A: All square-rigged vessels (full-rigged, barque, barquentine, brig or brigantine) and all other vessels over 40m (131 feet) in length overall (LOA).
> *Class B: Traditional-rigged vessels (i.e., gaff-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a waterline length (LWL) of at least 9.14m (30 feet).*
> Class C: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet) not carrying spinnaker-like sails.
> 
> Class D: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet) carrying spinnaker-like sails.


----------



## chef2sail

> You not only have done that as you have posted that you have done that. Why do you have posted that you have checked Sparkle post with Wichcraft Captain if not to intimidate him?.... on the same post that you said that he "


Thats a good question. What I meant by checking with the Captain of the Witchcraft was that I was checking with the Captain of the Witchcraft to see if he shared the same opinions on the Bounty as Sparlepl3enty.

I wasnt checking on Sparklepl3ty..I thanked him for posting actually.. I was just checking with another tall ship community member...a captain to see if he shared the same opinions thats all. The post sparklepl3ty made was after the first time I had talked to the Captain of the Witchcraft



> Why do you have posted that you have checked Sparkle post with Wichcraft Captain if not to intimidate him?.... on the same post that you said that he "come forward some way annonomously".


Heres what I said


> "Maybe you could go back to some of your frriends and have them post similarly as you or at least come forward some way annonomously to weigh in on this Bounty in this or other forums..


I was aware of them not wanting to be blackballed or retaliated against so if the could post anonomously they wouldnt have to fear that and we could hear from more of the TSC

I dont think you are reading what I said correctly and misquoting it. ( see above) I did not say the Captain of the Witchcraft said something anonomously.

Also I though maybe that Sparklepl3nty may also know the Captain of the Witchcraft and they maybe firends like ( its a small world) since they both sailed on the Prides and he spent a lot of time in the Baltimore area and on the Chesapeake. Sparklepl3nty said he didnt know him. Where is the intimidation in that? Please stop reading negative motives into everything I say


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> I talked to him because he is a Tall Ship Captain, a member of the TSC and I wanted to see what his opinion was that seems kind of obvious isnt it.
> 
> Since then Sparklepl3nty has posted, so I showed him was he/ she said about the Bounty.
> 
> So what was the trick question? Do you know the Captain of the Witchcraft? Is the only what you were refering to. I dont get it...why would that be a trick question. Why would I even ask a trick question? What would I gain from that?
> 
> TerraServer - Aerial Photos & Satellite Images - The Leader In Online Imagery


Chef,

I could be wrong, but wasn't the question about the Witchcraft really about trying to discredit Sparkepl3nty? It sure sounded like, to me, that you were trying to show he didn't really know the TSC or ships in it. And that his posts were not true, but something fabricated....I could be wrong and if so, I apoligize.
But you took his posted statements and rewrote them to say things that he did not say, and again, it looked like you were twisting things to put the poster in a bad light. Then, you go to your friend the Witchcraft captain and show the posting to him, and as you said, you discussed the Bounty situation. And is it possible that your verbal words were just as different as the rewritten posts? The poster is posting things you do not want to hear. You believe great things about the Bounty captain and the ship. Even to the point that you let your daughter sail on it. And if it comes out that the poster and others are correct that the ship wasn't really up to standards and was operated in less than safe condition, that would indicate you unknowingly may have endangered your daughter. So the poster is hitting at something you feel strongly about. And could it be that it might be a get even situation...he makes trouble and he'll get trouble?

Why would the captain operate the ship in that manner? He may have had no choice. He perhaps knew better, but funds were limited and he struggled the best he could. And he deserves credit for that. I have posted that I, by chance, talked with the relief captain of the brigantine Fritha (74 ft), docked in Beaufort, NC) about Bounty incident. He said he had sailed with Bounty captain and he had a high opinion of him also......or maybe he didn't want to say anything bad because, being a small community, he might put himself in jeapody. But, if the Bounty was struggling financially, then things would go undone and they would get by as best they could.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Wrong again Paulo....as I stated Witchcraft is classified by convention a *CLASS B TALL SHIP*
> 
> About Tall Ships
> Learn the Ropes > About Tall Ships
> What is a tall ship?
> The term "tall ship" is a generic term used to describe *large sailing ships*, most often representing historical vessels or replicas. The term may have had limited use throughout history; an experienced sailor likely would have referred to a ship by the design of its rig. The term "tall ship" probably took on more widespread use following the publication ofJohn Masefield's poem "Sea Fever"in 1902.
> 
> Tall ships come in many shapes and sizes. The size of the vessel and its type are often determined by its mission and where it will sail. *The first distinction between tall ships is the difference between a square-rigged vessel and a fore-and-aft rigged vessel.*
> 
> Square riggers have vertical masts that are crossed by yards, large wooden or steel beams that run perpendicular to the length of the ship's hull. Sails spread below each of these yards. Large square-rigged vessels may have yards on one or more of its masts, and spread many acres of sails. They may also have some sails that run fore and aft, along the length of the ship. Fore-and-aft rigged tall ships have sails that only run along the length of the ship, from the bow toward the stern. Some of these sails may be attached to a gaff or a boom, a wooden or steel beam similar to a yard, but running on a fore and aft axis with the ship's hull.
> 
> Square-rigged ships have an advantage when using the trade winds, which blow in circular patterns across the earth's surface and can power a sailing ship across vast expanses of ocean. Fore-and-aft rigged ships can generally sail at an angle closer to the wind and were often used for coastal trade. These are not hard and fast rules, and many hybrids, like the Baltimore clipper (a square topsail schooner), were built to take advantage of both types of sails.
> 
> (Information above courtesy ofOpSail 2012 Virginia.)
> 
> Tall Ship Rig Descriptions
> (Click on thumbnails for larger images.)
> 
> Full-rigged ships have three or more masts, all square rigged.
> Amerigo Vespucci is a full-rigged ship.
> 
> Barquentines (or barkentines) have three or more masts, with the foremast square-rigged and the others fore-and-aft rigged.
> Gazela Primeiro is a barquentine.
> 
> Brigs have only two masts, both of which are square-rigged.
> Niagara is a brig.
> 
> Brigantines have only two masts. The foremast is square-rigged, but the aft mast is fore-and-aft rigged.
> Soren Larsen is a brigantine.
> 
> Schooners have two or more masts and may have both fore-and-aft and square-rigged sails. Schooners rigged with three or more masts have spars and rigging of uniform dimensions and scantlings for all masts, except the main boom of the aft mast, which is heavier and longer.
> 
> Square topsail schooners have both fore-and-aft and square-rigged sails. A topsail schooner can be distinguished by square sails on the foremast, but differs from the brigantine and barquentine by having a gaff sail aloft the foremast.
> Pride of Baltimore II is a square topsail schooner.
> 
> Gaff-rigged schooners have fore-and-aft rigged sails attached to spars that are hoisted up the masts.
> Virginia is a gaff-rigged schooner.
> 
> Staysail schooners have fore-and-aft rigged sails only, but not the large spars found on other schooners.
> 
> Ketches have two masts, each carrying a gaff-headed or jib-sail. They differ from two-masted schooners in that the larger mast and sail stand foremost, whereas in the schooner the reverse is true. The mizzenmast is stepped forward of the sternpost.
> 
> Sloops have only one mast.
> 
> This is only a partial list of rigs. Visit Learn More&#8230;for links to sites with additional information about tall ships.
> 
> Class Descriptions
> 
> Class A: All square-rigged vessels (full-rigged, barque, barquentine, brig or brigantine) and all other vessels over 40m (131 feet) in length overall (LOA).
> Class B: Traditional-rigged vessels (i.e., gaff-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and *with a waterline length (LWL) of at least 9.14m (30 feet)*.
> Class C: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a *LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet)* not carrying spinnaker-like sails.
> 
> Class D: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet) carrying spinnaker-like sails.


I guess that you have to look at a more credible site. That one is contradictory and does not make sense. They don't even know the difference between a boat and a ship

They say:

Quote:

What is a tall ship?
The term "tall ship" is a generic term used to describe *large sailing ships*, most often representing historical vessels or replicas. The term may have had limited use throughout history; an experienced sailor likely would have referred to a ship by the design of its rig. The term "tall ship" probably took on more widespread use following the publication ofJohn Masefield's poem "Sea Fever"in 1902.

.....

*The first distinction between tall ships is the difference between a square-rigged vessel and a fore-and-aft rigged vessel.*

and than they say that a *31ft *traditional rigged sailboat is a *tall ship?*

:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher

It seems to me that someone was to explain them the difference between a small boat and a ship 

Here it is the relevant and ridicule part:

quote:

Class B: Traditional-rigged vessels (i.e., gaff-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with a *waterline length (LWL) of at least 9.14m (30 feet)*

Class C: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an ...*with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet)* not carrying spinnaker-like sails.

I have to tell a lot of guys that post here that they own TALL SHIPS.

Dave, do really you think that a 31 ft traditional boat qualifies as a tall ship?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sparklepl3nty

"Tall Ships" really is an open term.. I've certainly seen modern yachts calling themselves "classic yachts," when many folks' definition are about 50+ years old. Same goes for Tall Ships.

Like I said most of the time, they're larger boats and traditionally rigged. Classic boats add a fuzzy aspect, I usually refer to Tall Ships as traditional rigged boats with topmasts.

I have worked on two schooners (one with a topmast, one without) that were both 60'. Both of those are registered with Tall Ships America.

And yes, the classifications are so very contradicting, none of it really matters.


----------



## chef2sail

> I have worked on two schooners (one with a topmast, one without) that were both 60'. Both of those are registered with Tall Ships America.


As is Witchcraft


----------



## jaginsd

Late in so maybe it's been pointed out already, but you can bet Bounty's owners would have LOVED to carry paying passengers to offset expenses but that pesky Jones Act disallowed it. Certification as a dockside attraction at least allowed her to participate in and get paid at TS events.


----------



## chef2sail

> Tall Ships" really is an open term.. I've certainly seen modern yachts calling themselves "classic yachts," when many folks' definition are about 50+ years old. Same goes for Tall Ships.
> 
> Like I said most of the time, they're larger boats and traditionally rigged. Classic boats add a fuzzy aspect, I usually refer to Tall Ships as traditional rigged boats with topmasts.
> 
> I have worked on two schooners (one with a topmast, one without) that were both 60'. Both of those are registered with Tall Ships America.
> 
> And yes, the classifications are so very contradicting, none of it really matters.-sparklepl3enty


Sparklepl3nty

Thank you for posting and clarifying as best can be clarified. And thank you again for coming forth.

Do you know if any kind of fund or donation site has been set up thorugh the organization or privately in memory of or for Robin Walbridge or Claudene Chritian?
There may be some sailors on here who might like to contribute in their memory.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

This tall ship naming conversation has led to some interesting discoveries. It seems like the Tall ships class designations are carried and recognized the world over. The very narrow defination of a large ship has been replaced and like Sparklepl3nty said there is a blurring of the word. Now I can see why. It appears that almost he world over they accept and have modenized the Tall ship definition to include other classes than the Class A.

Check out the last one in Finland in 2012 where there is actually a 3 day race on first glance that people can sign up for and participate in. That would be like the ultimate windjammer. They have all calsess including about 24 like the American Class B Tall Ship Witchcraft berthed in our club.

Wow in Sweden they even have tall ship races in class B, many are the same size as Witchcraft

The Tall Ships Races - The Tall Ships Race
Class B - The Tall Ships Race

Same in Narragansette Bay

Tall ships to return to Narragansett Bay after five-year hiatus | www.jamestownpress.com | Jamestown Press

*And this looks really neat*. You can sign up for a 3 day Tall Ship Race in Helsinki Finland and be a crew meber. The are over 25 Class B Tall Ships from countries all over Europe

How to register for the Tall Ships Races 2013 - Sail in Finland!
The vessels | The Tall Ships Races Helsinki 2013


----------



## PCP

sparklepl3nty said:


> "Tall Ships" really is an open term.. I've certainly seen modern yachts calling themselves "classic yachts," when many folks' definition are about 50+ years old. Same goes for Tall Ships.
> 
> Like I said most of the time, they're larger boats and traditionally rigged. Classic boats add a fuzzy aspect,* I usually refer to Tall Ships as traditional rigged boats with topmasts.*
> ....


I did not know that today someone was calling Tall Ships to any kind of traditionally rig over 30ft on the LWL. That is a common concept? I guess that everybody wants to have a tall ship even if what they have is a 35ft traditional sailboat.

The same happens in what regards cruising boats with boats like Tartan and others being named by the shipyard as performance cruisers by the same reason (everybody likes to have a fast boat). A similar situation by opposite reasons happens when owners of old heavy and slow boats call real performance cruisers, like the First 40 racing boats, just to give more credit to the poor sailing performance of their boats.

Ir seems clear to me that a name that qualify a category refers to a definition and in what regards Tall Ships there are some ambiguity but all is relative. A Tall Ship is a SHIP with TALL masts.

We can discuss what is a tall mast and what is a ship, but calling a 35ft boat a Ship is absolutely ridiculous and a 60ft boat is simply not a ship.

Let's see if I can just tune up my definition with your knowledge of what is called by Tall Ship sailors a Tall Ship:

I have the pleasure of being Captain of this 72ft beauty:










OK, Ok, for less than an hour while I was being examined to take a licence and the crew complained that I give them a lot of work

I would not call that a Tall Ship. Sure, it is a traditional sailing boat with tall masts but not enough large to be qualified as a ship. The crew or the Captain, (that also is also a Tall Ship Captain) did not call her a Tall Ship to.










I would call this one a small Tall Ship and in fact when the concept was created this one would not even qualify as a Tall Ship. The original concept meant vessels like these ones:










I am far away from the definition that is more common among the Tall Ship community? Can you help me to understand better the concept of Tall Ship as it is regarded by Tall Ship sailors and their community?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Things change, and they changed a while go. Change is part of life. BTW They are beautiful pictures of Class A Tall ships and they have not been reclassified wth the change.



> Can you help me to understand better the concept of Tall Ship as it is regarded by Tall Ship sailors and their community?


It probably changed to redefine the older tradition ships of the 18th and 19 centuries with the newer ships in the 20 century which have more modern rigging. The change lies in the definitions in the classes somewhat. Witchcraft was is the Tall ship built in 1906. It also may be that there was a need to define classes for racing. That is common today.

It is the convention everyone else in the world uses now. Far be for me as an ameteur to argue with or challange the experts who want to define thier own ships. Maybe there is a further explaination, but it really makes no difference what the explaination is, its not going to change it. Hopefully you can stop ridulculing me now for calling Witchcraft a Tall Ship in Class B.

This has been an interesting side trip. I never would have known about the Class B racing. I showed it to my wife last night and asked her if she wanted to take a trip to Finland next summer ( I have alsways wanted to see the Scandanavian countries and would feel safe from terrorists there and they like and respect Americans) and as part of it sign up to crew on one of these Class N classic Tall Ships. She was fine till I said that and rolled her eyes. I have a sell job to do now I can see.

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> *QuotePCP:
> Can you help me to understand better the concept of Tall Ship as it is regarded by Tall Ship sailors and their community?*
> 
> Things change, and they changed a while go. Change is part of life. BTW They are beautiful pictures of Class A Tall ships and they have not been reclassified wth the change.
> 
> ...Dave


It is not to you that I was asking for help but to someone that certainly knows more than you or me about that, someone that is a part to the tall ship community

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

That reply is not necessary. It is hostile and is not how a SN member should be treated. If you didnt want to read it you could have chosen that route. If you post in the public anyone can reply Paulo. Feel free to PM the only two known posters from the TSC if you want a private reply.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> I am a bit confused here. The Witchcraft that chief is talking about is this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a Ship, much less a Tall ship. This is a Classic yacht and not even a big one with 60ft. A nice one I would say.


Yeah, one of the looser definitions of the term "Tall Ship" I would apply might be "too large to fit into a slip in a marina, a few slips down from a C&C 35"... But, perhaps that's just me... (grin)

I don't see how WITCHCRAFT qualifies as a Class B Tall Ship, however - that seems to imply she would be "traditionally" (i.e., gaff-rigged)... Seems she might be either Class C or D, apparently depending upon whether or not she carries a spinnaker:



> Class Descriptions
> 
> Class A: All square-rigged vessels (full-rigged, barque, barquentine, brig or brigantine) and all other vessels over 40m (131 feet) in length overall (LOA).
> 
> Class B: Traditional-rigged vessels (i.e., gaff-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a waterline length (LWL) of at least 9.14m (30 feet).
> 
> Class C: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet) not carrying spinnaker-like sails.
> 
> Class D: Modern-rigged vessels (i.e., Bermudan-rigged sloops, ketches, yawls and schooners) with an LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet) carrying spinnaker-like sails.


These classifications seems sufficiently meaningless as to be laughable... Essentially, _any_ sailing vessel with a waterline length greater than 30 feet qualifies as some sort of "Tall Ship"...

Looks like I'm gonna have to update my resume, little did I realize I've been acting as a _"TALL SHIP Delivery Captain"_, of late... Hell, virtually the only "ship" I ever sail that is not a "tall" one, is my own... What a difference a mere 5 feet of LWL can make, instead of owning a very modest little cruising boat by today's standards, I, too, could be the owner of a Class D Tall Ship... (Hmmm, I wonder if there is a special classification of Tall Ships Carrying Ambiguously Gay Spinnakers?)










So, how long do you suppose before Wally's latest all-carbon Class A Tall Ship starts making the rounds of the various Tall Ships Rendezvous?


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> That reply is not necessary. It is hostile and is not how a SN member should be treated. If you didnt want to read it you could have chosen that route. If you post in the public anyone can reply Paulo. Feel free to PM the only two known posters from the TSC if you want a private reply.


Jesus Dave, no hostility in that. I know that you consider a traditional sailboat with a LWL over 30ft a Tall Ship (accordingly with the definition you have posted and sustain).

I knew already your opinion and asked directly to Sparkle to give me a better idea of what is considered by Tall Ship sailors a tall ship, I mean the most common definition among the Tall Ship community. Do they consider a 30 or 40ft traditional sailboat a Tall Ship?

That's is what I asked and what I want to know. You answered quoting my question. You cannot answer that. You don't belong to the Tall Ship community and that's their opinion that I am interested in.

Your answer does not brought anything new, except reaffirm again your opinion (that I already knew) and certainly did not answer to the question I have made and I just said so. I don't understand where is the hostility.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

*Tall Ships*

This is a poem by John Masefield said to have been written in 1902:

*"Sea-Fever"*

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,
And all I ask is a *tall ship* and a star to steer her by,
And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white sail's shaking,
And a grey mist on the sea's face, and a grey dawn breaking.

I must down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

I must down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull's way and the whale's way where the wind's like a whetted knife;
And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover
And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick's over.

By John Masefield (1878-1967).
_(English Poet Laureate, 1930-1967.)_

In 1955 a race was organized to bring together the last of the world's square rigged ships. This resulted in a race from Torbay to Lisbon that took place a year later. In writing about the race, the media coined the phrase "Tall Ships' Race." Due to its popularity, the committee that organized the race drew up articles of association and formed the Sail Training Association.

In 1976 numerous tall ships toured cities like Boston, New York and Chicago for the Bi-Centennial celebration (I'm sure some here remember that!) When they came to Chicago we, along with hundreds of other boaters, went out to greet them. That was my first introduction to these majestic sailing ships. (There's a picture hanging on my wall with us and one of the tall ships with the city skyline in the background.  )

_And I just realized I've been saying my dad bought the boat in 1977 and the boat was built in 1975. I was only a couple of years off! _


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> Looks like I'm gonna have to update my resume, little did I realize I've been acting as a _"TALL SHIP Delivery Captain"_, of late... Hell, virtually the only "ship" I ever sail that is not a "tall" one, is my own... What a difference a mere 5 feet of LWL can make, instead of owning a very modest little cruising boat by today's standards, I, too, could be the owner of a Class D Tall Ship... (Hmmm, I wonder if there is a special classification of Tall Ships Carrying Ambiguously Gay Spinnakers?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I don't think that qualifies as a Tall Ship, but my old lady will not only qualify by a couple of feet.










If I had known that would make me a Tall Ship captain I would have made an effort to buy a slightly bigger SHIP

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> If I had known that would make me a Tall Ship captain I would have made an effort to buy a slightly bigger SHIP
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I think in attempt to determine what defines a Tall Ship, or determine whether WITCHCRAFT indeed qualifies, it's probably best to invoke the famous approach taken by US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in his effort to define what constitutes pornography...

Loosely stated, it would be _"I know (a Tall Ship) when I see one..."_


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> I am a bit confused here. The Witchcraft that chief is talking about is this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a Ship, much less a Tall ship. This is a Classic yacht and not even a big one with 60ft. A nice one I would say.


Agree, that ain't no tall ship.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> People do stupid things on ships and boats far worse with more loss of life than two people and dont get nearly the noteriety and play in the press as the Bounty has. Even her in the shark tank of sailnet, the Bounty has had so many permutations as to cause and hypothesis that havent been afforded other ships or vessels which have sunk. It may beg back to a questuion to which JulieMor asked in the beginnning, why does this Bounty evoke so much response?
> 
> .


Chef,
I think the reason the Bounty brings so much response is the fact the Capt apparently knew a very large storm system was headed his way. A storm system that most seamen/women knew would be difficult if not impossible (and at the least extremely dangerous) to out manuver. In light of all these facts, the Capt set sail. When people (including experienced tall ship and Commercial ship Captains, pleasure boaters, and the general public) heard the Coast Guard was attempting to rescue a historic tall ship in distress (and near the eye of hurricane Sandy), the responose from most of these people was what the hell is this ship doing in that location. Once people found out more information about the appearant poor condition of the ship Bounty, more questions were raised as to what this ship is doing in that location.

Remember, the Coast Guard said the rescue was one of the most difficult that they had ever performed. The rescued risked their lives and cost the US tax payer money. We deserve some answers and have the right to speak our minds as allowed by our Constitution (as long as we do not slander).


----------



## JulieMor

casey1999 said:


> I think the reason the Bounty brings so much response is the fact the Capt apparently knew a very large storm system was headed his way. A storm system that most seamen/women knew would be difficult if not impossible (and at the least extremely dangerous) to out manuver.


If he led a group up Mt. Everest when a deadly blizzard was coming and rescuers had to save the climbers, public reaction would have been the same.


----------



## rgscpat

This is a "Tall Ship" according to Tall Ships America (sailtraining.org):

Sightsailor, 46' aluminum sloop. 
"Sightsailer was designed by Newport-based naval architect Yves-Marie Tanton. His client wanted a boat with a big cockpit that was low to the water, fast and fun to sail. "

http://www.sailtraining.org/images/vimgs/sightsailer.8.jpg

(SIGHTSAILER - Tall Ships America: Member Vessel Database)

Question: To qualify for Tall Ships membership, would a Catalina 30 need to be Tall Rig model?


----------



## JonEisberg

rgscpat said:


> This is a "Tall Ship" according to Tall Ships America (sailtraining.org):
> 
> Sightsailor, 46' aluminum sloop.
> "Sightsailer was designed by Newport-based naval architect Yves-Marie Tanton. His client wanted a boat with a big cockpit that was low to the water, fast and fun to sail. "
> 
> http://www.sailtraining.org/images/vimgs/sightsailer.8.jpg
> 
> (SIGHTSAILER - Tall Ships America: Member Vessel Database)
> 
> *Question: To qualify for Tall Ships membership, would a Catalina 30 need to be Tall Rig model?*


Nah, the Catalina 30, like my own boat, needs 5 more feet of WATERLINE length - then she'd be good to go...

Class C or D, depending on whether or not she has a chute...

Or, whether it's stashed on board, or in the owner's garage at any given moment, presumably...


----------



## rgscpat

Hot diggity! The Hobie 33 (LWL 30.5') could be a Tall Ship! The things one learns here....


----------



## chef2sail

Truly amazing, Factual evidence met with ridicule.

The *professionals * have classified the Tall ships into classes. You have seen that. The professional organization welcome Tall shps in other classifications not just the "huge" Tall ships most of us thought were the only ones called tall ships. I was even with you about what I called a tall ship until I reasearched it and found the evidence I was wrong. Factual evidence.by a professional organization...now thats hard to dispute.

*Worldwide* this is a recognized way of classifying Tall Ships. People even have Rondevous and races on the Class B tall ships as I posted the one in Finland next year in July 2013. They are very proud the are part of the Tall Ships Community I am sure. Maybe they are not the huge square riggers, and the boats financed by governments, but they seem to represent and era of sailing which is vanishing. T those who continue to ridicule them and make fun of the concept of their boats you are insulting these people. You are not ridculing me you are riduculing them. Why would you do that?

I would bet that the members on the large Tall ships and many other in the Tall ship community do not subject them to the ridicule and insult you have just done here.
They may beleive they have the original named tall ships but they probably accept the differing classes. Ill bet they share commradiere amongst all the classes of these tall ships, as they are united as a group of purists who love and are passionate about sailing these vanishing ships of another era in the tradition of the way they were sailed. This is to be admired not ridulculed.

I know the Captain of the WITCHCRAFT who I have watch work on her for the last 10 years meticulously would not be amused by your insults and ridicule, nor would the 25 boats racing in Helsinki next year.

I am sorry this does not fit into your own definitions of a tall ship. Really doesnt change things or make a differnce, as the facts are the facts and their not going to change. I had to change my definition, which really meant all I had to do was expand what I thought and put the vessels in classes, because of what I found. Sparklepl3enty is really the one who made me think about it and research it, and I was suprised by the results, but i do understand why there are different classes of tall ships.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

It's a goofy, subjective term. If you can call a hobie a tall ship, then I'm calling the 180 ton, 151ft brigantine I raced years ago a racing yacht.


----------



## Flatballer

chef2sail said:


> Truly amazing, Factual evidence met with ridicule.
> 
> The *professionals * have classified the Tall ships into classes. You have seen that. The professional organization welcome Tall shps in other classifications not just the "huge" Tall ships most of us thought were the only ones called tall ships. I was even with you about what I called a tall ship until I reasearched it and found the evidence I was wrong. Factual evidence.by a professional organization...now thats hard to dispute.
> 
> *Worldwide* this is a recognized way of classifying Tall Ships. People even have Rondevous and races on the Class B tall ships as I posted the one in Finland next year in July 2013. They are very proud the are part of the Tall Ships Community I am sure. Maybe they are not the huge square riggers, and the boats financed by governments, but they seem to represent and era of sailing which is vanishing. T those who continue to ridicule them and make fun of the concept of their boats you are insulting these people. You are not ridculing me you are riduculing them. Why would you do that?
> 
> I would bet that the members on the large Tall ships and many other in the Tall ship community do not subject them to the ridicule and insult you have just done here.
> They may beleive they have the original named tall ships but they probably accept the differing classes. Ill bet they share commradiere amongst all the classes of these tall ships, as they are united as a group of purists who love and are passionate about sailing these vanishing ships of another era in the tradition of the way they were sailed. This is to be admired not ridulculed.
> 
> I know the Captain of the WITCHCRAFT who I have watch work on her for the last 10 years meticulously would not be amused by your insults and ridicule, nor would the 25 boats racing in Helsinki next year.
> 
> I am sorry this does not fit into your own definitions of a tall ship. Really doesnt change things or make a differnce, as the facts are the facts and their not going to change. I had to change my definition, which really meant all I had to do was expand what I thought and put the vessels in classes, because of what I found. Sparklepl3enty is really the one who made me think about it and research it, and I was suprised by the results, but i do understand why there are different classes of tall ships.


Which lost era of sailing do the 50 foot sloops represent?

And jesus you're long winded. I keep wondering if you have a point. Didn't your English teachers tell you brevity is the soul of wit?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chef2sail

Just as a side note Witchraft resides in a slip which is either 84X18 or 74X18. My slip is 64X16, three down from it. Witchcrafts Slip is plenty big enough for many of the Class B Tall Ships to fit in.

To compare your modern vessels to Witchraft doesnt make sense. Shes all wood, built in 1903, wooden masts, Shes 13 ft longer than Colombuses ship the Nina.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Truly amazing, Factual evidence met with ridicule.
> 
> ....
> 
> I would bet that the members on the large Tall ships and many other in the Tall ship community do not subject them to the ridicule and insult you have just done here.
> They may beleive they have the original named tall ships but they probably accept the differing classes. Ill bet they share commradiere amongst all the classes of these tall ships, as they are united as a group of purists who love and are passionate about sailing these vanishing ships of another era in the tradition of the way they were sailed. This is to be admired not ridulculed.
> 
> I know the Captain of the WITCHCRAFT who I have watch work on her for the last 10 years meticulously would not be amused by your insults and ridicule, nor would the 25 boats racing in Helsinki next year.
> 
> I am sorry this does not fit into your own definitions of a tall ship. Really doesnt change things or make a differnce, as the facts are the facts and their not going to change. I had to change my definition, which really meant all I had to do was expand what I thought and put the vessels in classes, because of what I found. Sparklepl3enty is really the one who made me think about it and research it, and I was suprised by the results, but i do understand why there are different classes of tall ships.


Geez, Dave - get a grip...

No one is "ridiculing" the owners or crews who sail a beautiful vessel such as WITCHCRAFT...

What seems worthy of ridicule - whether it has been so determined by "professionals", or not - is a set of guidelines that essentially deem any sailing vessel, traditionally-rigged or not - worthy of being classified as some sort of class of "Tall Ship", simply by virtue of the fact that it has a LWL greater than 30 feet...

Perhaps I'm missing some essential distinction contained within the guidelines presented in your link, but I'm not seeing it... It appears that any vessel with a waterline of greater than 30' may be termed as a Class C or D Tall Ship... I don't care who might be insisting it is so, to maintain the absurd fiction that a boat like WING NUTS, for example, may be rightfully referred to as a "Tall Ship" simply staggers the imagination...


----------



## Minnewaska

Witchcraft reminds me of the old classic boats that sail in the Nantucket Opera House Cup regatta. Beauties! Not a one refers to itself as a Tall Ship that I'm aware of, but many would seem to qualify. I suspect most would even reject the title as a bit silly. At the least, experience on these would be entirely irrelevant to that of an old square rigger.

If they like it, good for them, it isn't hurting anyone. But, I would hope they would admit the title engenders a more grandiose vision, despite the technical definition.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

I hope you know I am laughing at the absurdity of this line of conversation. Tall Ships America has their classifications, but I can assure you, few Tall ship sailors give a whit. It is a term that is by no means standardized, and is a semi-fluid and broad term. Just as centuries ago, "ship" meant a 3+ masted ship(a full-rigged ship was defined as 3+ masts and square sails on all), and in modern times ships are only massive metal container vessels or Navy ships.

So really, no need to get your feathers ruffled.


----------



## JulieMor

If you go back to the first tall ship race in 1956 you will see the people who organized the race saw it was very popular and formed a new organization. From there the whole tall ship genre has seen quite an evolution but somewhere in this loose classification that now exists was, most likely, profit motive.

For me, a tall ship is a large, square-masted sailing vessel like the one Cap'n Jack Sparrow and his crew sail. 





*No! Not that boat!

This boat!*


----------



## sparklepl3nty

JulieMor said:


> If you go back to the first tall ship race in 1956 you will see the people who organized the race saw it was very popular and formed a new organization. From there the whole tall ship genre has seen quite an evolution but somewhere in this loose classification that now exists was, most likely, profit motive.


Julie, you might be pleased to know Lady Washington played the Interceptor in that scene (historicalseaport dot org)


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Truly amazing, Factual evidence met with ridicule.
> 
> I am sorry this does not fit into your own definitions .


Chef,
Talking about facts. Where do you get that your named S/V "Haleakula" is Hawaiian for "House of the Sun"? In Hawaiian "House of the Sun" is Haleakala". Not that it really matters, but "just the facts". "Haleakula" is not a Hawaiian word but if it were it would be "house of the field". Hale is house, Kula is field (or up country). "Kala" means Sun.


----------



## casey1999

sparklepl3nty
Thanks for your input here. I actually crewed aboard the first "Pride" for a short time on the Chesapeake. I never saw any heavy weather with "Pride", but was curious how most of these tall ships would handle say a 60 knot blow in say 30 foot seas. Can they make any windward progress? Would they furl all sails and motor? Or would they hove to or run with the wind bare poles?
Regards


----------



## chef2sail

Poetic Liscence. We will will be changing the graphic to use the preferred spelling Haleakala. We have seen it spelled both ways when on Maui and have literature which said that.

Thanks for your concern and BTW what does that have to do with the topic?


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Poetic Liscence. We will will be changing the graphic to use the preferred spelling Haleakala. We have seen it spelled both ways when on Maui and have literature which said that.
> 
> Thanks for your concern and BTW what does that have to do with the topic?


Like many previous posts, it has nothing to do with the topic, but just want to make sure you have the "facts". If people on Maui were using the word "Haleakula", they are people who have not learned the spelling/meaning of the word or its pronunciation.


----------



## PCP

JulieMor said:


> If you go back to the first tall ship race in 1956 you will see the people who organized the race saw it was very popular and formed a new organization. From there the whole tall ship genre has seen quite an evolution but somewhere in this loose classification that now exists was, most likely, profit motive.
> 
> ..


I guess that is profit indeed the only justification to call small sailingboats tall ships.

The first race that gave the name to the tall ships was meant to be a revival of the big sailing ships of the past. The original race had two classes, that were maintained for some time: Ships with more than 100T and sailing boats with less. However there were no small sailing boats boats involved on these races and the smaller boats were never called ships or tall ships.

The qualification of Tall Ships appeared in the press to qualify the big ships with hugely tall rigs, the ones of the the bigger class.

Today thew want the biggest possible number of entries in Tall ship races so besides the original Tall ship class they opened the races and participation to practically any boat, even aluminum boats.

For having the boast racing a tall boat ship race the vessels have to be tall ships even if they are small sailing boats. That's pretty ridiculous but what they want is the biggest possible number of entries, ships or small boats alike.

Tall Ship as a qualification for a sailing ship refers to the original meaning, those big sailing ships that raced on the first race, a legacy of the working ships of the past.

Wikipedia explains it well:

*A tall ship is a large, traditionally-rigged sailing vessel. *Popular modern tall ship rigs include topsail schooners, brigantines, brigs and barques. ...

While Sail Training International (STI) has extended the definition of tall ship *for the purpose of its races *to embrace any sailing vessel with more than 30 ft (9.14 m) waterline length and on which at least half the people on board are aged 15 to 25, this definition can include many modern sailing yachts, so *for the purposes of this article, tall ship will mainly refer to those vessels rated as class "A".*

Class A
All square - rigged vessels (barque, barquentine, brig, brigantine or ship rigged) and all other vessel more than 40 metres Length Overall (LOA), regardless of rig. *STI classifies its A Class as "all square-rigged vessels and all other vessels over 40 metres (131 ft) length overall (LOA)"*, in this case STI LOA excludes bowsprit and aft spar. STI defines LOA as "Length overall measured from the fore side of stem post to aft side of stern post, counter or transom"

Tall ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This are what for wikipedia are Ships that can qualify has Tall Ships. This makes sense. They have also a list of Tall Ships.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP, 
Thanks for posting Wikipedia article. The lost ships section was interesting. Go to site and click on the ships names for more details:

Lost tall shipsTall ships are sometimes lost, such as by a storm at sea. Some examples of this include:

Bounty full-rig ship lost off the North Carolina coast as Hurricane Sandy approached in 2012.

Concordia was a triple mast Barquentine built in 1992, operated by Canada as a school ship. Lost at sea in 2010 in a squall.

Asgard II, an Irish national sail training ship, commissioned in 1982, was lost in 2008 off the French coast. The 2-masted brigantine is thought to have collided with a submerged object.

Fantome a former yacht built in 1927, then operating as a cruise ship was lost in Hurricane Mitch in 1998.[5]

Marques, built in 1917, it was lost in a 1984 Tall Ships Race.

This is interesting of the Fantome's fate:
http://www.fortogden.com/fantommiamiherald.html


----------



## JulieMor

sparklepl3nty said:


> Julie, you might be pleased to know Lady Washington played the Interceptor in that scene (historicalseaport dot org)


Did you crew Lady Washington?


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> ....
> This is interesting of the Fantome's fate:
> 
> The loss of the Windjammer Schooner, Fantome


Thanks for posting. Great reading...and sad luck the one of all those guys.

At least this Captain was trying to evade a Hurricane, not sailing into one

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sparklepl3nty

JulieMor said:


> Did you crew Lady Washington?


I did, actually. She was my first ship.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Thanks for posting. Great reading...and sad luck the one of all those guys.
> 
> At least this Captain was trying to evade a Hurricane, not sailing into one
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


THE SHIP AND THE STORM is a riveting read, highly recommended...

I thought I had mentioned the loss of the FANTOME previously re the unpredictability of late-season hurricanes originating in the Western Caribbean, but I see now that I had not... But certainly, every tall ship captain would have been familiar with the story, and the surreal manner in which Mitch literally stalked, and then killed, the FANTOME... Only furthers one's bewilderment at Walbridge's decision to attempt to outwit another late-season storm spawned in roughly the same area as Mitch...










Some may recall that the Caribbean 1500 rally wound up getting hammered pretty good that year, as well... 2 boats were abandoned, fortunately without any loss of life... But, the historical unpredictability of storms like Lenny, Mitch, Wilma, and now Sandy, really highlights the risks of making the passage from the east coast to the islands, while ANYTHING of a tropical nature might be brewing in the Western Caribbean... Mitch literally came back from the dead, to take a shot at the fleet of boats headed to the islands that fall. Charlie Doane's account of how the rally fleet dealt with the remnants of Mitch is a worthwhile read, as well:



> "To tell you the truth, we were worried about Mitch from the very beginning," she exclaimed. "If we hadn't been in the rally, we would have never left in the first place."
> 
> HEAVY-WEATHER SAILING: Remembering Hurricane Mitch


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> THE SHIP AND THE STORM is a riveting read, highly recommended...
> 
> ...
> Some may recall that the Caribbean 1500 rally wound up getting hammered pretty good that year, as well... 2 boats were abandoned, fortunately without any loss of life... But, the historical unpredictability of storms like Lenny, Mitch, Wilma, and now Sandy, really highlights the risks of making the passage from the east coast to the islands, while ANYTHING of a tropical nature might be brewing in the Western Caribbean... Mitch literally came back from the dead, to take a shot at the fleet of boats headed to the islands that fall. Charlie Doane's account of how the rally fleet dealt with the remnants of Mitch is a worthwhile read, as well:
> 
> HEAVY-WEATHER SAILING: Remembering Hurricane Mitch


Thanks for posting, also a great reading.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

JulieMor said:


> If you go back to the first tall ship race in 1956 you will see the people who organized the race saw it was very popular and formed a new organization. From there the whole tall ship genre has seen quite an evolution but somewhere in this loose classification that now exists was, most likely, profit motive.


Maybe that was some of it, as money is behind lots of motivations, but I think it was also part of motivation was insure the viability of their organization and "grow" it so to speak to increase the participants. Maybe for money, but maybe also to embrace the "old era of sailing" amongst more people. If it remained just these huge ships the organization would just stayed a small finite number. The other other smaller Tall Ships which were part of the era and design of Tall Ships would be shut out or formed their own orgnization, which would have been much larger.

There is a large educational/ experience component in this organization also and it encouraged oppertunities to a large group.

When they have their races between Tall Ships, they came up with the classification system and had some way of comparing like ships with like ships, just as we do today with the modern classifications.

The motivation for the different classes is contained in the this statement



> A tall ship is not a strictly defined type of sailing vessel. Most of us use the term to mean a large traditionally rigged sailing vessel, whether or not it is technically a "ship". The United States Coast Guard's training ship Eagle, for example, is technically a "barque". A tall ship can also be a schooner, brigantine, barquentine, brig, ketch, sloop, or a full-rigged ship depending on the number of masts and the cut of the sails.
> 
> * For the purposes of classification and race rating,* Tall Ships America adheres to the descriptions found in the Racing and Sailing Rules and Special Regulations established by Sail Training International.
> 
> CLASS A
> All square-rigged vessels and all other vessels over 40m (131 feet) length overall (LOA)
> 
> CLASS B
> Traditional-rigged vessels with a LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a waterline length (LWL) of at least 9.14m (30 feet).
> 
> CLASS C
> Modern-rigged vessels with a LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet), not carrying spinnaker-like sails.
> 
> CLASS D
> Modern-rigged vessels with a LOA of less than 40m (131 feet) and with a LWL of at least 9.14m (30 feet), carrying spinnaker-like sails.


----------



## Bountydaughter

There is a lot of speculation and opinion circulating in this thread. I am very disconcerted by some of the comments regarding the Tall Ship organization and the embellishment of the condition of the Bounty. I have spoken to many former crew members and all have stated love and respect for Captain Walbridge. Many have told me " I would sail with him any day" or "I let my son or daughter sail with him without question". I' m sure if you ask the almost 200 former crew members who attended a memorial for the Captain and the ship, they would all say the same thing. As for not wanting to say something due to fear of being blackballed; why make the effort to say good things then? I would think if they felt negative things they would just say nothing at all or just say " yes, I knew him".


----------



## Minnewaska

Bountydaughter said:


> There is a lot of speculation and opinion circulating in this thread.


Sure is and everyone is entitled to their opinion.



> I am very disconcerted by some of the comments regarding the Tall Ship organization and the embellishment of the condition of the Bounty. I have spoken to many former crew members and all have stated love and respect for Captain Walbridge.


Not sure if you meant to combine these two thoughts. The TSC and condition have no relationship to former crew and their disparate thoughts are not mutually exclusive.



> Many have told me " I would sail with him any day" or "I let my son or daughter sail with him without question". I' m sure if you ask the almost 200 former crew members who attended a memorial for the Captain and the ship, they would all say the same thing.


My favorite teacher, as a grammar school kid, let us get away with anything. Did that make him a good teacher, because we all liked him? There are plenty of good, evil, competent and incompetent people throughout history with adoring followers. Again, the fact that crew like the guy has absolutely nothing to do with whether he was a good decision maker or a good Captain.


----------



## JonEisberg

Bountydaughter said:


> I have spoken to many former crew members and all have stated love and respect for Captain Walbridge. Many have told me " I would sail with him any day" or "I let my son or daughter sail with him without question". I' m sure if you ask the almost 200 former crew members who attended a memorial for the Captain and the ship, they would all say the same thing.


Are you certain "they would all say the same thing" _AFTER_ he sailed his ship and crew straight into a major hurricane???

If so, while admiring their loyalty and friendship, such folks are mired in some serious denial, if not downright divorced from reality...


----------



## TakeFive

I suggest that you guys lay off of Bountydaughter. It would appear from her userID and posts that she is a close friend or family of the deceased. She has suffered a loss and needs to grieve. Let her state her opinions without challenge - it is probably an important part of her grieving process.

The captain paid the ultimate price for his misjudgement. Let's not go punishing his friends and family too. Do the classy thing and lay off.


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> I suggest that you guys lay off of Bountydaughter. It would appear from her userID and posts that she is a close friend or family of the deceased. She has suffered a loss and needs to grieve. Let her state her opinions without challenge - it is probably an important part of her grieving process.
> 
> The captain paid the ultimate price for his misjudgement. Let's not go punishing his friends and family too. Do the classy thing and lay off.


Well said, you're probably right, of course...

My apologies for the tone of my post above...


----------



## PCP

Looking for evidence of Bounty sailing on another Hurricanes I found some references of having sailing one back in 1992 and looking better I found this report that is quite amazing:

*When the Bounty was in Miami safely moored at the dock the Coast Guard, with Hurricane Andrew bearing down and fearing the ship would destroy the docks and the Miami waterfront, ordered the crew of two to sail the ship or they were going to drill holes in the hull and sink her at the dock to prevent damage to the port of Miami. The crew got another three volunteer crewmembers and sailed the Bounty into the violent seas and winds of one of the most destructive hurricanes in recorded history. The Bounty survived the ordeal. The waterfront of Miami survived the storm as well.*

Read more: GUEST OPINION: Bounty's crew faced a dilemma: Sail or seek safe harbor? - Taunton, MA - The Taunton Daily Gazette

This is true? What would have happened to those that have ordered the boat out with a crew of 5 if the boat had sunk that time and lives had been lost?

....


----------



## PCP

This is the one time Captain that sailed on that occasion talking.... and I am even more amazed:

In the 1980s, Hausman sold his business and began taking courses for his captain's license.

A couple of years later, while working part time on boats in Miami, he was hired by the Bounty's owners to sail the ship while Hurricane Andrew took aim at South Florida.
...
During Hurricane Andrew the sail plan was to go south as far as necessary. When the hurricane hit shore, the ship was about 50 miles south of it, said Hausman, who estimated there were 80- to 100-mph winds and 15- to 25-foot waves for about an hour and a half. The crew headed east until the hurricane passed before returning to Miami.

In that case, "it was a textbook situation," Hausman said. As long as the ship could maintain the proper orientation in relation to the hurricane and no major mechanical problems occurred, he knew they were going to succeed.
*His crew consisted of five volunteers - two of whom had adequate knowledge about sailing and three who didn't.*

Hausman said that, as captain, the responsibility is significant, but the crew's efforts are vital.
"It all falls on you," he said. "You just need to know about everything that could possibly happen."
But he said the veterans help out the less experienced sailors - after all, everyone is in the same boat.

"You depend on the crew as much as they depend on you," Hausman said.
Even with the rough conditions, the Harbor Hills resident said he didn't have time to be nervous. He had experienced much worse weather, albeit on smaller ships..
Being out at sea on a wooden ship going 12 knots being propelled by the wind was an adventure, Hausman added. But he is quick to point out he wasn't in it for the thrill of the ride.

"For me, it was really a matter of saving the ship," he said."

and then referring to Bounty's accident and Hurricane Sandy he says:

Mistakes in a superstorm:

When reflecting on the Bounty's recent sinking, Hausman said he doesn't believe that only one error leads to a disaster at sea, he said.

*"There's always a series of bad choices, *a series of problems that finally do you in," Hausman said. "Sometimes, it just can't be helped."

Hausman has pinpointed what he knows of the Bounty's route according to reports on a large sailing map, to try to discover what could have happened to lead the crew to abandon ship.

*Considering the magnitude of Sandy, Hausman said he didn't think it was the best plan to take the Bounty out to sea in the first place.* He said it might have been a better idea to secure it to a dock.

Hausman said he thinks the captain may have underestimated the magnitude of the storm.
"(Walbridge) being a captain of the Bounty for 17 years, it was a judgment call I'm sure," Hausman said. "It's going to boil down to that. I think he misread how big Sandy was."

One-time captain of HMS Bounty reflects on tall ship's sinking - The Villages Daily Sun: Villages

For what I can understand this one time "Captain" without knowing the Ship with some helping hands, half of them with no experience took the Bounty out to escape Hurricane Andrews in 80/100 MPH winds with 25ft seas and finds himself qualified to find that this time should have stayed in Port?

Not that I do not agree with him but after what seem to me a crazy stunt like the one he describes he doesn't seem to have much moral to judge others for doing about the same he had done.

....


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> I suggest that you guys lay off of Bountydaughter. It would appear from her userID and posts that she is a close friend or family of the deceased. She has suffered a loss and needs to grieve. Let her state her opinions without challenge - it is probably an important part of her grieving process.
> 
> The captain paid the ultimate price for his misjudgement. Let's not go punishing his friends and family too. Do the classy thing and lay off.


Good post Rick. I see that Jon is a gentleman


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> I suggest that you guys lay off of Bountydaughter. It would appear from her userID and posts that she is a close friend or family of the deceased. She has suffered a loss and needs to grieve. Let her state her opinions without challenge - it is probably an important part of her grieving process.
> 
> The captain paid the ultimate price for his misjudgement. Let's not go punishing his friends and family too. Do the classy thing and lay off.


You may be right, but I have two suggestions. First, if true, Bountydaughter should make that relationship clear. I can't take every screen name literally, as most are not intended that way. Second, I would never voluntarily walk into a 1300 post conversation like this and take on the crowd, while I was morning the loss of a close relative or friend. That's not healthy.

This discussion has not been strictly about the Capt anyway. Its been about a culture that seemed to exist that all should learn from. A boat that had sailed into hurricanes before, so one might process the risk incorrectly. A glimpse into what you might do, if presented with that opportunity to leave the boat, when your friends might pull off the voyage. Good discussion over whether these relics should be allowed to sail with bare bones inexperienced crew in horrific conditions without the same inspections as a commercial vessel.

While there are those that are very sensitive to the reputation and loss of the Captain, that is only a part of the thread. For one, I have no desire to confront the Capt's family, for I have great sympathy for their loss. However, we can not silence the discussion on legitimate issues. Unlike a discussion in a bar, where I believe everyone would pause for the Capt's daughter to pass, one can't know who is nearby here. I think those that do know they would be sensitive have the obligation to give way. It's the same reason that I don't read or post in the PRWG forum. I'm sure there are discussions that would boil my blood and the posters could not appreciate why.


----------



## jameswilson29

I doubt a trained therapist could even guess what would be the best way for a particular individual to work out her grief. Obviously she voluntarily chose to participate in a particularly heated discussion about a controversial topic. No one is forcing her to post here.

Perhaps challenging her irrational beliefs will help her recover from this atrocity, and save her life someday in the future. I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning.

Here is the irrational thought process (which some of the Sailnet members seem to have adopted too):

1. Capt. Walbridge was experienced, well-liked and respected.

2. His crew would follow him anywhere. (And we should respect their opinion even though most on this listserv have more sailing and boat maintenance experience. [Riding as a passenger on a ship in the ocean and pulling on a halyard when instructed does not qualify one for much of anything].)

3. Therefore, Capt. Walbridge could not have done anything as monumentally stupid and reckless as sailing a poorly-maintained movie prop out into one of the largest storms in maritime history against the better judgment of almost every experienced mariner and professional captain with an ounce of common sense, thus causing the death of one innocent woman in his care and endangering dozens of people.

4. If only we could blame or invent something other than his obviously poor judgment as the root cause of this atrocity, thus we need to wait for the results of an investigation.


----------



## TakeFive

I am not trying to "silence the discussion." I am merely suggesting that you not respond directly to her posts.

Are your really that desperate to pick a fight with this person? Is it really so important to you that you can't let a single person state her opinion without refuting it directly (including quoting her own words)?


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> You may be right, but I have two suggestions. First, if true, Bountydaughter should make that relationship clear. I can't take every screen name literally, as most are not intended that way. Second, I would never voluntarily walk into a 1300 post conversation like this and take on the crowd, while I was morning the loss of a close relative or friend. That's not healthy.
> 
> This discussion has not been strictly about the Capt anyway. Its been about a culture that seemed to exist that all should learn from. A boat that had sailed into hurricanes before, so one might process the risk incorrectly. A glimpse into what you might do, if presented with that opportunity to leave the boat, when your friends might pull off the voyage. Good discussion over whether these relics should be allowed to sail with bare bones inexperienced crew in horrific conditions without the same inspections as a commercial vessel.
> 
> While there are those that are very sensitive to the reputation and loss of the Captain, that is only a part of the thread. For one, I have no desire to confront the Capt's family, for I have great sympathy for their loss. However, we can not silence the discussion on legitimate issues. Unlike a discussion in a bar, where I believe everyone would pause for the Capt's daughter to pass, one can't know who is nearby here. I think those that do know they would be sensitive have the obligation to give way. It's the same reason that I don't read or post in the PRWG forum. I'm sure there are discussions that would boil my blood and the posters could not appreciate why.


While everything you say is valid. Rick ( Takefive) asked that you lay off the poster. Not the thread. So with due respect here lay of her.


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> I doubt a trained therapist could even guess what would be the best way for a particular individual to work out her grief. Obviously she voluntarily chose to participate in a particularly heated discussion about a controversial topic. No one is forcing her to post here.
> 
> *Perhaps challenging her irrational beliefs will help her recover from this atrocity, and save her life someday in the future.* I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning.
> 
> Here is the irrational thought process (which some of the Sailnet members seem to have adopted too):
> 
> 1. Capt. Walbridge was experienced, well-liked and respected.
> 
> 2. His crew would follow him anywhere. (And we should respect their opinion even though most on this listserv have more sailing and boat maintenance experience. [Riding as a passenger on a ship in the ocean and pulling on a halyard when instructed does not qualify one for much of anything].)
> 
> 3. Therefore, Capt. Walbridge could not have done anything as monumentally stupid and reckless as sailing a poorly-maintained movie prop out into one of the largest storms in maritime history against the better judgment of almost every experienced mariner and professional captain with an ounce of common sense, thus causing the death of one innocent woman in his care and endangering dozens of people.
> 
> 4. If only we could blame or invent something other than his obviously poor judgment as the root cause of this atrocity, thus we need to wait for the results of an investigation.


Inappropriate here. Unfeeling. And no on needs psychiatry over the internet. Thanks for caring

*I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning.*

So what should we assume about you? Assmption not in evidence counselor...if thats what you really are? Why not just give the poster the respect ANY poster deserves instead of instantly trashing them. Dont make this about me either. Its your words here. Its about what you posted.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> I am not trying to "silence the discussion." I am merely suggesting that you not respond directly to her posts.
> 
> Are your really that desperate to pick a fight with this person? Is it really so important to you that you can't let a single person state her opinion without refuting it directly (including quoting her own words)?


Whoa. Who's desperate now?

This is a thread with discussion back and forth. When did it become off limits to quote another poster and reply?

Ironically, Bountydaughter's original post quoted another and poked Jan right in the eye (who, by the way, we do know is grieving the loss of his friend)


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> While everything you say is valid. Rick ( Takefive) asked that you lay off the poster. Not the thread. So with due respect here lay of her.


With the same due respect, don't we need an investigation to determine the facts or are we assuming that TakeFive is correct in his speculation on who she is? Could be a 16 yr old troll for all we know. No?

Listen, I'm not ganging up on her (him, it, whoever). BD's first post came in and dumped on a respected sailor and I'm finding it hard to simply give that a carte blanch pass based upon speculation.

I will try.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> I am not trying to "silence the discussion." I am merely suggesting that you not respond directly to her posts.
> 
> Are your really that desperate to pick a fight with this person? Is it really so important to you that you can't let a single person state her opinion without refuting it directly (including quoting her own words)?


Nobody is fighting here. We discuss a subject according with our own opinion and point of view, in a civil manner. On a discussion if we do not agree with what is said and think we can refute it, for the sake of the discussion, we should do that.

If I understand what you are saying relatively to that particular poster, that seems related to the Bounty organization or crew, we should not discuss what he or she says. Why? That makes not sense. If he or she is posting here is because we wants to enter on the discussion and bring his or her particular opinion about the subject.

He or she is very welcomed to the discussion...but this is a discussion. If he or she does not want to discuss his or her point of view has no business posting here.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Bountydaughter

Minnewaska said:


> You may be right, but I have two suggestions. First, if true, Bountydaughter should make that relationship clear. I can't take every screen name literally, as most are not intended that way. Second, I would never voluntarily walk into a 1300 post conversation like this and take on the crowd, while I was morning the loss of a close relative or friend. That's not healthy.
> 
> This discussion has not been strictly about the Capt anyway. Its been about a culture that seemed to exist that all should learn from. A boat that had sailed into hurricanes before, so one might process the risk incorrectly. A glimpse into what you might do, if presented with that opportunity to leave the boat, when your friends might pull off the voyage. Good discussion over whether these relics should be allowed to sail with bare bones inexperienced crew in horrific conditions without the same inspections as a commercial vessel.
> 
> While there are those that are very sensitive to the reputation and loss of the Captain, that is only a part of the thread. For one, I have no desire to confront the Capt's family, for I have great sympathy for their loss. However, we can not silence the discussion on legitimate issues. Unlike a discussion in a bar, where I believe everyone would pause for the Capt's daughter to pass, one can't know who is nearby here. I think those that do know they would be sensitive have the obligation to give way. It's the same reason that I don't read or post in the PRWG forum. I'm sure there are discussions that would boil my blood and the posters could not appreciate why.


I do not have an issue identifying my relationship. I am Captain Walbridge's daughter. Whether it is "healthy" for me to be reading and responding in this thread I believe is totally up to me. I am not trying to silence any discussions but add a different perspective. I know this thread is not entirely about the Captain. I do feel the need to defend against some of the comments made. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but a lot of it IS speculation. This "replica" ship has sailed all over the world. It was not just a prop but a full working square rigged tall ship. Many who have sailed on her have gone on and become captains of other ships and attribute their knowledge and their becoming a captain with Robin's tutelage. I personally have spoken to many former crew members who have told me that they respected Robin, not just liked him because he "let them get away with things". He loved his ship and he loved what he did. What happened was an absolute tragedy but comments that he was "stupid" and "egotistical" could not be further from the truth. I just feel that whether you have sailing experience or not no one will ever know why he made the decision that he made and any comments are pure conjecture.


----------



## jameswilson29

Bountydaughter said:


> I just feel that whether you have sailing experience or not no one will ever know why he made the decision that he made and any comments are pure conjecture.


I am very sorry for your loss.

Since you are willing to discuss the incident, how do you answer the contention that your father's state of mind was well illustrated by the video interview of him, in which he stated that there is no such thing as bad weather, he admitted that he chased hurricanes, and he told viewers where in the storm he intended to position his boat?


----------



## caberg

Bountydaughter said:


> no one will ever know why he made the decision that he made and any comments are pure conjecture.


I, too, am very sorry for your loss.

It seems that you'd be in the best position of anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) to add to this conjecture. Do you not have any insight to provide?


----------



## Bountydaughter

Anyone that knew Robin and watched that interview knew that he was poking fun at that reporter. His "chasing hurricanes" comment has been completely taken out of context. That was his sense of humor. As far as his stating there is no bad weather only different kinds, he did truly believe that. Weather was something you could manage. He had sailed in all different kinds of weather and up to this point, successfully. As far as that interview, if this incident had not happened no one except people that watch public access tv in Maine would have ever seen it.


----------



## Bountydaughter

Minnewaska said:


> With the same due respect, don't we need an investigation to determine the facts or are we assuming that TakeFive is correct in his speculation on who she is? Could be a 16 yr old troll for all we know. No?
> 
> Listen, I'm not ganging up on her (him, it, whoever). BD's first post came in and dumped on a respected sailor and I'm finding it hard to simply give that a carte blanch pass based upon speculation.
> 
> I will try.


No one needs to lay off me. I'm a big girl. ( not a 16 year old trolling). I am an adult and voluntarily joined this discussion. I do ask that it stays respectful though.


----------



## Minnewaska

Bountydaughter said:


> I do not have an issue identifying my relationship. I am Captain Walbridge's daughter......


I presume this is Shelly, Robin's stepdaughter, and I am very sorry for your loss.

Let us know if you would like to continue discussing this within this forum, as your posts leave much open to be clarified.


----------



## Bountydaughter

chef2sail said:


> Inappropriate here. Unfeeling. And no on needs psychiatry over the internet. Thanks for caring
> 
> *I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning.*
> 
> So what should we assume about you? Assmption not in evidence counselor...if thats what you really are? Why not just give the poster the respect ANY poster deserves instead of instantly trashing them. Dont make this about me either. Its your words here. Its about what you posted.


chef2sail, I ask that you practice what you preach:
*"I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning."*
How is this not trashing me? First, I can tell you that you assume wrong. I have already stated that I am Captain Walbridge's daughter. I can also assure you that I have a firm grip on reality and I am not lacking in logic. I am insulted by your term "cult member" as Robin did not run a cult. I am sure that anyone ever associated with the Bounty would also be insulted by that remark. 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am here to express mine. Most opinions here are not based in fact or knowledge. You are entitled to them nonetheless. My opinions are based on the fact that I knew the man which none of you can say.


----------



## PCP

Bountydaughter said:


> ... Everyone is entitled to their opinions but a lot of it IS speculation. ... What happened was an absolute tragedy but comments that he was "stupid" and "egotistical" could not be further from the truth. I just feel that whether you have sailing experience or not no one will ever know why he made the decision that he made and any comments are pure conjecture.


I am very sorry for your loss.

I don't remember that someone had said here that he was a stupid man. Clearly he was not. I believe that what was said was that he had taken a stupid decision. That does not mean that he was stupid. Even the brighter of men sometime does stupid things.

A stupid mistake means a foolish or careless mistake.

stupid - definition of stupid by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

An inexplicable decision is many times a foolish one, otherwise it would have a rational explanation.

Regarding Bounty's Captain (we are not here talking about the man, that as was said by many, I am sure was a great human being) but about his behavior as a Captain and the term egotistical has to do with that condition, I mean while Captain.

I believe that the term Egotiscal was used in a sense that means: A boastful Captain and that seems to correspond to the image that he gave from himself on that video were he talks about chasing Hurricanes. Most of us believed that he was boasting. Do you believe that he was speaking truly about that?

egotistical - definition of egotistical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Off course both statements are opinions and as such can not correspond to the truth but that I think acceptable in what regards what we know about the facts.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

Bountydaughter said:


> chef2sail, I ask that you practice what you preach:
> *"I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning."*
> How is this not trashing me?..


You are right, it is trashing you. But chef2sail was quoting someone else's prior comment as an example of inappropriate statements.

If you read over the hundreds of pages on this thead, you'll see that a few people (chef2sail, me, and a few others) have been suggesting to people that the uninformed speculation is hurtful and counterproductive, and urging some patience for the true facts of the USCG investigation to emerge in their future report.

I do believe that new facts could create a fuller context that may provide more understanding of his thinking at the time.


----------



## Bountydaughter

Thank you for your condolences. You know who I am and that is fine. I have nothing to hide. I would like to clarify whatever I possibly can. I joined the discussion voluntarily. I would like to continue in the discussion as long as it can stay respectful.



Minnewaska said:


> I presume this is Shelly, Robin's stepdaughter, and I am very sorry for your loss.
> 
> Let us know if you would like to continue discussing this within this forum, as your posts leave much open to be clarified.


----------



## Minnewaska

JW's assumption in that comment was she was not a family member, therefore the trashing was not applicable to her. If she wasn't a family member and was pretending to be, then the trashing could be quite applicable. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Minnewaska

Bountydaughter said:


> Thank you for your condolences. You know who I am and that is fine. I have nothing to hide. I would like to clarify whatever I possibly can. I joined the discussion voluntarily. I would like to continue in the discussion as long as it can stay respectful.


Thanks, Shelly. Are you aware of any pressure applied by the owner of the vessel or a deadline of any kind to make this voyage?


----------



## TakeFive

I suspect that now that Bountydaughter is here and has identified herself, we may see a whole lot of people trying to roll back their prior statements, and issue "clarifications" on what they actually meant, and why words like "stupid," "foolish," etc. were not meant in the way they may have been interpreted.

Let's not forget that real people with feelings read these posts, and poorly informed, broad-brush attacks on the captain are hurtful. There are a lot of uncaring, poorly informed statements in the past 135 pages. I hope you all feel good about what you have written. I've issued numerous warnings about this, and taken a lot of flak for it.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive, that's exactly why I suggested it would not be healthy for BD to participate, but she has suggested you don't need to protect her.

I'm sure that everyone will treat her with respect, but it isn't going to change the dialogue between other posters and shouldn't, IMO.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> I suspect that now that Bountydaughter is here and has identified herself, we may see a whole lot of people trying to roll back their prior statements, and issue "clarifications" on what they actually meant, and why words like "stupid," "foolish," etc. were not meant in the way they may have been interpreted.
> 
> ...


Take five, I was not retiring anything, just explained that nobody said that the Bounty's Captain was a stupid man as she was saying.

Regarding Bounty's captain having taken a foolish decision regarding sailing in direction of an Hurricane I thought that we all have agreed about that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jameswilson29

TakeFive said:


> I suspect that now that Bountydaughter is here and has identified herself, we may see a whole lot of people trying to roll back their prior statements, and issue "clarifications" on what they actually meant...


Thanks for the heads up, I edited one of my comments...


----------



## Bountydaughter

PCP said:


> I am very sorry for your loss.
> 
> I don't remember that someone had said here that he was a stupid man. Clearly he was not. I believe that what was said was that he had taken a stupid decision. That does not mean that he was stupid. Even the brighter of men sometime does stupid things.
> 
> A stupid mistake means a foolish or careless mistake.
> 
> An inexplicable decision is many times a foolish one, otherwise it would have a rational explanation.
> 
> Regarding Bounty's Captain (we are not here talking about the man, that as was said by many, I am sure was a great human being) but about his behavior as a Captain and the term egotistical has to do with that condition, I mean while Captain.
> 
> I believe that the term Egotiscal was used in a sense that means: A boastful Captain and that seems to correspond to the image that he gave from himself on that video were he talks about chasing Hurricanes. Most of us believed that he was boasting. Do you believe that he was speaking truly about that?
> 
> Off course both statements are opinions and as such can not correspond to the truth but that I think acceptable in what regards what we know about the facts.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I do not believe egotistical described him as a captain. He was experienced and knowledgeable but not to the point of conceit. Was he confident? Yes, again not to the point of egotistical. I had posted previously:
"Anyone that knew Robin and watched that interview knew that he was poking fun at that reporter. His "chasing hurricanes" comment has been completely taken out of context. That was his sense of humor. As far as his stating there is no bad weather only different kinds, he did truly believe that. Weather was something you could manage. He had sailed in all different kinds of weather and up to this point, successfully. As far as that interview, if this incident had not happened no one except people that watch public access tv in Maine would have ever seen it." Boastful was also not a term to describe Robin either as a man or a captain. 
People make decisions based on past experience and presumed ability all the time. Sometimes bad things happen and it does not have to do with being egotistical or stupid decision making. For example, I live in New England and it snows here. There are times when it snows very hard and the state "recommends" that drivers stay off the roads. Many people make a decision to drive anyway based on what they think the conditions of the roads are, their previous experience with driving in the snow and their confidence in their driving abilities. If the decision is made to drive to work, the store or whatever does that make that person reckless and egotistical? Confidence does not equal ego.


----------



## Bountydaughter

TakeFive said:


> You are right, it is trashing you. But chef2sail was quoting someone else's prior comment as an example of inappropriate statements.
> 
> If you read over the hundreds of pages on this thead, you'll see that a few people (chef2sail, me, and a few others) have been suggesting to people that the uninformed speculation is hurtful and counterproductive, and urging some patience for the true facts of the USCG investigation to emerge in their future report.
> 
> I do believe that new facts could create a fuller context that may provide more understanding of his thinking at the time.


You are correct and I apologize to chef2sail. I did see that he quoted that from another post. So although it should not have been addressed to chef2sail the response remains appropriate to the quote.


----------



## lancelot9898

I'm sorry for you loss Shelly. While I haven't posted much on this thread but the posts that I've made have been critical of the entire episode.....and for that I apoligize. For I too have a daugher by the name of Shelley(with and e) and I would not want her to hear negative things about me should I die in a sailing adventrue, mountain climbing or even riding my mountain bike here in the mountains of NC. 

I saw the interview on the Weather Channel of three of the survivors and I was impressed by the engineer Barksdale. You can tell a lot about a person by their friends and if Barksdale was an example then your Dad was a fine person and will be missed by many.


----------



## Bountydaughter

Minnewaska said:


> Thanks, Shelly. Are you aware of any pressure applied by the owner of the vessel or a deadline of any kind to make this voyage?


I have also heard that rumor but have not been able to confirm. Robin made no mention of it when he spoke to my mother before leaving. Do I think it could be true? I don't know. I don't think so, but opinion on my part.


----------



## Bountydaughter

lancelot9898 said:


> I'm sorry for you loss Shelly. While I haven't posted much on this thread but the posts that I've made have been critical of the entire episode.....and for that I apoligize. For I too have a daugher by the name of Shelley(with and e) and I would not want her to hear negative things about me should I die in a sailing adventrue, mountain climbing or even riding my mountain bike here in the mountains of NC.
> 
> I saw the interview on the Weather Channel of three of the survivors and I was impressed by the engineer Barksdale. You can tell a lot about a person by their friends and if Barksdale was an example then your Dad was a fine person and will be missed by many.


Thank you. 
I am not naive enough to think people wont say negative things which is why I feel the need to defend when I can. I know people are going to question and blame, it is human nature. If I can correct any misconceptions then I feel I am honoring my stepfather and protecting my mother.


----------



## Bountydaughter

Robin is not able to answer any of these questions so I feel the need to be his voice if I can.


----------



## jameswilson29

Has anyone sued or asserted a claim against the estate arising from the incident?


----------



## Bountydaughter

jameswilson29 said:


> Has anyone sued or asserted a claim against the estate arising from the incident?


I have heard that the parents of Claudene Christian are planning to file against the Bounty organization/owner. I do not know if it has or will happen though.


----------



## PCP

Bountydaughter said:


> I do not believe egotistical described him as a captain. He was experienced and knowledgeable but not to the point of conceit. Was he confident? Yes, again not to the point of egotistical. I had posted previously:
> "Anyone that knew Robin and watched that interview knew that he was poking fun at that reporter. His "chasing hurricanes" comment has been completely taken out of context. That was his sense of humor. As far as his stating there is no bad weather only different kinds, he did truly believe that. Weather was something you could manage. He had sailed in all different kinds of weather and up to this point, successfully. As far as that interview, if this incident had not happened no one except people that watch public access tv in Maine would have ever seen it." Boastful was also not a term to describe Robin either as a man or a captain.


To poke with someone is alright, to poke with a reporter conducting and interview that is going to the press and is going to be posted on the social media, the way he had done, about things that define him as a Captain, is just absurd. He defined himself as a Captain that says that bad weather does not exist, that likes to chase hurricanes and have a good ride out of them, not only to the reporter but to the thousands of people that would see that interview. This don't seem to make sense to me, unless he was boasting.

You say that he is poking, well, that is your opinion, I find it hard to believe that someone is poking not only with a guy but with the thousands that would see and read that interview. I believe that the term boasting is more appropriated, but off course that is just my opinion.

But that is not the only time I find that he was boasting. I believe also that he was boasting when he wrote that the "Bounty new no boundaries" or when he said that a XVIII century designed wooden ship would be safer facing an Hurricane on the sea than in a Port.

Again that is just my opinion based mainly in the almost complete incomprehension that other Tall ship captains have shown by his decision to sail out. I assume that Bounty's Captain knew that he was taking a considerable risk taking Bounty out of Port and sailing towards an Hurricane.



Bountydaughter said:


> People make decisions based on past experience and presumed ability all the time. Sometimes bad things happen and it does not have to do with being egotistical or stupid decision making. For example, I live in New England and it snows here. There are times when it snows very hard and the state "recommends" that drivers stay off the roads. Many people make a decision to drive anyway based on what they think the conditions of the roads are, their previous experience with driving in the snow and their confidence in their driving abilities. If the decision is made to drive to work, the store or whatever does that make that person reckless and egotistical? Confidence does not equal ego.


Bounty's Captain was a professional mariner and had lives to his care. His decision to leave port in that Ship sailing towards an Hurricane was unanimously criticized by all professional mariner community even before the boat being lost.

A professional captain does not take risks with the lives of his crew. Obviously that was what the bounty Captain had done. Again, it is not me stating that, is all marine professional community that says that what he had done was wrong. If that does not make it a one time foolish decision it would make it a behavior of a Captain that had unfounded confidence in the seaworthiness of his ship and on his own capacities to manage all kind of weather.

I believe you are more qualified than all of us put together to judge him like a man but that is not what we are discussing here, but his actions has a Captain and regarding that I don't think you are more qualified than us and you are certainly less than all those tall ship Captains that had already stated what they thought.

I am really sorry to say all this to you, but is just my opinion, that have been expressed already on this thread and I believe that in a discussion we should say what we think. I hope you can understand that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Bountydaughter

PCP said:


> To poke with someone is alright, to poke with a reporter conducting and interview that is going to the press and is going to be posted on the social media, the way he had done, about things that define him as a Captain, is just absurd. He defined himself as a Captain that says that bad weather does not exist, that likes to chase hurricanes and have a good ride out of them, not only to the reporter but to the thousands of people that would see that interview. This don't seem to make sense to me, unless he was boasting.
> 
> You say that he is poking, well, that is your opinion, I find it hard to believe that someone is poking not only with a guy but with the thousands that would see and read that interview. I believe that the term boasting is more appropriated, but off course that is just my opinion.
> 
> But that is not the only time I find that he was boasting. I believe also that he was boasting when he wrote that the "Bounty new no boundaries" or when he said that a XVIII century designed wooden ship would be safer facing an Hurricane on the sea than in a Port.
> 
> Again that is just my opinion based mainly in the almost complete incomprehension that other Tall ship captains have shown by his decision to sail out. I assume that Bounty's Captain knew that he was taking a considerable risk taking Bounty out of Port and sailing towards an Hurricane.
> 
> Bounty's Captain was a professional mariner and had lives to his care. His decision to leave port in that Ship sailing towards an Hurricane was unanimously criticized by all professional mariner community even before the boat being lost.
> 
> A professional captain does not take risks with the lives of his crew. Obviously that was what the bounty Captain had done. Again, it is not me stating that, is all marine professional community that says that what he had done was wrong. If that does not make it a one time foolish decision it would make it a behavior of a Captain that had unfounded confidence in the seaworthiness of his boat and on his own capacities to manage all kind of weather.
> 
> I believe you are more qualified than all of us put together to judge him like a man but that is not what we are discussing here, but his actions has a Captain and regarding that I don't think you are more qualified than us and you are certainly less than all those tall ship Captains that had already stated what they thought.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


That reporter was from a small public access channel in a small town in Maine. If this incident would not have happened very few people would have actually seen that interview. That interview was not going to press or to social media. Dozens of people would have seen it if this did not happen, most certainly not thousands. The reporter decided to post it to social media after the incident. You cannot judge Robin as boastful from that one interview. It is unfortunate that this reporter felt the need to use this tragedy to publicize himself and all opinions are being based from this one silly interview.
I can tell you judging the man and the captain are not two separate things. I don't know how you feel qualified to judge him as a captain. Yes, this decision went horribly wrong. I will never deny that but people make decisions and sometimes they do not go as we had planned or thought. This does not take away from his capabilities as a captain. 
This situation has not been criticized by all of the mariner community. Not ALL tall ship captains have spoken out against his decision. The ones who do speak against him are the ones that get the attention. We can agree to disagree but I do not think that one decision, regardless of the outcome defines a person as reckless, foolish or egotistical. No one will ever know what was exactly going through his mind when he made that decision but I can tell you that it was a thought out decision based on experience. As a man and a captain this is how Robin was.


----------



## PCP

Bountydaughter said:


> ...
> This situation has not been criticized by all of the mariner community. Not ALL tall ship captains have spoken out against his decision. The ones who do speak against him are the ones that get the attention. We can agree to disagree but I do not think that one decision, regardless of the outcome defines a person as reckless, foolish or egotistical. No one will ever know what was exactly going through his mind when he made that decision but I can tell you that it was a thought out decision based on experience. As a man and a captain this is how Robin was.


I have edited the last post (when you where posting this one) adding a comment basically to say that i am very sorry for not share with you the same views on this matter. Again, I am truly sorry for your loss and I will try not to reply to anything you say unless you refer directly to what was said already on this thread.

One last comment to say that if not all Tall ship Captains made public statements about Bounty's captain to sail out of port to an hurricane, all that talked showed disapproval about that decision. If that was a debatable decision it would be natural that many would come forward defending Bounty's Captain decision. After all he was one of them and nobody likes to see "one of us" unjustifiably blamed.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## YukonJack

Bountydaughter said:


> That reporter was from a small public access channel in a small town in Maine. If this incident would not have happened very few people would have actually seen that interview. That interview was not going to press or to social media. Dozens of people would have seen it if this did not happen, most certainly not thousands. The reporter decided to post it to social media after the incident. You cannot judge Robin as boastful from that one interview. It is unfortunate that this reporter felt the need to use this tragedy to publicize himself and all opinions are being based from this one silly interview.
> I can tell you judging the man and the captain are not two separate things. I don't know how you feel qualified to judge him as a captain. Yes, this decision went horribly wrong. I will never deny that but people make decisions and sometimes they do not go as we had planned or thought. This does not take away from his capabilities as a captain.
> This situation has not been criticized by all of the mariner community. Not ALL tall ship captains have spoken out against his decision. The ones who do speak against him are the ones that get the attention. We can agree to disagree but I do not think that one decision, regardless of the outcome defines a person as reckless, foolish or egotistical. No one will ever know what was exactly going through his mind when he made that decision but I can tell you that it was a thought out decision based on experience. As a man and a captain this is how Robin was.


It is my respectful opinion that your dad made a very bad decision to sail in the direction of Hurricane Sandy.

This was the storm of the century. It was not the case that he was caught by surprise. A captain's responsibility is to also take many things into consideration of a known event-- his ship, his crew He must have known the abuse from the sea that the BOUNTY would have been subjected to. Would she be able to handle it ? He was also sailing with what would be considered a light crew for any Tall Ship under normal conditions.

I really do not mean to sound harsh, but these are my opinions.

I am really sorry for the loss of your dad. I know what that is like.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> ...One last comment to say that if not all Tall ship Captains made public statements about Bounty's captain to sail out of port to an hurricane, all that talked showed disapproval about that decision...


See what I mean about people rolling back their prior statements?

But I think that even your revised statement may be inaccurate. Like much speculation and chat room gossip, you are a victim of sampling bias. It is likely that there were some who spoke less critically of the captain, but it was less "newsworthy" so their statements did not go viral like the critical statements.

It's easy to sit at your computer with 20/20 hindsight and say the captain made the wrong decision. Since there were fatalities, it is clear that it was a bad decision. It goes without saying, which is why it is not necessary to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it...

What I am interested in hearing is what were the facts and prior experiences that led to his decision. The fact that the USCG forced Bounty out of port as Hurricane Andrew was approaching is one of those facts that can put this decision into a broader context.


----------



## TakeFive

YukonJack said:


> ...This was the storm of the century...


I do not debate that is was a very big storm. But I always roll my eyes over this "storm of the century" crap. I've heard the same thing about a dozen times so far this century.  That's newsroom hype, not weather jargon.

Sandy was a huge storm of unprecedented size. Its intensity was not as great as other recent storms. Some of the facts that have emerged do seem to give credence to the argument that Bounty had survived more intense conditions in the past. As we try to speculate on what happened, these mitigating facts may shed some light on the captain's thinking at the time.


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> Thanks for the heads up, I edited one of my comments...


Editing a comment is disingenuine. You made it already just because you unwrite it does not minimize it. people have been subject to discipline here for tactics of dishonesty like this,

Apologizing is the open correct way for correcting a mistake posted here. Going back and deleting it is not honesty.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> See what I mean about people rolling back their prior statements?
> 
> But I think that even your revised statement may be inaccurate. Like much speculation and chat room gossip, you are a victim of sampling bias. It is likely that there were some who spoke less critically of the captain, but it was less "newsworthy" so their statements did not go viral like the critical statements.
> 
> It's easy to sit at your computer with 20/20 hindsight and say the captain made the wrong decision. Since there were fatalities, it is clear that it was a bad decision. It goes without saying, which is why it is not necessary to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it...


Good for you Rick. Good observations But you won't reach everyone

You mean you dont think if the repeat it and repeat it you can turn opinions into facts and browbeat others into submission


----------



## chef2sail

Bountydaughter said:


> I do not believe egotistical described him as a captain. He was experienced and knowledgeable but not to the point of conceit. Was he confident? Yes, again not to the point of egotistical. I had posted previously:
> "Anyone that knew Robin and watched that interview knew that he was poking fun at that reporter. His "chasing hurricanes" comment has been completely taken out of context. That was his sense of humor. As far as his stating there is no bad weather only different kinds, he did truly believe that. Weather was something you could manage. He had sailed in all different kinds of weather and up to this point, successfully. As far as that interview, if this incident had not happened no one except people that watch public access tv in Maine would have ever seen it." Boastful was also not a term to describe Robin either as a man or a captain.
> People make decisions based on past experience and presumed ability all the time. Sometimes bad things happen and it does not have to do with being egotistical or stupid decision making. For example, I live in New England and it snows here. There are times when it snows very hard and the state "recommends" that drivers stay off the roads. Many people make a decision to drive anyway based on what they think the conditions of the roads are, their previous experience with driving in the snow and their confidence in their driving abilities. If the decision is made to drive to work, the store or whatever does that make that person reckless and egotistical? Confidence does not equal ego.


I totally agree with you. Having met Robin more than a few times you have written what I believed to be true about him. While I can count the times I met him on one hand you have identified what I though he was about. He was a decent smart intelligent thoughtful caring man.

I am very sorry for your personal loss and ours too.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

Bountydaughter said:


> chef2sail, I ask that you practice what you preach:
> *"I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning."*
> How is this not trashing me? First, I can tell you that you assume wrong. I have already stated that I am Captain Walbridge's daughter. I can also assure you that I have a firm grip on reality and I am not lacking in logic. I am insulted by your term "cult member" as Robin did not run a cult. I am sure that anyone ever associated with the Bounty would also be insulted by that remark.
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am here to express mine. Most opinions here are not based in fact or knowledge. You are entitled to them nonetheless. My opinions are based on the fact that I knew the man which none of you can say.


Bounty daughter I think if you go back and reread this you will see that I was posting stuff which others have said in previous threads as well as recently about you by Jamewilson which I found offensive to be posted about you. I was defending you and had put his quote in there as is normal in postings here



> Originally Posted by jameswilson29
> I doubt a trained therapist could even guess what would be the best way for a particular individual to work out her grief. Obviously she voluntarily chose to participate in a particularly heated discussion about a controversial topic. No one is forcing her to post here.
> 
> Perhaps challenging her irrational beliefs will help her recover from this atrocity, and save her life someday in the future. I would assume she is not a family member, but is merely a former crew/cult member based on her apparent departure from reality and lack of logic in reasoning.
> 
> Here is the irrational thought process (which some of the Sailnet members seem to have adopted too):
> 
> 1. Capt. Walbridge was experienced, well-liked and respected.
> 
> 2. His crew would follow him anywhere. (And we should respect their opinion even though most on this listserv have more sailing and boat maintenance experience. [Riding as a passenger on a ship in the ocean and pulling on a halyard when instructed does not qualify one for much of anything].)
> 
> 3. Therefore, Capt. Walbridge could not have done anything as monumentally stupid and reckless as sailing a poorly-maintained movie prop out into one of the largest storms in maritime history against the better judgment of almost every experienced mariner and professional captain with an ounce of common sense, thus causing the death of one innocent woman in his care and endangering dozens of people.
> 
> 4. If only we could blame or invent something other than his obviously poor judgment as the root cause of this atrocity, thus we need to wait for the results of an investigation.


 I have been a defender of you dad Robin all along and did/ do not like seeing them attack you either. I know you can standup for yourself.

Dave


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> .......Some of the facts that have emerged do seem to give credence to the argument that Bounty had *survived more intense conditions in the past*. As we try to speculate on what happened, these mitigating facts may shed some light on the captain's thinking at the time.


More intense than a Category 1 hurricane? And that's the crux of the complacency argument, it's not speculation.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> Quote:
> *Originally Posted by PCP
> ...One last comment to say that if not all Tall ship Captains made public statements about Bounty's captain to sail out of port to an hurricane, all that talked showed disapproval about that decision...*
> 
> See what I mean about people rolling back their prior statements?
> 
> But I think that even your revised statement may be inaccurate. .....


????? do you mind to explain???? Like that you are just bashing.

Please post the statement that I have changed. Some here have in fact changed of opinion, and everybody can change opinion, but that was not my case. I have been pretty consistent in my views.

Maybe you should quote the complete statement made recently:



PCP said:


> ...
> One last comment to say that if not all Tall ship Captains made public statements about Bounty's captain to sail out of port to an hurricane, all that talked showed disapproval about that decision. If that was a debatable decision it would be natural that many would come forward defending Bounty's Captain decision. After all he was one of them and nobody likes to see "one of us" unjustifiably blamed.


Besides being more polite, what has changed regarding previous statements?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> ...Some of the facts that have emerged do seem to give credence to the argument that Bounty had survived more intense conditions in the past. As we try to speculate on what happened, these mitigating facts may shed some light on the captain's thinking at the time.


I have been trying to find evidence regarding Bounty sailing in other Hurricanes and except that run away from Andrews in 1992 (they run away from an Hurricane did not sail one) I cannot find anything notwithstanding the crew and other sources vague statements about that. It seems that you have found information about that.

Do you mind to share?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Bountydaughter said:


> You are correct and I apologize to chef2sail. I did see that he quoted that from another post. So although it should not have been addressed to chef2sail the response remains appropriate to the quote.


Is ok and easy to get some of the rhetoric confused in here.


----------



## Ninefingers

PCP said:


> I have been trying to find evidence regarding Bounty sailing in other Hurricanes and except that run away from Andrews in 1992 (they run away from an Hurricane did not sail one) I cannot find anything notwithstanding the crew and other sources vague statements about that. It seems that you have found information about that.
> 
> Do you mind to share?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Who cares? Really, who cares?

An apparently kind and thoughtful man lost his life because of a bad decision.

So what's the lesson?

Don't make bad decisions?

That's not humanly possible.


----------



## Minnewaska

Ninefingers said:


> Who cares? Really, who cares?
> 
> An apparently kind and thoughtful man lost his life because of a bad decision.
> 
> So what's the lesson?
> 
> Don't make bad decisions?
> 
> That's not humanly possible.


The lesson is that anyone could become more risk tolerant if they successfully dodge the bullet on previous attempts. You may win a few hands, but the casino always wins in the end. Could save your life to remember it.


----------



## Bountydaughter

Bounty daughter I think if you go back and reread this you will see that I was posting stuff which others have said in previous threads as well as recently about you by Jamewilson which I found offensive to be posted about you. I was defending you and had put his quote in there as is normal in postings here



I have been a defender of you dad Robin all along and did/ do not like seeing them attack you either. I know you can standup for yourself.



I did go back and reread the post and apologized in a post when I realized my mistake. I know I can stand up for myself but I do appreciate the support.


----------



## chef2sail

No problem...I have kept a log of the posts containing the rude personal statements by a few here who have been after you dad since day one. I am ashamed that it occured. Regular opinions are far different than these.

Despite pleas for not rushing to judgement on this they have continued posting negativity, ineuendo, distorted charts and personal opinions disguised as factual information. This with no regard for the feeling of the poeple who loved and admired the Captain.

It is a sad reflection of society that a person who lost her father, friend or colllegue would have to endure reading what has been written of a personal nature toward your dad. This wriiten by those who never even met him. 

I apologise for them too. God bless you and your family.


----------



## Minnewaska

I'm betting I could find a pretty good log of rude and offensive posts in PRWG, as well as these forums. While the forum rules don't restrict it there, that shouldn't have anything to do with the point, if one argues it should never be done.

I have a family member that was institutionalized for anxiety and paranoia after abusing marijuana daily for a year. Would the members that advocate legalization tone it down in my presence? I have another relative that was a State Trooper than dove fully clothed into a reservoir to rescue a women who drove off the road and sank inside her car. Should I be offended by the routine disparaging comments against LEOs?

The internet has exposed thought that was socially muted in our past. However, these thoughts always existed, so one could argue that we live in a much more honest place now. As evidence since BD disclosed her affiliation, no one will confront her directly out of respect. But, how does that change the fact that these thoughts exist, written or not?

Stifling the expression of thought, even when we disagree, is ironic.


----------



## jameswilson29

It's interesting that some folks only want to stifle the thoughts that differ from their own.

You are all welcome to agree with me strenuously, but don't you dare post anything else or I will invent some reason why it is inappropriate.

I remain skeptical about the true identity of folks who post anonymously on internet forums. It is their right and can foster the dialogue that they would be otherwise unable or unwilling to participate in, but don't tell me these posters deserve the same respect as those of us who freely reveal our identities with real names, locations, photos, videos, etc.

You never really know whether an anonymous poster is who they claim to be, or a sock puppet for someone else.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> No problem...I have kept a log of the posts containing the rude personal statements by a few here who have been after you dad since day one. I am ashamed that it occured.
> 
> ....


That is a good thing we got a policeman around here, I mean beside moderators.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

jameswilson29 said:


> It's interesting that some folks only want to stifle the thoughts that differ from their own.
> 
> You are all welcome to agree with me strenuously, but don't you dare post anything else or I will invent some reason why it is inappropriate.
> 
> I remain skeptical about the true identity of folks who post anonymously on internet forums. It is their right and can foster the dialogue that they would be otherwise unable or unwilling to participate in, but don't tell me these posters deserve the same respect as those of us who freely reveal our identities with real names, locations, photos, videos, etc.
> 
> You never really know whether an anonymous poster is who they claim to be, or a sock puppet for someone else.


I guess that you have said what many think but had not the courage to post. Actually I tried to verify if Bountydaughter is really who she claims to be and found out that there is not anyway to do that. Not saying that she is not bounty Captain's daughter (I have no way of knowing that) but the odds seem small to me.

Of course that changes in nothing is right to participate on this discussion, just makes the discussion more awkward.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jameswilson29

As an attorney who practices family law and a former stepparent, I find it odd that a stepdaughter would identify herself as a "daughter" of the deceased, in the United States. Legally, stepchildren are quite different from biological children, and have virtually no rights with respect to the stepparent, and stepparents have virtually no responsibilities to stepchildren. The good Captain could have adopted a stepdaughter if he desired to create the legal relationships flowing naturally from the blood relationship. Based on my experience, few stepchildren would have used the verbiage Bountysdaughter did in describing herself.

I am not saying it is not possible, just a bit odd. Of course, later-in-life marriages and blended families in the U.S. have blurred many legal distinctions in the eyes of some in these kinds of families.


----------



## Flatballer

chef2sail said:


> No problem...I have kept a log of the posts containing the rude personal statements by a few here who have been after you dad since day one. I am ashamed that it occured. Regular opinions are far different than these.
> 
> Despite pleas for not rushing to judgement on this they have continued posting negativity, ineuendo, distorted charts and personal opinions disguised as factual information. This with no regard for the feeling of the poeple who loved and admired the Captain.
> 
> It is a sad reflection of society that a person who lost her father, friend or colllegue would have to endure reading what has been written of a personal nature toward your dad. This wriiten by those who never even met him.
> 
> I apologise for them too. God bless you and your family.


Don't fall off your high horse there chief.

And I don't need you apologizing for me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PCP

An interesting post on gCaptain that identifies himself as a 500 GRT Ocean Master, Aux Sail, sailed traditional Sailing Vessels from 35 to 162 GRT, located in Baltimore, MD and a professional Tall Ship Sailor for 15 Years, Master for 9.

quote:

*After nearly two decades with the ship under several different owners, Captain Walbridge wasn't going to be "told" when to sail. I think we can be reasonably sure this was his decision alone, though no one I know can make sense of why. A recent account from one of the survivors (who was apparently the engineer, seems to think Bounty was a schooner and not a full rigged ship, and wasn't aware there was a hurricane) indicates there was an all hands meeting describing how they were going to "circumvent" the storm, and that Captain Walbridge even told them he would hold no ill will toward anyone who decided not to sail. Apparently two of the crew walked in New London.

Again, normal procedure for Walbridge does not represent the entire fleet. Most of us have no idea what Captain Walbridge did during Hurricane season, as most traditional sailing vessels are only in port together during the summer festivals. Once the festivals are over, each ship goes on with its own itinerary. Through these festivals, I knew Walbridge as an affable man who was nursing along a vessel a that the public loved to come see at the dock. What he did at sea wasn't common knowledge except through sea stories, which I think we all agree usually stretch the truth. It's only through the emergence of the video shot in Belfast, ME (which went from 83 views to 40,000 in the last two weeks) that I realize his "sea stories" weren't exaggerations.

Technological glitches have kept me from being able to post here for nearly a week. Few of us who have command positions with these ships were ever "defensive" of Walbridge, as statements by Captains Dan Moreland and Jan Miles indicated the very day of the sinking. It has been novices and extremely loyal Bounty crew who are defending Captain Walbridge. I refrained from instant comments out of respect, because it is a small "community," and there was a great deal of grief in it. Don't take a brief moment of silence for agreement, I think this tragedy was utterly needless.

As far as putting "sea room" between the ship I work for and Bounty -- on 29 October I was in Baltimore with sixteen mooring lines rigged and storm stows in everything. Physically, that's appx. 345nm, as the crow flies, from Bounty's last know position. Operationally, it's in a different universe.*

HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy - Page 28


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> I have been trying to find evidence regarding Bounty sailing in other Hurricanes and except that run away from Andrews in 1992 (they run away from an Hurricane did not sail one) I cannot find anything notwithstanding the crew and other sources vague statements about that. It seems that you have found information about that.
> 
> Do you mind to share?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Reading the link about the BOUNTY and Andrew, I remain somewhat skeptical about that account... I was spending a lot of time in South Florida back in those days, and I'm surprised I have no recollection of ever hearing that story before...

A couple of years after some guy "begins taking courses to obtain a Captain's License", he's given command of a 180' sailing vessel to outrun a Cat 5 hurricane? With a crew of 5, 3 of whom had little previous sailing experience? Seriously?

Then, he claims they were about 50 miles south of the center of a storm that packed 165 mph winds when it made landfall south of Miami? In the Florida Straits, i.e, in or near the Gulf Stream, in N-NE winds? Seriously?

Not saying none of this happened, of course - only suggesting some of the details of that account are probably best taken with more than a couple of grains of salt... (grin)

I wonder, where was the BOUNTY'S full-time skipper during all this? Why did they need a freelancer to perform this mission? Because the real captain thought it was crazy, perhaps?

I'd still prefer to see some sort of documentation re the hurricanes BOUNTY supposedly sailed through under Capt. Walbridge's command, but I won't be holding my breath...


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> The internet has exposed thought that was socially muted in our past. However, these thoughts always existed, so one could argue that we live in a much more honest place now. *As evidence since BD disclosed her affiliation, no one will confront her directly out of respect.* But, how does that change the fact that these thoughts exist, written or not?
> 
> Stifling the expression of thought, even when we disagree, is ironic.


Not completely true...Jameswilson29 is still challanging her in a kind of passive agressive way. He really wants to say she is not his daughter, and keeps alluding to it indirectly.

Maybe you are right Minnie...maybe we should restrict anything on here anymore just let people say what the want...Is that what you are advocating. I mean you cant legislate or demand common decency or morality or even ask for it t occur I guess. And who says it should be my, yours or anyone elses standards too. Who sets that. Sad reflection on changing society and obviously not just and American thing as its evident here as we are an international group.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> An interesting post on gCaptain that identifies himself as a 500 GRT Ocean Master, Aux Sail, sailed traditional Sailing Vessels from 35 to 162 GRT, located in Baltimore, MD and a professional Tall Ship Sailor for 15 Years, Master for 9.
> 
> quote:
> 
> *After nearly two decades with the ship under several different owners, Captain Walbridge wasn't going to be "told" when to sail. I think we can be reasonably sure this was his decision alone, though no one I know can make sense of why. A recent account from one of the survivors (who was apparently the engineer, seems to think Bounty was a schooner and not a full rigged ship, and wasn't aware there was a hurricane) indicates there was an all hands meeting describing how they were going to "circumvent" the storm, and that Captain Walbridge even told them he would hold no ill will toward anyone who decided not to sail. Apparently two of the crew walked in New London.
> 
> Again, normal procedure for Walbridge does not represent the entire fleet. Most of us have no idea what Captain Walbridge did during Hurricane season, as most traditional sailing vessels are only in port together during the summer festivals. Once the festivals are over, each ship goes on with its own itinerary. Through these festivals, I knew Walbridge as an affable man who was nursing along a vessel a that the public loved to come see at the dock. What he did at sea wasn't common knowledge except through sea stories, which I think we all agree usually stretch the truth. It's only through the emergence of the video shot in Belfast, ME (which went from 83 views to 40,000 in the last two weeks) that I realize his "sea stories" weren't exaggerations.
> 
> Technological glitches have kept me from being able to post here for nearly a week. Few of us who have command positions with these ships were ever "defensive" of Walbridge, as statements by Captains Dan Moreland and Jan Miles indicated the very day of the sinking. It has been novices and extremely loyal Bounty crew who are defending Captain Walbridge. I refrained from instant comments out of respect, because it is a small "community," and there was a great deal of grief in it. Don't take a brief moment of silence for agreement, I think this tragedy was utterly needless.
> 
> As far as putting "sea room" between the ship I work for and Bounty -- on 29 October I was in Baltimore with sixteen mooring lines rigged and storm stows in everything. Physically, that's appx. 345nm, as the crow flies, from Bounty's last know position. Operationally, it's in a different universe.*
> 
> HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy - Page 28


Just an FYI...I am in Baltimore/ It would take almost 36 hours at top speed to even get to the Atlantic from Balrtimore and we receive just wind and no tidal surge from Sandy as it passed over 45 miles north of here after Landfall. I even stayed on my boat in my slip through it adjusting lines. So the fact he remaned in port In Baltimore is not really relevant as he wasnt in any Sandy danger.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> As an attorney who practices family law and a former stepparent, I find it odd that a stepdaughter would identify herself as a "daughter" of the deceased, in the United States. Legally, stepchildren are quite different from biological children, and have virtually no rights with respect to the stepparent, and stepparents have virtually no responsibilities to stepchildren. The good Captain could have adopted a stepdaughter if he desired to create the legal relationships flowing naturally from the blood relationship. Based on my experience, few stepchildren would have used the verbiage Bountysdaughter did in describing herself.
> 
> I am not saying it is not possible, just a bit odd. Of course, later-in-life marriages and blended families in the U.S. have blurred many legal distinctions in the eyes of some in these kinds of families.


So what are you saying here James? What is the purpose of this post?

Are you saying you dont beleive her?

Why would you post this? What is its purpose other than an attempt to discredit BountyDaughter?

You are out of bounds again, This is an example of rude behavior.


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> As an attorney who practices family law and a* former stepparent*, I find it odd that a stepdaughter would identify herself as a "daughter" of the deceased, in the United States. Legally, stepchildren are quite different from biological children, and have virtually no rights with respect to the stepparent, and stepparents have virtually no responsibilities to stepchildren. The good Captain could have adopted a stepdaughter if he desired to create the legal relationships flowing naturally from the blood relationship. Based on my experience, few stepchildren would have used the verbiage Bountysdaughter did in describing herself.
> 
> I am not saying it is not possible, just a bit odd. Of course, later-in-life marriages and blended families in the U.S. have blurred many legal distinctions in the eyes of some in these kinds of families.


Also BTW, and this is completely off the topic, this statement confused me as I have a brother who is step parent whose kids callhim dad. Its how they decided to handle the relatinship when they blended thier families. Obviously you and they in your family chose to keep them seperated from you by use of the term stepdad.

In my family we didnt have that distinction, my brother was called their dad. They had two, one biological and one who they lived with who fed them, went to games and did homework with them and took an interest in them. Not everyone sees the world like a family lawyer ( divorce attorney). To this day they call him dad, even though he wasnt the biological father.

How does one become a* former steparent*


----------



## caberg

chef2sail said:


> Are you saying you dont beleive her?
> 
> Why would you post this? What is its purpose other than an attempt to discredit BountyDaughter?


Maybe you can actually confirm this for everyone here since you claim to have known the captain and his loved ones (which would, I assume, include his step-daughter).



chef2sail said:


> It has been very difficult to watch all this knowing him and his loved ones.


----------



## chef2sail

My relationship was one of aquaintaince. I am not expert on her or her family. I have no reason to think she is not Shelly. That being said Why should her statements/ claims be called into question anymore than yours or others? She was forthcoming and answered when asked.

I believe her.


----------



## jameswilson29

chef2sail said:


> How does one become a former steparent


I am on my second marriage. Since the step relationship is created solely by marriage to the child's biological parent, a divorce would sever the relationship IMO, although the IRS and others may disagree, and the relationship between stepparents and stepchildren is as varied and complex as people are.

I was not interested in sharing my personal life as much as revealing that I have some experience with that relationship.

I am not challenging anyone, passive-aggressively or not, merely sharing my observations and viewpoints, as I have yet to draw a conclusion on this matter. I support everyone's right to post whatever and however they choose, but I do not necessarily accept everything on this forum at face value.

You could be a little less personal in your attacks on ideas in this forum. I actually like you, respect your sailing experience, and enjoy reading your point of view, although I often disagree. Ever since your return from your late summer sailing trip, you have been on the attack against other members here.

Personally, I believe you could use a greater sailing challenge than your usual routine next year. A trip to Bermuda, perhaps, might make you less frustrated and hostile? There is nothing like scaring the bejesus out of yourself once in awhile.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> So what are you saying here James? What is the purpose of this post?
> 
> Are you saying you dont beleive her?
> 
> Why would you post this? What is its purpose other than an attempt to discredit BountyDaughter?
> 
> You are out of bounds again, *This is an example of rude behavior*.


I find funny the examples you find of rude behavior. He is stating facts that he know well professionally and each one can take from there its own conclusions. Do you care to explain with this is rude behavior?

why should he or any of us believe she is really the Captain's daughter? She is new here, we don't know her reputation. She can be who she says it is...or not.

regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> You could be a little less personal in your attacks on ideas in this forum. I actually like you, respect your sailing experience, and enjoy reading your point of view, although I often disagree. Ever since your return from your late summer sailing trip, you have been on the attack against other members here.
> 
> Personally, I believe you could use a greater sailing challenge than your usual routine next year. A trip to Bermuda, perhaps, might make you less frustrated and hostile? There is nothing like scaring the bejesus out of yourself once in awhile.


I feel the same about you too James and feel the same about your posting.

Your advice is taken,

I am ready for the ocean trip....want to come


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> why should he or any of us believe she is really the Captain's daughter? She is new here, we don't know her reputation. She can be who she says it is...or not.
> 
> regards
> 
> Paulo


Why not believe her....

You have brough to us many posts and seem to beleive that many of those gCaptain posts are the "real deal" and get defensive and call us amateurs to post against what they have said as they are the "real professionals?



> She is new here, we don't know her reputation. She can be who she says it is...or not-PCP.


Couldnt we say the same about the g Captain posters. Couldnt we say the same about you or me.

Course a few people in her have met me and know I am not a 4 ft troll sitting behind by comptuer on a Hobie cat sailing across the Atlantic on the
winds from the NW quandrant of a hurricane. Its the internet...anyone can be anything they like, and say anything they like. Credibility can be established with face to face meetings.


----------



## jameswilson29

chef2sail said:


> I am ready for the ocean trip....want to come


Thanks for the invite. After my brief overnight trips in the ocean last year, I can tell you I am not ready for that trip yet.

My next goal is still to sail straight from Cape May to Block Island, 2 - 3 days out of sight of land.


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> Thanks for the invite. After my brief forays into the ocean last year, I can tell you I am not ready for that trip yet.
> 
> My next goal is still to sail straight from Cape May to Block Island, 2 - 3 days out of sight of land.


CM to Block 36-39 hours. Done it many times and a good goal. Great next step from the Delmarva.

Come north to NY with us next summer, around August 17. We do stop at Barnegat Inlet though and I think you are looking for more of an offshore experience.

dave


----------



## NCC320

Regarding the Story on Sailing through/around Hurricane Andrew with 5 people, several of whom had never been on the ship prior to trip.

It sounds like baloney.....never happened.....BS

Coast Guard doesn't generally threaten to sink ships at the pier do they? Anyone know of such a thing? More likely, if they wanted the ship somewhere else, they would have called in a towing company and moved the ship some other place (at Bounty's expense) that they deemed more safe.

And another story, Walbridge single handedly redocked the boat after all lines but one were cast off by drunks from a bar. I don't believe that either.

Just like, I don't believe he would sail near the eyewall on the eastern quadrant of a storm. Of course, I guess you can tell enough tales and eventually begin to believe them.

Sorry for the outcome, but the captain just made a bad call. As for ships going to sea in storms, sure they do. Reference in one article listed four cruise ships which did....all huge steel monsters which when they left port wouldn't have made 5 kts....instead they would have cranked on the turns and got far away from the worse part. Also, they likely left early and moving at 15-20 kts over several days they could be well away from the worse parts of the storm. And they didn't do it with novices and handyman for engineer, and only a couple of professionals...one of whom (captain) erroneously decided his ship could manage the storm.
Likewise, the Navy got underway doing more or less same thing as the cruise ships...big steel ships, lots of power and speed, back up systems, and built to modern standards.


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Looking for evidence of Bounty sailing on another Hurricanes I found some references of having sailing one back in 1992 and looking better I found this report that is quite amazing:
> 
> *When the Bounty was in Miami safely moored at the dock the Coast Guard, with Hurricane Andrew bearing down and fearing the ship would destroy the docks and the Miami waterfront, ordered the crew of two to sail the ship or they were going to drill holes in the hull and sink her at the dock to prevent damage to the port of Miami. The crew got another three volunteer crewmembers and sailed the Bounty into the violent seas and winds of one of the most destructive hurricanes in recorded history. The Bounty survived the ordeal. The waterfront of Miami survived the storm as well.*
> 
> Read more: GUEST OPINION: Bounty's crew faced a dilemma: Sail or seek safe harbor? - Taunton, MA - The Taunton Daily Gazette
> 
> This is true? What would have happened to those that have ordered the boat out with a crew of 5 if the boat had sunk that time and lives had been lost?
> 
> ....


PCP, 
Good find on this article. Couple of points. Maybe it is true (but I highly doubt it), I cannot imagine that the Coast Guard would order a ship out to sea as a huricane approached, or threaten to drill holes into its hull (the hurricane Andrew incident mentioned in the article). I just cannot imagine this is true.

Does anyone have more information to prove or disprove this statement?

Also, the writer of the article is *Tom Murray is former president of the Fall River Chamber Foundation*, *the organization that brought the Bounty to Fall River*. The arcticle is also labled "*GUEST OPINION*: Bounty's crew faced a dilemma: Sail or seek safe harbor?"

Regards


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Why not believe her....
> 
> You have brough to us many posts and seem to beleive that many of those gCaptain posts are the "real deal" and get defensive and call us amateurs to post against what they have said as they are the "real professionals?
> 
> Couldnt we say the same about the g Captain posters. Couldnt we say the same about you or me.
> 
> Course a few people in her have met me and know I am not a 4 ft troll sitting behind by comptuer on a Hobie cat sailing across the Atlantic on the
> winds from the NW quandrant of a hurricane. Its the internet...anyone can be anything they like, and say anything they like. Credibility can be established with face to face meetings.


Not the same thing. There are here posters that have contributed positively for a along time or are know personally, posters that have built a reputation and we know that they are trustworthy. The same happens with gCaptain forum among professional mariners. Some are known personally others posted there for a long time and are respected. There, like here, the global position of the forum when consensual about a subject, like this one, means that the ones that are known by all or the more responsible posters subscribe it.

Bountydaughter does not enjoy this status. His first posts were less than a weak ago, about this subject.

That does not mean that she is not the Bounty Captain daughter, everything is possible, but that does not give her the same credibility of a well known and respected member of this forum, or the credibility of well known posters on GCaptain. I refer specifically to her identity.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

NCC320 said:


> Regarding the Story on Sailing through/around Hurricane Andrew with 5 people, several of whom had never been on the ship prior to trip.
> 
> It sounds like baloney.....never happened.....BS
> 
> Coast Guard doesn't generally threaten to sink ships at the pier do they? Anyone know of such a thing? More likely, if they wanted the ship somewhere else, they would have called in a towing company and moved the ship some other place (at Bounty's expense) that they deemed more safe.
> 
> And another story, Walbridge single handedly redocked the boat after all lines but one were cast off by drunks from a bar. I don't believe that either.
> 
> Just like, I don't believe he would sail near the eyewall on the eastern quadrant of a storm. Of course, I guess you can tell enough tales and eventually begin to believe them.
> 
> Sorry for the outcome, but the captain just made a bad call. As for ships going to sea in storms, sure they do. Reference in one article listed four cruise ships which did....all huge steel monsters which when they left port wouldn't have made 5 kts....instead they would have cranked on the turns and got far away from the worse part. Also, they likely left early and moving at 15-20 kts over several days they could be well away from the worse parts of the storm. And they didn't do it with novices and handyman for engineer, and only a couple of professionals...one of whom (captain) erroneously decided his ship could manage the storm.
> Likewise, the Navy got underway doing more or less same thing as the cruise ships...big steel ships, lots of power and speed, back up systems, and built to modern standards.


Yes, the story seems odd to me but I even if eventually exaggerated I don't believe that is all ********. This is not one of those stories reported by a journalist based on hear say. This does not come from a Journalist but from someone that has probably direct knowledge of the situation. The article is sighed by Tom Murray, the former president of the Fall River Chamber Foundation, the organization that brought the Bounty to Fall River.

Read more: GUEST OPINION: Bounty's crew faced a dilemma: Sail or seek safe harbor? - Taunton, MA - The Taunton Daily Gazette


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> Just an FYI...I am in Baltimore/ It would take almost 36 hours at top speed to even get to the Atlantic from Balrtimore and we receive just wind and no tidal surge from Sandy as it passed over 45 miles north of here after Landfall. I even stayed on my boat in my slip through it adjusting lines. So the fact he remaned in port In Baltimore is not really relevant as he wasnt in any Sandy danger.
> 
> Dave


Dave,

I know the author of the comment on gCaptain fairly well. The reason he stated the location and condition of his boat was because it is a TallShip as well, and being a prudent mariner had secured his vessel for the possibility of extremely high winds and high water. He was making a point that Walbridge could have easily moved Bounty to Baltimore (even ducking inside the Chesapeake through the C&D Canal for more protection from the storm en route). I know folks were worried Sandy would head up the Bay (much like Irene did) and destroy a lot of property and vessels. Again being prudent, the author ensured his vessel was protected and safe, and his crew on high alert for weather changes. Bounty has been to Baltimore many times, and could have easily found the same protection (and even if she was dashed against the dock and went down, she would not be in thousands of feet of water).

Somewhat off topic, but the Great Chesapeake Bay Schooner Race - from the Bay Bridge to Norfolk - record for a vessel similar to the author's ship is just over 11 hours. Provided, Bounty could in no way sail or motor that fast. Just saying..


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> PCP,
> Good find on this article. Couple of points. Maybe it is true (but I highly doubt it), I cannot imagine that the Coast Guard would order a ship out to sea as a huricane approached, or threaten to drill holes into its hull (the hurricane Andrew incident mentioned in the article). I just cannot imagine this is true.
> 
> Does anyone have more information to prove or disprove this statement?
> 
> Also, the writer of the article is *Tom Murray is former president of the Fall River Chamber Foundation*, *the organization that brought the Bounty to Fall River*. The arcticle is also labled "*GUEST OPINION*: Bounty's crew faced a dilemma: Sail or seek safe harbor?"
> 
> Regards


It seems a credible source to me. here you have the same story told by that "one time" Captain, the guy that sailed the Bounty on that occasion:

One-time captain of HMS Bounty reflects on tall ship's sinking - The Villages Daily Sun: Villages


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> It seems a credible source to me. here you have the same story told by that "one time" Captain, the guy that sailed the Bounty on that occasion:
> 
> One-time captain of HMS Bounty reflects on tall ship's sinking - The Villages Daily Sun: Villages


Maybe I missed it, but no where in the above article do I see a reference that the Coast Guard forced the Bounty to leave Miami, or asked them to leave, or threatened to sink the Bounty.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Maybe I missed it, but no where in the above article do I see a reference that the Coast Guard forced the Bounty to leave Miami, or asked them to leave, or threatened to sink the Bounty.


No, but it seems that effectively the boat sail out to escape Hurricane Andrews.

I don't know about that threat to sink the ship but it was said on this thread that CG has the power to say to ships to sail out of Port if they consider it not a safe place, so they could have done it if they consider the ship had time to escape the storm or if the CG guy in charge was an irresponsible one. You never know

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> No, but it seems that effectively the boat sail out to escape Hurricane Andrews.
> 
> I don't know about that threat to sink the ship but it was said on this thread that CG has the power to say to ships to sail out of Port if they consider it not a safe place, so they could have done it if they consider the ship had time to escape the storm or if the CG guy in charge was an irresponsible one. You never know
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I am not sure if the Coast Guard can order a ship out of Port if a hurricane is approaching. Here in Hawaii the Coast Guard "closes" harbors on occasion (during tsunami warnings), but that only means you cannot leave or enter the port during the "closing". The Coast Guard is here to save life and property. I cannot seeing them sending a wooden movie prop into a potential situation where they would need to risk their own lives in a rescue that they themselves would have created.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I am not sure if the Coast Guard can order a ship out of Port if a hurricane is approaching. Here in Hawaii the Coast Guard "closes" harbors on occasion (during tsunami warnings), but that only means you cannot leave or enter the port during the "closing". The Coast Guard is here to save life and property. I cannot seeing them sending a wooden movie prop into a potential situation where they would need to risk their own lives in a rescue that they themselves would have created.


 I agree and I will not look back on this thread but I am quite sure that someone had explained to me that things were different on the zone that is hit by Hurricanes. I have said precisely what you are saying because it is what happens here.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## NCC320

PCP said:


> The article is sighed by Tom Murray, the former president of the Fall River Chamber Foundation, the organization that brought the Bounty to Fall River.


Just a thought:

Fall River is in new england, probably 1000 miles or more away from southern Florida, and I don't know when that organization became involved with the Bounty, but most likely some years after Hurricane Andrew. While Mr. Murray may relate and believe the story, he is unlikely to know exactly the real story, only what he was told.

It is not uncommon for people to enhance their credentials and experience. Frequently, we see high level executives that are found out because they made up stories about their experience or schooling. Also, people who claim to be war veterans or heroes that didn't even serve in the military.

The Andrew story just doesn't make sense. Maybe it was out to sea, way, way from the storm, maybe not. And the guy who supposedly was the captain for that voyage was fairly new and relatively inexperienced by his own account. Is that who the owners would trust with their their investment? And three people who have never been on the ship or were not even knowledgeable about sailing would volunteer to go out into the face of a major hurricane...not likely.


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> No problem...I have kept a log of the posts containing the rude personal statements by a few here who have been after you dad
> 
> Despite pleas for not rushing to judgement on this they have continued posting negativity, ineuendo, distorted charts and personal opinions disguised as factual information.


1) Why would you keep a log? To what purpose? What will you do with the log?

2) ...negativity, ineuendo, distorted charts and personal opinions disguised as factual information......really? Or just opinions, in most cases, supported by the few facts that are available that were, in turn, used to form the opinions. People are not allowed to state their opinion in an open forum?

3) That such a highly regarded and experienced captain would make the decision to go to sea into such a large storm when it seems to many people, including some in the Tall Ship Community, that there was safety available in staying in one of the numerous ports that were available baffles people and is what keeps this incident under such discussion (in my opinion).


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Not completely true...Jameswilson29 is still challanging her in a kind of passive agressive way. He really wants to say she is not his daughter, and keeps alluding to it indirectly.
> 
> Maybe you are right Minnie...maybe we should restrict anything on here anymore just let people say what the want...Is that what you are advocating. I mean you cant legislate or demand common decency or morality or even ask for it t occur I guess. And who says it should be my, yours or anyone elses standards too. Who sets that. Sad reflection on changing society and obviously not just and American thing as its evident here as we are an international group.


It seems to be a brave new world and trying to superimpose the culture we grew up in over the exchange of social media is futile. As I said, I'm not even sure this new age isn't more honest than the one we were raised in, despite our history feeling more civilized.  That trend toward less civility is not contained to the Internet. I offer violent video games, rap music lyrics, politics, union demonstrators destroying a hot dog cart in Mich or Reginald Denny being pulled from his truck and nearly beaten to death because of the LEO acquittals. Lack of civility is nothing new and the Internet has no claim to it.

While James was the first to say it, I will admit having considered the fact that we can't know BD is who she claims. All have refrained from confronting her directly, out of respect that she may be. At this point, no one rational has enough information to know one way or the other. I don't think it really matters anyway, or I'm sure I could confirm or deny it. It has been proven that the old 6 degrees of separation are now down to 2, specifically due to the Internet.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> It seems to be a brave new world and trying to superimpose the culture we grew up in over the exchange of social media is futile.


Im not a Twitter people, Tweet, Twert, or Facebook them, Nudge them or give a damn about Lindsay Lohans drug stained panties..... But the fact that people can and therefore prove the media, et al, as futile gatekeepers to knowledge is wonderful!

This thread started so much like those old fashiond gate keepers trying to treat you like an imbicile: "dont make a comment until the Coast Guard has investigated". What baloney! Where now, because we can say what we like, we may find the Coast Guard complicit with this disaster.

We should never allow "free speach" to be the bastion of the media and the older generation!
It should be the bastion of all.

Mark


----------



## nolatom

Re the "Coast Guard would've drilled holes and sunk us at the dock in Miami" idea, I too place more credence on the first-hand account of Capt Hausman who was the skipper then (and didn't mention such a thing, nor going way short-handed either) than on a shoreside guy in a Taunton Mass news article who wasn't there. Hausman said "the plan" was to head out and go way south, which worked, though it sounded like a close one. If he'd been "forced out there" by Coast Guard meanies at the threat of involuntary scuttling, wouldn't he have mentioned it in an interview whose whole point is what a captain has to take into account in making the difficult "sail or stay" decision? 

Re alleged Coast Guard meanness with drill bitts, I too doubt this. A Coast Guard Captain of the Port has much discretion under the law, and could direct a vessel to move, or to improve its moorings, but will I think leave ballasting and tactical decisions to the captain.


Full disclosure once again. I'm retired USCGR.


----------



## casey1999

nolatom said:


> Re the "Coast Guard would've drilled holes and sunk us at the dock in Miami" idea, I too place more credence on the first-hand account of Capt Hausman who was the skipper then (and didn't mention such a thing, nor going way short-handed either) than on a shoreside guy in a Taunton Mass news article who wasn't there. Hausman said "the plan" was to head out and go way south, which worked, though it sounded like a close one. If he'd been "forced out there" by Coast Guard meanies at the threat of involuntary scuttling, wouldn't he have mentioned it in an interview whose whole point is what a captain has to take into account in making the difficult "sail or stay" decision?
> 
> Re alleged Coast Guard meanness with drill bitts, I too doubt this. A Coast Guard Captain of the Port has much discretion under the law, and could direct a vessel to move, or to improve its moorings, but will I think leave ballasting and tactical decisions to the captain.
> 
> Full disclosure once again. I'm retired USCGR.


Good point. The more you think about the Coast Guard going and sinking the boat in port, the more stupid it sounds. Whom would pay to remove the sunken ship if they did do that? And the sunken ship at the dock may do the same or more damage than if they left it floating.

I believe the CG drilling holes goes along with the rest of the garbage about how Bounty loves and chases hurricanes.


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> ....I believe the CG drilling holes goes along with the rest of the garbage about how Bounty loves and chases hurricanes.


Didn't a member of the rescued crew actually affirm that Bounty had sailed near hurricanes before?


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Didn't a member of the rescued crew actually affirm that Bounty had sailed near hurricanes before?


The comment was made, but I believe the statement is open to conjecture.


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> The comment was made, but I believe the statement is open to conjecture.


Conjecture is forming a conclusion without complete facts.

The statement by the crew is evidence of the fact that Bounty had sailed in hurricanes. You may not reach a conclusion, but that doesn't dismiss the damning evidence.


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Conjecture is forming a conclusion without complete facts.
> 
> The statement by the crew is evidence of the fact that Bounty had sailed in hurricanes. You may not reach a conclusion, but that doesn't dismiss the damning evidence.


The Capt and his wife (as well as crew as I remember) said the Bounty had sailed in many hurricanes prior to Sandy. We do not know if this is true. Just because someone says it does not mean it is true.


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> The Capt and his wife (as well as crew as I remember) said the Bounty had sailed in many hurricanes prior to Sandy. We do not know if this is true. Just because someone says it does not mean it is true.


Holy smokes, Casey. What would it take to suggest to you that it was true then?


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Holy smokes, Casey. What would it take to suggest to you that it was true then?


My point is they "thought" they sailed into a hurricane. Was the wind sustained at 75 mph when they were "in" these hurricanes. Again it is all conjecture.


----------



## JonEisberg

nolatom said:


> Re the "Coast Guard would've drilled holes and sunk us at the dock in Miami" idea, I too place more credence on the first-hand account of Capt Hausman who was the skipper then (and didn't mention such a thing, nor going way short-handed either) than on a shoreside guy in a Taunton Mass news article who wasn't there. Hausman said "the plan" was to head out and go way south, which worked, though it sounded like a close one. If he'd been "forced out there" by Coast Guard meanies at the threat of involuntary scuttling, wouldn't he have mentioned it in an interview whose whole point is what a captain has to take into account in making the difficult "sail or stay" decision?
> 
> Re alleged Coast Guard meanness with drill bitts, I too doubt this. A Coast Guard Captain of the Port has much discretion under the law, and could direct a vessel to move, or to improve its moorings, but will I think leave ballasting and tactical decisions to the captain.
> 
> Full disclosure once again. I'm retired USCGR.


Certainly doesn't pass the sniff test, for me...

If he claims he was only 50 miles south of the eye of Andrew when it crossed the Florida Straits, that implies he would have departed Miami pretty shortly before the storm's landfall... Conditions in the straits would have already been fairly "impressive" for a day or so before, and I find it very difficult to believe the CG would have endorsed, much less "forced", such a departure so close to Andrew's arrival...

Chances are the BOUNTY would have been lying along the outside wall of the Miamarina at Bayside, that's pretty much the only spot for such dockside attractions of her size in Miami... Pretty certain I've seen her there at one time or another, and she surely would have been destroyed - and likely created heavy damage to those docks - had she remained there during the storm...

Pretty much the only option in port would have been for her to lie somewhere along the cruise ship or container ship terminals on Dodge Island... That's a massive facility, hard to imagine there would not have been space found somewhere for her there... In a storm of Andrew's intensity, she still may well have been heavily damaged or destroyed, but she would have fared a far better chance than had she remained at Bayside...

This story, whatever truth it does contain, smells strongly similar to the tale of FANTOME in Mitch, where the owners of the vessel were exerting some fairly heavy "pressure" on the decisions of the crew, from their own place of safety ashore...

Just my hunch, of course...


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> My point is they "thought" they sailed into a hurricane. Was the wind sustained at 75 mph when they were "in" these hurricanes. Again it is all conjecture.


That's just form over substance. The issue is not one of a specific wind speed, it is of their propensity to push limits that most would never. If they intentionally got close, I don't care what the anemometer said, it was a roll of the dice. The pattern is becoming clearer.


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> That's just form over substance. The issue is not one of a specific wind speed, it is of their propensity to push limits that most would never. If they intentionally got close, I don't care what the anemometer said, it was a roll of the dice. The pattern is becoming clearer.


I agree that weather they were really in a storm that meets the definition of a hurricane or not does not really matter.

What matters is that they finally found a storm that was more than Bounty could handle.

My point is that this bounty crew and captain say a lot of things to the media (both in print and on video) that may or may not be true. A lot of what we read, see and hear seems to be what the crew and captain "think" happened, not really what happened.


----------



## Bountydaughter

PCP said:


> I guess that you have said what many think but had not the courage to post. Actually I tried to verify if Bountydaughter is really who she claims to be and found out that there is not anyway to do that. Not saying that she is not bounty Captain's daughter (I have no way of knowing that) but the odds seem small to me.
> 
> Of course that changes in nothing is right to participate on this discussion, just makes the discussion more awkward.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I'm very confused by the focus on my identity. That you would try to verify my identity I find odd. I have no reason to lie about who I am. Why do you think the odds are small that I am who I say I am? jameswilson, I am really taken aback by your legal comments. I have referred to the captain several times as my stepfather, but yes I have also referred to myself as his daughter. My mother started seeing Robin in 1996 when my daughter was a year old. He has been in my life for 17 years. My daughter refers to him as her grandfather. I really have never heard her say stepgrandfather. he has been in her life her whole life. When you love someone you do not think in terms of legalities. We are not in a court of law and we are not speaking in legal terms. Robin referred to me as his daughter. 
I originally posted on this site to comment on the letter by Jan C. Myles because that letter has upset my mother greatly. That was really my only intention, the need to make our feelings known about his hurtful, hateful letter. Since then my mental health, grip on reality and logic have all been questioned. I was asked to reveal if I was actually Robin's stepdaughter and I answered. I have offered my opinion and given information that I have learned over the years about Robin in defense of Robin. Now I am being accused of being a liar and an imposter? What would I have to gain from that?


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I agree that weather they were really in a storm that meets the definition of a hurricane or not does not really matter.
> 
> What matters is that they finally found a storm that was more than Bounty could handle.
> 
> My point is that this bounty crew and captain say a lot of things to the media (both in print and on video) that may or may not be true. A lot of what we read, see and hear seems to be what the crew and captain "think" happened, not really what happened.


If the Captain said he liked to sail Hurricanes, if the wife says that his husband sailed plenty hurricanes, if the crew says that the Bounty sailed hurricanes to the point of saying that "Bounty loves Hurricanes" it seems to me that the odds are that they had sailed hurricanes previously. That is a lot of people to be all bullshiters.

The Captain's wife was very adamant about that in the interview she gave on a TV program. She said, questioned about this Captain's statement:

Quote:

*"Walbridge said "you try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it - you want to stay behind it. But you'll also get a good ride out of a hurricane."*

*Claudia McCann said Tuesday that during the public television interview her husband was "being a little&#8230;cute, I guess."

"But he would like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fast. And he's been in many hurricanes. I mean, I can't even count the number of hurricanes he's been in."*

HMS Bounty captain 'wasn't gambling' with lives, wife says - World - CBC News

Probably she is exaggerating but I don't think she is lying so I guess that the Captain and the Bounty had been in some hurricanes before.

Audio | As It Happens with Carol Off and Jeff Douglas | CBC Radio

By the way, I have posted on the interesting sailboat thread some movies about tall ships. On some of them we can see how those boats can be sailed and what sails are used with F10 winds. Of course, even if those boats seem to be the same as Bounty there is a huge difference, a difference of two centuries in boat design.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Bountydaughter said:


> I'm very confused by the focus on my identity. That you would try to verify my identity I find odd. I have no reason to lie about who I am. Why do you think the odds are small that I am who I say I am? jameswilson, I am really taken aback by your legal comments. I have referred to the captain several times as my stepfather, but yes I have also referred to myself as his daughter. My mother started seeing Robin in 1996 when my daughter was a year old. He has been in my life for 17 years. My daughter refers to him as her grandfather. I really have never heard her say stepgrandfather. he has been in her life her whole life. When you love someone you do not think in terms of legalities. We are not in a court of law and we are not speaking in legal terms. Robin referred to me as his daughter.
> I originally posted on this site to comment on the letter by Jan C. Myles because that letter has upset my mother greatly. That was really my only intention, the need to make our feelings known about his hurtful, hateful letter. Since then my mental health, grip on reality and logic have all been questioned. I was asked to reveal if I was actually Robin's stepdaughter and I answered. I have offered my opinion and given information that I have learned over the years about Robin in defense of Robin. Now I am being accused of being a liar and an imposter? What would I have to gain from that?


Agree 100%


----------



## PCP

Bountydaughter said:


> I'm very confused by the focus on my identity. That you would try to verify my identity I find odd. I have no reason to lie about who I am. Why do you think the odds are small that I am who I say I am? jameswilson, I am really taken aback by your legal comments. I have referred to the captain several times as my stepfather, but yes I have also referred to myself as his daughter. My mother started seeing Robin in 1996 when my daughter was a year old. He has been in my life for 17 years. My daughter refers to him as her grandfather. I really have never heard her say stepgrandfather. he has been in her life her whole life. When you love someone you do not think in terms of legalities. We are not in a court of law and we are not speaking in legal terms. Robin referred to me as his daughter.
> I originally posted on this site to comment on the letter by Jan C. Myles because that letter has upset my mother greatly. That was really my only intention, the need to make our feelings known about his hurtful, hateful letter. Since then my mental health, grip on reality and logic have all been questioned. I was asked to reveal if I was actually Robin's stepdaughter and I answered. I have offered my opinion and given information that I have learned over the years about Robin in defense of Robin. Now I am being accused of being a liar and an imposter? What would I have to gain from that?


You have to understand that is quite common on forums someone to impersonate another person to make a discussion going sideways. There is even a name for that, we call them Trolls. It seems just odd that the Captain's Daughter come to a sailboat forum discussion over a letter that has not posted here in first place, but on Facebook.

If you are really who you say you are I hope you can forgive and understand the reason for our doubts. Regarding that letter, that was posted in the Facebook and then on Sailnet not on this thread but here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ated/94641-informed-opinion-about-bounty.html

You can find all the discussion regarding that letter not on this thread but on the one that I posted above.

Your mother and yourself would be glad to know that ( even if most of us don't understand why the captain set sail and setting sail why he did not evade the hurricane or look for shelter on several possible ports) the position regarding that letter was quite unanimous. Almost everybody, including me, felt and said that it was not a way to express an opinion much less from someone that says it was a friend of your father.

I guess that you should read that thread and transmit to your mother that we also feel that it was not right to express an opinion in that fashion.

I hope we have been as polite as you have been on your posts.

Best Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> ...A lot of what we read, see and hear seems to be what the crew and captain "think" happened, not really what happened.


So because the statements of people who were actually there don't agree with the artificial reality that you guys have created (by repeating your speculation so much that you've deluded yourselves into thinking it's "fact"), you have the gall to belittle their statements by claiming that they are not really what happened.

I am disappointed by the classlessness of many of the comments here. You guys have the unique opportunity to ask real questions of someone who has been close to the captain and crew for 17 years, and to actually learn something, and you're blowing it because you are so convinced of the "rightness" of the artificially synthesized "facts" that you've been echoing back and forth to each other for the past 6 weeks.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Your mother and yourself would be glad to know that ( even if most of us don't understand why the captain set sail and setting sail why he did not evade the hurricane or look for shelter on several possible ports) the position regarding that letter was quite unanimous. Almost everybody, including me, felt and said that it was not a way to express an opinion much less from someone that says it was a friend of your father.
> 
> I guess that you should read that thread and transmit to your mother that we also feel that it was not right to express an opinion in that fashion.
> 
> I hope we have been as polite as you have been on your posts.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Paulo


This is either disingenuous or you have completely changed your mind like Rick ( Takefive) said some people would. You have since the 8th post, posted harshly against the Captain. prejudged him and spoke vehemenly about him personally without cause.

Questioning his decisions is one thing this is another., You have either agreed with or called him a jackass, irresponsible, or an idiot. You posted harsh opinions you found in the proifessional gCaptain site, similar to Jan Miles, and just as harsh time and time again to prove you points. Quite possibly he saw that and thought his would be appropriate here.

You have been far from polite to her father in your posts. having an opinion is one thing...expressing it harshly is another....then stating you were not part of the impolitness.... is even another. You have the right to post whatever you want and have your opinion. Below are exerpts from some of the posts and I only went as far as #555.

You have personally made statements about him like


> If I was the owner of that boat I would have fired him after this interview.


,


> No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances


,


> This Captain should have lost its license after having said this barbarity. He can do it alone in his boat and even so he is putting at risk the ones that sooner or later would be trying to save him, but doing this with a crew that has confidence his judgment about their safety, putting all in a "calculated risk"? This guy is irresponsible and that is the last thing a Captain should be


,


> He was doing precisely what he said he liked to do in the interview regarding hurricanes: Getting a good ride out of them]
> In fact he described exactly what he was going to do to his crew before setting sail and that was precisely what he said on the interview regarding chasing hurricanes


,


> The captain had not some responsibility it has ALL RESPONSABILITY


,


> I also have said that my opinions in this thread has as base the opinions expressed by those professionals and that's why I extensively quoted them.


.

You have also agreed and signified that you liked the following posts 


> Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue- psoed by Sawwhet..I agree with that. posted by PCP.


,


> If you have read the posts on the listerv long enough, you will already have realized there is no shortage of fools who take to the sea as an escape. *Do not risk your life on someone who does not demonstrate common sense and sound judgment*.I am beginning to see a pattern on the listserv. After every major storm, we do a play by play on* some jackass who decides to leave port immediately prior to the arrival of the storm. Who is going to be next unfortunate victim? *


*,



There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him

Click to expand...

,

IMHO I think this thread should be locked now. Going after Bountydaughter was the last straw. Whether she was the daughter of the Captain ( I beleive her) or she was even a new member to SN, calling someone out in public or questioning whether they are a troll should be done privately through the moderators.




Originally Posted by SawWhet 
Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue.

Click to expand...

_




I agree with that.

PCP-Post 8

Click to expand...

You have stated the Captain was in charge so here you are calling him and idiot




If I was the owner of that boat I would have fired him after this interview.
PCP- Post 171

Click to expand...

You advocated firing the Captain if you were the owner




If you have read the posts on the listerv long enough, you will already have realized there is no shortage of fools who take to the sea as an escape. Do not risk your life on someone who does not demonstrate common sense and sound judgment.

I am beginning to see a pattern on the listserv. After every major storm, we do a play by play on some jackass who decides to leave port immediately prior to the arrival of the storm. Who is going to be next unfortunate victim? 

James Wilson29 Post 182 Liked by PCP and Casey199

Click to expand...

You approved of this post therefore you agree




There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him.
James Wilson Post 264 liked PCP

Click to expand...

You agreed that you liked this post




There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him.
PCP- Post 276

Click to expand...

I guess this Captain's statement says it all:




"we chase hurricanes...You try to get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop, you don't want to get in front of it, you want to stay behind it, but you also get a good ride out of a hurricane,"- quoted from a newsclip

Click to expand...

This Captain should have lost its license after having said this barbarity. He can do it alone in his boat and even so he is putting at risk the ones that sooner or later would be trying to save him, but doing this with a crew that has confidence his judgment about their safety, putting all in a "calculated risk"? This guy is irresponsible and that is the last thing a Captain should be.PCP- Post 301
You are pretty damning of the captain here




He was doing precisely what he said he liked to do in the interview regarding hurricanes: Getting a good ride out of them.

In fact he described exactly what he was going to do to his crew before setting sail and that was precisely what he said on the interview regarding chasing hurricanes
PCP- Post 378

Click to expand...





The captain had not some responsibility it has ALL RESPONSABILITY.

He was only there because he decided to be there, in a Hurricane leaving a safe port, where a similar tall ship stayed without any problem.

I guess that are you and others like you that keep posting what I consider nonsense regarding his absence of responsibility or possibility of diminished responsibility.
PCP Post 385

Click to expand...





Obviously the Captain thought that the Bounty, in the present condition, was a ship able to sail in an hurricane and that's why he chose to sail a hurricane. This is confirmed by what was said by the Captain about the ship: "The Bounty has no boundaries".

This is a ridiculous statement as it was ridiculously dangerous to take that ship to an Hurricane.
PCP- Post 395

Click to expand...





I also have said that my opinions in this thread has as base the opinions expressed by those professionals and that's why I extensively quoted them.
PCP- Post 444

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Minnewaska

Chef, you've asked PCP to calm down and now that he has, you're confronting him over it? He isn't going to fully change his position, nor should he have to. I'm going to have to separate you two......


----------



## bloodhunter

chef2sail said:


> IMHO I think this thread should be locked now. Going after Bountydaughter was the last straw. Whether she was the daughter of the Captain ( I beleive her) or she was even a new member to SN, calling someone out in public or questioning whether they are a troll should be done privately through the moderators...


Agree 100%
The only real question -- why the Bounty sailed -- will never have a satisfactory answer. The thread seems to have been reduced to repetition and _ad hominem_ attacks. IMHO it's time to move on.


----------



## Minnewaska

Bountydaughter said:


> ......Now I am being accused of being a liar and an imposter? What would I have to gain from that?


I don't recall anyone accusing you of being a liar, but only raising the point that very few of us really know who the posters really are. Some will post their real names and identities, email addresses and facebook links. Others, like me, are more concerned about identity theft, invasion of privacy or simply have a concern that bad guys would know where my boat was and when I must not be aboard. In many people's eyes, using a generic screen name lowers my legitimacy, which I'm fine with.

While there are some that have posted opinions that must be very hard to read, there are many that have been equally stubborn in their support of Bounty's actions. Irrationally dismissing actual testimony from first hand witnesses. Would one of those impersonate his stepdaughter? Maybe.

I'm certainly not going to say you have, nor do I think it matters much one way or the other. I hope you find peace, whoever you may or may not be.


----------



## Minnewaska

On another topic, I am curious if BountyDaughter is defending Robin's reputation on any other forum. There are many with this same thread. Indeed the Jan Miles letter was not actually posted here, it was referenced. If so, which ones and, if not, why SN? We might learn something. Having seen some of these other forums, we certainly have no monopoly on criticism.

Has Jan removed the letter from his FB page and have you confronted him directly?


----------



## Bountydaughter

Minnewaska said:


> On another topic, I am curious if BountyDaughter is defending Robin's reputation on any other forum. There are many with this same thread. Indeed the Jan Miles letter was not actually posted here, it was referenced. If so, which ones and, if not, why SN? We might learn something. Having seen some of these other forums, we certainly have no monopoly on criticism.
> 
> Has Jan removed the letter from his FB page and have you confronted him directly?


I am not currently on any other forums. The only reason I came originally was because when I googled Jan C Myles this forum came up and I found his letter posted. I said what I wanted to say and then when people commented on my post I felt the need to reply. I have to say it has gotten quite out of hand. 
I knew nothing of this forum beforehand and I am not looking for forums to defend my stepfather. If I happen to see something that I feel is incorrect then I will say something but I am not out looking to do it. I commented on one thing and got sucked in.
I have not found Jan Miles' Facebook page but my mother has sent him an email with wording similar to my post.


----------



## jameswilson29

If you really want to read some more informed criticism of the Bounty incident, meander over to Sailing Anarchy and check out "The Official Trash the Bounty Thread". The crowd there is not quite as sweet as the Sailnet group and I can't recall whether anyone is coming to Capt. Walbridge's defense over there.


----------



## jameswilson29

Part of the beauty of Sailnet is the truth that emerges from a heated discussion. I see nothing wrong with zealous advocacy from different points of view. Truth comes out of conflict and controversy. No one should expect the polite conversation of a Victorian parlor conversation and no one is forcing anyone to participate. If you do not like a particular discussion, go to a different thread. Personally, I have learned quite a bit from this discussion and we may have actually saved some lives here.

The moderators do a good (and thankless) job of cutting people off when it gets too personal.


----------



## TakeFive

jameswilson29 said:


> Part of the beauty of Sailnet is the truth that emerges from a heated discussion....Personally, I have learned quite a bit from this discussion and we may have actually saved some lives here...


Do not confuse "truth" with "consensus." The latter can emerge from heated speculation and discussion of hypotheticals. The former can only emerge from a formal investigation of the real facts.

I'm not trying to stifle discussion. Debating hypotheticals ("if he did X in response to Y then that was the wrong decision because he should have done Z") can be a helpful teaching opportunity and can save lives. But it does not lead to the real truth about what actually happened.


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> If you really want to read some more informed criticism of the Bounty incident, meander over to Sailing Anarchy and check out "The Official Trash the Bounty Thread". The crowd there is not quite as sweet as the Sailnet group and I can't recall whether anyone is coming to Capt. Walbridge's defense over there.


I read Sailing Anarchy forums all the time and have followed them. They certainly are not a civil group, and skewed for the racing sailor also.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Chef, you've asked PCP to calm down and now that he has, you're confronting him over it? He isn't going to fully change his position, nor should he have to. I'm going to have to separate you two......


Ha...we were seperated at birth obviously. There have been an obvious divison of opinions on here about what is fact, what is opinion. The discussion for the most part has been healthy. There is a line at which the rhetoric IMHO was too personally aimed at the Captain. Again it was obvious where the two sides drew the lines at that. If someone changes their mind thats great.

If we want to become Sailing Anarchy and fall into the trap of incivility where evry post starts with the old SNL skit..."Jane you ignorrant sl.t" then IMHO we will lose a lot of posters and people here. There have been more than enough personal insults, inuendos, prejucied remarks thrown around in this thread ( I am guilty also). I feel it took away from it. Just MHO.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> Part of the beauty of Sailnet is the truth that emerges from a heated discussion. I see nothing wrong with zealous advocacy from different points of view. Truth comes out of conflict and controversy. No one should expect the polite conversation of a Victorian parlor conversation and no one is forcing anyone to participate. If you do not like a particular discussion, go to a different thread. Personally, I have learned quite a bit from this discussion and we may have actually saved some lives here.
> 
> The moderators do a good (and thankless) job of cutting people off when it gets too personal.


The moderators do a good job. They stepped in when there was an antisemetic remark I agree, A spirited argument is good. Brow beating is not. While what you say is true...you don have to read it, I wonder, actually I taled to 8 Sailnetters at a get together last Sunday for brunch. Almost all of them had something to contribute about the Bounty in opinions. Almost al of them said they didnt contribute because they didnt want to get skewered by the zealots in the thread. So how many other people do you think that encompassed.

While it isnt a Victorian culture in here and doesnt need to be, losing peoples opinions just becauise of the tone of postings which may provide different insight and perhaps a new view in a learning experience isnt necessarily a good way to go either. I am not without fault for contributing to that, but as far as Ive seen I am the only one to openly admit that. The rest defend their tone vociferously and yes zealously.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> This is either disingenuous or you have completely changed your mind like Rick ( Takefive) said some people would.


No, I did not change of opinion regarding the facts. The one that keep changing of opinion his you. You, as usual, are taking unfounded conclusions about what I have said. *I am talking about the letter*. You should read better what I post before posting nonsense. I said to Bountydaughter:



PCP said:


> ...*Regarding that letter*, that was posted in the Facebook and then on Sailnet not on this thread but here:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ated/94641-informed-opinion-about-bounty.html
> 
> You can find all the discussion regarding that letter not on this thread but on the one that I posted above.
> 
> Your mother and yourself would be glad to know that* ( even if most of us don't understand why the captain set sail and setting sail why he did not evade the hurricane or look for shelter on several possible ports) the position regarding that letter was quite unanimous. Almost everybody, including me*, felt and said that it was not a way to express an opinion much less from someone that says it was a friend of your father.
> ..


*I have said about that letter:*



PCP said:


> *Quote:
> Originally Posted by blowinstink
> Except the amateurs found appropriate ways of expressing those opinions. I read it again this morning and I am just as disgusted as after my first pass last night. Whatever the substance, I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which he attacks the deceased Captain of the Bounty*
> 
> Specially if, as it was stated by the OP, the Captain was a friend of his.
> 
> I can easily dispense such a kind of friends
> 
> ...I am referring to the author of the article posted on the Facebook. The author was supposedly a friend of the Bounty's captain and what I am saying is that I don't consider that someone should talk like that about a deceased friend, even if he had made mistakes...
> 
> ... have understood and agreed if he expressed factually is opinion in an official inquiry if the opinion was asked to him, but without solicitation posting on the face book his opinion, that in my opinion is essentially truth, not in a factual way but with pomposity reveals bad taste and in my opinion not a great character. I maintain that I prefer not having friends like him....
> 
> I am saying that a friend (the author of that article on the facebook) should not have publicly said those things the way he did about a friend, even if they were basically true. No colored glasses here, except if they were red ones, no loyalty either...and I would say a strange kind of friendship displayed.


 I think that only you cannot see that clearly I don't agree with the way that opinion was expressed. I am starting to be used to that. Clearly you have difficulty in understanding what I post.



chef2sail said:


> You have since the 8th post, posted harshly against the Captain. prejudged him and spoke vehemenly about him personally without cause.
> 
> Questioning his decisions is one thing this is another., You have either agreed with or called him a jackass, irresponsible, or an idiot. You posted harsh opinions you found in the proifessional gCaptain site, similar to Jan Miles, and just as harsh time and time again to prove you points. Quite possibly he saw that and thought his would be appropriate here.


yes, of course, I do agree with the Jan Miles (and the other Tall ship Captains) about the accident and the responsibility of Bounty's Captain regarding it. What I have disagreed is in the way he expressed it.

I never called the Captain jackass or idiot. I don'y use that kind of language and don't insult people. I said that he had taken an idiotic decision. That is not the same as calling him an idiot. Even the brighter among us take from time to time idiotic decisions. You say that I call him Jackass and idiot because I, like other reputable members, have liked the posts where he was qualified as that, and that is just ridiculous. When one likes a post that does not mean that we would use the same language that was used by the poster but that we globally agree with the meaning of the post, not with the exact terms used.

I never used the term Jackass and I have the opinion that has a Professional Captain he was irresponsible not only this time but in all other times that he sailed hurricanes (as it was stated by him, his wife and the crew). Yes I consider irresponsible a Captain that sails a XVIII century designed wooden boat ship to "*get a good ride out of a hurricane*".

It seems that you think nobody has the right to have a different opinion than the one you have. Of course I may be wrong and a Captain that does that kind of stunt, with that kind of boat, may be considered by some as a prudent Captain, as all good captains should be, but not by me.



chef2sail said:


> You have been far from polite to her father in your posts. having an opinion is one thing...expressing it harshly is another....then stating you were not part of the impolitness.... is even another. You have the right to post whatever you want and have your opinion. Below are exerpts from some of the posts and I only went as far as #555.
> 
> You have also agreed and signified that you liked the following posts
> *Quote:
> Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue- psoed by Sawwhet..I agree with that. posted by PCP.
> ,
> Quote:
> If you have read the posts on the listerv long enough, you will already have realized there is no shortage of fools who take to the sea as an escape. Do not risk your life on someone who does not demonstrate common sense and sound judgment.I am beginning to see a pattern on the listserv. After every major storm, we do a play by play on some jackass who decides to leave port immediately prior to the arrival of the storm. Who is going to be next unfortunate victim?
> ,
> Quote:
> There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SawWhet
> Didn't the idots in charge monitor the weather for the past week? The owners should be billed for the rescue.
> 
> Quote:
> If you have read the posts on the listerv long enough, you will already have realized there is no shortage of fools who take to the sea as an escape. Do not risk your life on someone who does not demonstrate common sense and sound judgment.
> 
> I am beginning to see a pattern on the listserv. After every major storm, we do a play by play on some jackass who decides to leave port immediately prior to the arrival of the storm. Who is going to be next unfortunate victim?
> 
> Quote:
> There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him.
> James Wilson Post 264 liked PCP
> *


*

This is absolutely ridiculous. You quoted a great number of post made by other posters that don't think like you and are trying to make a process of opinion. I have been polite in my posts and the fact that I do not agree with you does not mean I should be refrained to have opinions and express them, specially when they are agreed by many.

You say that I and Casey liked those posts but forget to say that many other reputable posters like them either. As I have said, liking a post means not necessarily that we would have used the same words but that we liked the global meaning.



chef2sail said:



IMHO I think this thread should be locked now. Going after Bountydaughter was the last straw. ...

Click to expand...

Nobody is going after Bountydaughter and I guess that only you can imagine that.

We know that you think this thread should be closed. You said that many times and still you keep posting. It seems that the main reason you want it closed is because the global opinion about the subject is different from the one you have. I don't like neither the intent of shutting down other opinions that diverge from yours, neither the intimidation processes that you try to use on me and others for that propose.

You have misquoted me again and I hope this time you would apologize. It was not me that had said this:



chef2sail said:



You have personally made statements about him like:
...
Quote:
No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances.

Click to expand...

Regards

Paulo*


----------



## NCC320

PCP...Thanks for your posts on this topic. Your opinions are just as valid as anyone else's opinion. Your posts have more supporting documentation than most others and show considerable study, which makes them esspecially valuable.

Chef....You have posted probably more posts on this topic than anyone else. You seem to get angry when you can't control the outcome of the conversation. When you get angry, you throw out some nasty slights against the persons who post something you don't like. Remember Mantus anchor posts.....Mantus was essentially accused of unethical behavior by you, but as near as I can tell, when all the rocks hit the ground, they are a pretty straight up group. It's all just opinions and it's not necessary to win everytime.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> Chef, you've asked PCP to calm down and now that he has, you're confronting him over it? He isn't going to fully change his position, nor should he have to. I'm going to have to separate you two......


I don't need to be separated from nobody. I have been polite and I am not acting in any other way then to try to contribute to this thread. I am not trying to intimidate nobody and when I try to refuter an opinion that I do not agree I do so in a civil manner. I have opinions but I do respect other opinions.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> PCP...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your posts on this topic. Your opinions are just as valid as anyone else's opinion. Your posts have more supporting documentation than most others and show considerable study, which makes them esspecially valuable.
> 
> 
> 
> He does post valuable information and most of it has been germaine and posted civilly, I agree. Not all though and when he gets called on it has a very vitriollic reaction to the poster.. Why should he be any different than the way I am treated when I post. When his supporting documentation is another internet blog site, I dont recognize the validity of it, after all as has beenpointed out here anyone can join it and have an opinion...even me who has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chef....You have posted probably more posts on this topic than anyone else. You seem to get angry when you can't control the outcome of the conversation. When you get angry, you throw out some nasty slights against the persons who post something you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not angry...your interpretation of my emotions. Control the outcome of a conversation...thats an oxymoron. I lag behind PCP on number of posts. I have not been the only person to post my opinions contrary to his and clearly others have done it multiple times yet you chose to only zero in one mine. You have that right of course,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Mantus anchor posts.....Mantus was essentially accused of unethical behavior by you, but as near as I can tell, when all the rocks hit the ground, they are a pretty straight up group. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they were found to be not following the rules by not fully disclosing that one of the posters was an employee of theirs acting like a new member. That was unethical. Because of my and others posts to that nature they were required to fully disclose. That protects all of us.
> 
> I dont know them so I dont know if they are a straight up group, I hope so as I have bought from them, but in this instance they clearly has someone come on and extoll the anchor who was a consulting employee of their business. They did immediatelky correct the issue.
> 
> BTW I bought one of their anchors
Click to expand...


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> No, I did not change of opinion regarding the facts.
> 
> I never called the Captain jackass or idiot. I don'y use that kind of language and don't insult people. I said that he had taken an idiotic decision. That is not the same as calling him an idiot. Even the brighter among us take from time to time idiotic decisions. You say that I call him Jackass and idiot because I, like other reputable members, have liked the posts where he was qualified as that, and that is just ridiculous. When one likes a post that does not mean that we would use the same language that was used by the poster but that we globally agree with the meaning of the post, not with the exact terms used.
> 
> I never used the term Jackass and I have the opinion that has a Professional Captain he was irresponsible not only this time but in all other times that he sailed hurricanes (as it was stated by him, his wife and the crew). Yes I consider irresponsible a Captain that sails a XVIII century designed wooden boat ship to "*get a good ride out of a hurricane*".
> 
> Nobody is going after Bountydaughter and I guess that only you can imagine that.
> 
> You have misquoted me again and I hope this time you would apologize. It was not me that had said this:
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


There is no need for apology here. That is only used in times when you are wrong about something and I have apologized in the past when I was.

The facts I redacted are the facts. They are either posts you posted yourself or posts you said you agred with by pushing the "like button" By pushing that button it says you agree with the poster. So if someone calls the Captain a jackass and you push the like button you agree. You are savy enough to put a statement that you dont agree with utilizing that word if it something you wouldnt do.

We all know how you feel about the Captain and the tone you have used posting about him. We know you dont post anything which would make him look favorable and have reposted quotes from gCaptain which support your claims. When you do that and use it as evidence you cant hide and say oh thats someone elses words. Those are words you are using to support your point.


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> But they were found to be unethical and not following the rules by not fully disclosing that one of the posters was an employee of theirs acting like a new member. BTW I bought one of their anchors


Not really. One of their consultants (as I recall) may have posted once or twice before identifying her association, but at least one of those posts was to a question I had regarding bolts...she answered it directly and it was not necessary to tell of associations. The question was general about bolts, not specific to the brand.

You just can't stand to not win....if the facts or statements are not like you want, you rewrite the statements to say something other than what was said. And if it is going badly for you, you envoke the great number of friends (implying that you are better known and liked than the opposing poster). Next comes that you are good guy. You probably are a good guy with many friends, so that makes it all the more unnecessary to trash other people of their opinions.
And I won't mention "being behind computer screens"....in reality we all are, some with real experience, some who haven't yet attained significant experience, but they all have minds and can form opinions.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> Do not confuse "truth" with "consensus." The latter can emerge from heated speculation and discussion of hypotheticals. The former can only emerge from a formal investigation of the real facts......


This is where we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. Ask any death row prisoner that was later exonerated by DNA evidence if they think the official investigation is always the right answer. You can't ask the one's that were actually killed first. Did you buy the jury verdict in the OJ trial?

I also don't dismiss the official investigation out of hand, but have no expectation that it will be the complete, final and always accurate conclusion. It is our freedom of speech that insures we all hear all sides.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> ...If we want to become Sailing Anarchy and fall into the trap of incivility where evry post starts with the old SNL skit..."Jane you ignorrant sl.t" then IMHO we will lose a lot of posters and people here.....


While this thread has touched many nerves, I don't see anything across SN that remotely resembles SA. Although, that Jane Curtin and Dan Ayckroyd skit is one of my all time favs........ Don't leave out Jane's opening line, "Dan, you pompous a$$"


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> Not really. One of their consultants (as I recall) may have posted once or twice before identifying her association, .


Thats like saying. I am a little pregnant I think. You cant be a revisionist here
What caused her to identify herself were someonelses and my posts. The issue got resolved because she was identified and it is resolved so no need to keep beating it up

Arent you doing here what you state that I do or are you going to justify it


> You just can't stand to not win....if the facts or statements are not like you want, you rewrite the statements to say something other than what was said.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> This is where we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. Ask any death row prisoner that was later exonerated by DNA evidence if they think the official investigation is always the right answer. You can't ask the one's that were actually killed first. Did you buy the jury verdict in the OJ trial?


Yes. The evidence was tampered with by the police who also lied. The jury found the correct verdict. Not a good analogy

Did I think he killed her yes


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Yes. The evidence was tampered with by the police who also lied. The jury found the correct verdict. Not a good analogy
> 
> Did I think he killed her yes


I think it is. What makes you so sure this official investigation won't have tampered evidence? You would have absolutely no knowledge of those misgivings, if people weren't talking about it and debating it.


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> So because the statements of people who were actually there don't agree with the artificial reality that you guys have created (by repeating your speculation so much that you've deluded yourselves into thinking it's "fact"), you have the gall to belittle their statements by claiming that they are not really what happened.
> 
> I am disappointed by the classlessness of many of the comments here. You guys have the unique opportunity to ask real questions of someone who has been close to the captain and crew for 17 years, and to actually learn something, and you're blowing it because you are so convinced of the "rightness" of the artificially synthesized "facts" that you've been echoing back and forth to each other for the past 6 weeks.


Seems you missed my point. Just because the Capt/crew of Bounty makes a statement does not mean it's true. Take the statements "a ship if safer at sea than in port". That has been proven false.

Imagine if every boat along the east coast had gone to sea prior to hurricane Sandy. How many more boats and people would have been lost?

Eye witnesses are the worst evidence in the court of law.


----------



## Minnewaska

I have a recollection of a jury I sat on once. We were 11 guilty to 1 undecided, deadlocked. It was painful. Juror #3 kept asking for testimony to be read back, reenactments in the jury room, etc. It started very healthy and all jurors, including me, really wanted to hear another point of view. It became obvious, after an entire day, that Juror #3 wanted attention and we were just lapping over old ground. I suggested to my fellow jurors (privately) that we just sit still and not say a thing. If juror #3 wanted to speak, we would answer, but not push the conversation. We literally sat silent for 5 minutes, which feels like an eternity. The next word spoken was from Juror #3 and she said, "I guess you are all right", he's guilty. (Felony assault, by the way).

For those that want this thread to stop, I highly suggest you not continue to provide fodder to discuss. Those that wish to continue the topic of Bounty, will do so, but I'm certain will faded out faster. Most of the last couple of hundred posts have only been debating whether we should post at all. Ironically, it those that want it to stop that have given ongoing life to the thread. Think about it. Or reply, but I warned you......


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> If the Captain said he liked to sail Hurricanes, if the wife says that his husband sailed plenty hurricanes, if the crew says that the Bounty sailed hurricanes to the point of saying that "Bounty loves Hurricanes" it seems to me that the odds are that they had sailed hurricanes previously. That is a lot of people to be all bullshiters.
> 
> The Captain's wife was very adamant about that in the interview she gave on a TV program. She said, questioned about this Captain's statement:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> *"Walbridge said "you try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can, and you stay down in the southeast quadrant, and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it - you want to stay behind it. But you'll also get a good ride out of a hurricane."*
> 
> *Claudia McCann said Tuesday that during the public television interview her husband was "being a little&#8230;cute, I guess."
> 
> "But he would like hurricanes because they pushed him, they made him go fast. And he's been in many hurricanes. I mean, I can't even count the number of hurricanes he's been in."*
> 
> HMS Bounty captain 'wasn't gambling' with lives, wife says - World - CBC News
> 
> Probably she is exaggerating but I don't think she is lying so I guess that the Captain and the Bounty had been in some hurricanes before.
> 
> Audio | As It Happens with Carol Off and Jeff Douglas | CBC Radio
> 
> By the way, I have posted on the interesting sailboat thread some movies about tall ships. On some of them we can see how those boats can be sailed and what sails are used with F10 winds. Of course, even if those boats seem to be the same as Bounty there is a huge difference, a difference of two centuries in boat design.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


PCP, 
Thanks for the video post, I will take a look.

My point is even though Bounty Capt/Crew say they have sailed hurricanes, I do not believe that ship ever encountered hurricane conditions (Sustained winds over 75 mph). This is based on the video that has been posted here of bounty sailing in much less winds and the ship heeling excessively and equipment falling apart (rig and pump systems). I think if Bounty had truly encountered hurricane conditions prior to Sandy, she would have sunk in her first hurricane. Bounty may have sailed near a hurricane, but far enough away to not have hurricane conditions- huge differance.

In any case, if the ship was playing with hurricanes, in my opinion that is not good seamenship.


----------



## nolatom

Though I have occasionally contributed to this very long dialogue, I would not be unhappy to see this thread end.

We could be pick it up again during or after the Coast Guard Hearing (anyone know the schedule on that?) once we have some new first-hand or impartial expert facts or opinions. Til then, I humbly submit that with 1450 or so posts, we have chewed the existing fat more than thoroughly, to the point where we are grumbling about style and attitude rather than substance.

Deep breath and let's await Christmas, everyone??


----------



## casey1999

nolatom said:


> Though I have occasionally contributed to this very long dialogue, I would not be unhappy to see this thread end.
> 
> We could be pick it up again during or after the Coast Guard Hearing (anyone know the schedule on that?) once we have some new first-hand or impartial expert facts or opinions. Til then, I humbly submit that with 1450 or so posts, we have chewed the existing fat more than thoroughly, to the point where we are grumbling about style and attitude rather than substance.
> 
> Deep breath and let's await Christmas, everyone??


This is the internet. Talk is cheap. Just tune out until the CG issues their report (probably around this June), if that is what you like. Why do some want to control the internet and or forums. No one is forcing anyone hear to read or contribute to the post. This is what the internet is for- welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> I have a recollection of a jury I sat on once. We were 11 guilty to 1 undecided, deadlocked. It was painful. Juror #3 kept asking for testimony to be read back, reenactments in the jury room, etc. It started very healthy and all jurors, including me, really wanted to hear another point of view. It became obvious, after an entire day, that Juror #3 wanted attention and we were just lapping over old ground. I suggested to my fellow jurors (privately) that we just sit still and not say a thing. If juror #3 wanted to speak, we would answer, but not push the conversation. We literally sat silent for 5 minutes, which feels like an eternity. The next word spoken was from Juror #3 and she said, "I guess you are all right", he's guilty. (Felony assault, by the way).


Interesting

I was on a jury about 15 years ago. Vehicular homicide. Husband and wife in the car with their baby. Country road. One of them driving. Police charged the husband. Young baby of 8 months killed in the accident Testimony and trial lasted 1.5 days, lots of circumstantial evidence. No eyewitness to who was driving. Both parents accused each other of being at the wheel in the press but invoked spousal priviladge in the trial.

Jury deliberations started , foreman came in and stated well it looks obvious what the verdict is, so we read some testimony went over definitions of vehicular homicde and took first poll. 10-2 to convict. The 10 in the majority were upset. The two in the minority asked to go though all the testimony point by point. Reinacments, charts were also done in the jury room. One day dragged into two dragged into three...every poll taken came back 10-2. The majority got even more vocal about the 2 holdouts. Charges of favoritism...charges of being coerced...charges of being stupid...charges of not having enough sense to see all the facts. Majority reiterated time after time that it was obvious who was at the wheel, but couldnt be determined by factual eyewitness or forensic evidence. Deadlock continued into day 4 with majority of playing the emotions of the 2 holdouts that someone had to be held responsible. Lots of peer pressure. Finally 1 of the 2 relented. Trial ended in a hung jury. Lots of hard feelings between the majority and the one holdout juror. The one holdout kept reiterating she was not conviced. No real evidence who could determine which parent was actually driving.

8 months later in the newspaper there was a story of a woman committing suicide. In her handwritten note she admitted she was driving. The one juror was correct

BTW I was not the one holdout juror. Shame on me. I went with the mob.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> PCP,
> Thanks for the video post, I will take a look.
> 
> My point is even though Bounty Capt/Crew say they have sailed hurricanes, I do not believe that ship ever encountered hurricane conditions (Sustained winds over 75 mph). This is based on the video that has been posted here of bounty sailing in much less winds and the ship heeling excessively and equipment falling apart (rig and pump systems). I think if Bounty had truly encountered hurricane conditions prior to Sandy, she would have sunk in her first hurricane. Bounty may have sailed near a hurricane, but far enough away to not have hurricane conditions- huge differance.
> 
> In any case, if the ship was playing with hurricanes, in my opinion that is not good seamenship.


Yes I have said that there are probably exaggeration in what regards saying the boat was in so many Hurricanes that she would mot care to count. We have here a say: "Where there is smoke there is fire"... and that is a bit what I think. If not Hurricanes it seems evident that the ship sailed many times in very bad weather.....and that is a ship not to be sailed in bad weather, specially if we consider a relatively inexperienced non professional small crew.

I guess that Minnewaska resumed what I think with this statement:



Minnewaska said:


> The lesson is that anyone could become more risk tolerant if they successfully dodge the bullet on previous attempts. You may win a few hands, but the casino always wins in the end. Could save your life to remember it.


That as I see it, means that if you take significant risks that does not mean that you are going to sink. You can even, if very lucky, get always away with it, but every time you try it once more, probability laws says that your chance of getting away is becoming smaller.

On other hand, and contradicting this smaller change of getting away, one that has gotten away many times start to believe that is chances of getting away are bigger and not smaller as they are in reality.

This can give a very dangerous sense of confidence that is not supported by reality. I guess this is a valuable lesson for all of us. Certainly it is for me.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jameswilson29

Of course, the verdict must be unanimous in a criminal case and the judge will admonish the jury to reach a verdict and keep sending them back until it becomes clear there is a hung jury.

But, the judge does not tell you that he can then properly declare a mistrial and the double jeopardy clause does not necessarily prevent a re-trial of the accused.

Some jurors are better at reading the demeanor of witnesses and judging their veracity. Sadly, some judges are no better than the average person, or are worse, even though they are routinely called upon to perform that task.

In this case, however, unlike your jury trial example, the facts are not in dispute. It is simply a matter of whether a reasonably prudent professional skipper would have left port in the circumstances. The exact reason for the sinking becomes irrelevant after the skipper made the decision to leave port.


----------



## chef2sail

True, I know James got my court analogy .

No matter how the majority felt,
No matter what it obviously appeared to be
No matter how they thought they were right with the circumstantial evidence
No matter how many expert witness were brought to testify
No matter how the majority browbeat the minority jurors 
No matter how loud and boisterous and intimdating the majority jurors were
No matter how much the mob ganged up on the one remaining juror

She held firm 
And when the FACTS finally came out 8 months later it was only her who saved the innocent man from being convicted.

There is only a very small number *facts* so far because they have not been independently verified and challenged.

The Bounty left the dock with the Cpatain in charge- the only thing to date I have
commented on so far concerning the Captain but that may even be premature
Sandy existed
The ship sank

We really dont even know if the Captain was coerced or threatened or was even in 
charge the whole trip
We really dont know the condition of the ship just unchallenged statements
We really dont know what happened the whole time and chain of events on the ship
just unchallenged statements

None of the gcaptain statements count
None of the Sailnet statements count

All statements, all circumstantial evidents are not considered undiputed facts until challenged in a court or even the inquirey

What Rick (takefve) and I have said all along to many who keep bandying this word fact around like Paulo is that they are not facts in the legal sense. I still do not understand why he cannot get this basic concept. Like my jury analogy: relying and mixing conjecture, hypothesis, unchallenged evidence, and unchallenged statements and coming to conclusions and not awaiting the true facts is a rush to judgement. This rush to judgement has the affect of ruining Robin Walbridges reputation. This IMHO is not


> polite behavior


I learned my lesson from that jury trial years ago how dangerous rushing to judgement is. Right now we have Paulo as the leader and a various others who are leading the charge to convict. They have mountains of circumstantial evidence, They have tremendous thories based on it. They have all sorts of internet statements and TV statements unchallenged to support their stance. They have the emotional high ground because of the incredulity of sailin off into an impending storm. None of this means ANYTHING until it is challanged and the FACTS ( which have been vetted) emerge. That wont happen until the inquirey or a court case. So yes while all are entitiled to opinions here they are not facts and the people who dont share the opinions of the majority should not be ridiculed or shouted down or have their credentials challanged any more than the majority should.


----------



## Brewgyver

jameswilson29 said:


> (snippage)In this case, however, unlike your jury trial example, the facts are not in dispute. It is simply a matter of whether a reasonably prudent professional skipper would have left port in the circumstances. The exact reason for the sinking becomes irrelevant after the skipper made the decision to leave port.


And if it was found that the Bounty struck a submerged object (like a conex), that would be irrelevant? An event like that could have sunk virtually any wooden vessel, no matter the condition of the mechanical plant.


----------



## jameswilson29

Yes, or if the ship was hit by an asteroid.

So far, no one in the crew has mentioned any superceding causes of the sinking.

Any reasonably foreseeable other causes (engine failure, bilge pump failure, mechanical failures, dismasting, etc.) would not matter. If you voluntarily choose to sail out into a hurricane, or the edge of a hurricane, you should reasonably expect to capsize due to ordinary materiel failures that may merely be inconveniences in good weather.


----------



## Brewgyver

jameswilson29 said:


> Yes, or if the ship was hit by an asteroid.
> 
> So far, no one in the crew has mentioned any superceding causes of the sinking.
> 
> Any reasonably foreseeable other causes (engine failure, bilge pump failure, mechanical failures, dismasting, etc.) would not matter. If you voluntarily choose to sail out into a hurricane, or the edge of a hurricane, you should reasonably expect to capsize due to ordinary materiel failures that may merely be inconveniences in good weather.


I don't think you are being reasonable. Hitting a submerged object could have sunk her in the best conditions. Multiple faliures of the mechanical plant would most likely also be a life threatening event in any weather. The ship apparently suffered multiple failures, and to date there is no answer as to what caused that to occur. Something as simple as striking a submerged object in heavy seas is a very real possible cause. The fact that such an event has not been mentioned in the press at this point does not rule it out. It is even possible that the survivors would not have known that it happened. Yes, it is a hypothetical, but no more far-fetched than many others.

You are basically saying that the actual cause of the sinking is irrelevant.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> There is only a very small number *facts* so far because they have not been independently verified and challenged.
> 
> The Bounty left the dock with the Cpatain in charge- the only thing to date I have commented on so far concerning the Captain but that may even be premature
> Sandy existed
> The ship sank
> 
> We really dont even know if the Captain was coerced or threatened or was even in
> charge the whole trip
> We really dont know the condition of the ship just unchallenged statements
> We really dont know what happened the whole time and chain of events on the ship


.....



jameswilson29 said:


> ...
> In this case, however, unlike your jury trial example, the facts are not in dispute. It is simply a matter of whether a reasonably prudent professional skipper would have left port in the circumstances. The exact reason for the sinking becomes irrelevant after the skipper made the decision to leave port.


No matter what, the Captain was responsible for having sailed out of port in a ship that was not seaworthy to sail near an hurricane; he was responsible for instead of running from the Hurricane or going to one of the possible good ports available; he was responsible to chose to sail a Hurricane.

These are errors that had tragic consequences, errors that a professional captain should not have made under any circumstances. These were no mistakes, this were gross errors. You have already basically agreed with this.



chef2sail said:


> No bet here Minnie. Nothing found will take away from Walbrifges responsibility. It will just maybe add other causitive factors to the events of the day or days....
> 
> The investigation, whenevrr it concludes in many months will determining the rest of the facts from rumors
> 
> I am not of the opinion that the Captain should not take full blame for *HIS *actions of sailing into the hurricane so I cant come up with an alternative scenarios. I will restate my belief for the 50th time * HE IS REPSONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS FULLY *.


So it seems clear that we agree on that and that is the basic issue. Those errors was what lead to the sinking of the boat. Without that errors we would not be discussing this.

About the rest there could exist or not mitigating circumstances and the interest of this thread is not on judging nobody since the facts are self evident, but to try to understand why it happen and the details regarding all the situation.

This is not a court and we just make educated guesses based on evidence. I am not judging nobody, I just manifest opinions based in what I know and most of all based on the opinion of the ones that have a much better informed opinion, namely tall ship captains or even professional mariners.

I am sure that the CG will have a lot more facts than us and will be able to pin point much more accurately what happen and most of all why it happen.

Meanwhile I will continue to try to find more relevant information just because I am interested in the subject and in trying to understand how this could have happen.

Regarding that, I think that is of paramount importance for the CG investigation to know if this was an isolated incident that had (or not) as mitigating circumstances an undue pressure from the owners of the boat to be able to attend an already booked calendar or if it was normal the Bounty to sail in heavy weather, I mean if this was not an isolated event but the only one that went wrong.

I don't even know if the CG is going to investigate that, but even if they don't do it, I will continue to have the opinion that will be important to understand the origins of this accident, meaning why Bounty's Captain had chose to do what he has done: Try to sail an Hurricane with a XVIII century designed wooden ship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

Wow, did my jury example fly over everyone's head. I wasn't referencing the disgestion of facts or whether a jury find the correct verdict. 

I was specifically referencing the method in which we brought it to an end. You guys are all provoking Juror #3 and begging for the conversation to continue. So be it. You missed it.


----------



## casey1999

PCP,
You are right, and thanks for all your research. What if we all sat idley by waiting and waiting for the Coast Guard report? What would we know? Would we blindly believe everything that will be in the report, or will we have some basis to compare to and double check the CG findings?

I say the more information we have the more informed we will be. Once the CG report is out we can resume this thread in full force. It will be interesting. Until then, let's just keep it going. I am sure Sailnet loves the hits on their web site.


----------



## chef2sail

jameswilson29 said:


> Yes, or if the ship was hit by an asteroid.
> 
> So far, no one in the crew has mentioned any superceding causes of the sinking.
> 
> Any reasonably foreseeable other causes (engine failure, bilge pump failure, mechanical failures, dismasting, etc.) would not matter. If you voluntarily choose to sail out into a hurricane, or the edge of a hurricane, you should reasonably expect to capsize due to ordinary materiel failures that may merely be inconveniences in good weather.


Key words here voluntarily- while probably true not a fact as of yet. Reasonably expect- by what a Sail Net reason. Does anone know for a fact, is it written down, what the tolerances for the ship were?

Would you say Colombus, Magellan, Vasco de Gamma, Cortez, William Perry, Rolf Almudsen, Shakley. Tenzing Nordgay, Sir Edmind Hillary Neil Armstrong, Jimmy Johnson, Richard Petty, Dennis Conners were reckless?

Yes it would be proably reckless for a Sailnet poster. But isnt there are larger assumed risk when you volunteer to board a ship going out into s storm knowingly?


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> Originally Posted by casey1999
> ...A lot of what we read, see and hear seems to be what the crew and captain "think" happened, not really what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So because the statements of people who were actually there don't agree with the artificial reality that you guys have created (by repeating your speculation so much that you've deluded yourselves into thinking it's "fact"), you have the gall to belittle their statements by claiming that they are not really what happened.
Click to expand...

Certainly a legitimate point, but I'd take this slight exception...

Right from the start, I believe some here have placed way too high a value on some of the statements from crew, considering them as literal "truth", simply by virtue of the fact they were there, or knew the captain personally...

The well-informed postings of sparklepl3nty confirmed my suspicions about the BOUNTY's crew - namely, that some appeared to be extremely "green", to use her polite term... Obviously, a lack of experience would have little to do with their impressions of the skipper as a man, but could certainly inform their opinions about the seamanship employed during the final voyage, and certain comments of crew in the wake of her loss offer a rather stunning disconnect from reality...

The "engineer" Barksdale has been the primary source of information, and yet he admitted he was not even aware of Sandy until shortly prior to leaving New London... That ANY crewmember aboard a tall ship, about to make an offshore passage the full length of the Atlantic seaboard in hurricane season, could be so unaware, is difficult for me to imagine... Furthermore, unless one assumes Barksdale remained in virtual isolation from the rest of the crew that week, never speaking to ANYONE else, it seems obvious that most of the rest of the crew was similarly "clueless" about the weather, and the plan of the voyage, as well... One would think a major hurricane moving directly up the track of their route would have been a likely topic of conversation among that crew, no? One really has to question how involved some of that crew was in the operation of the BOUNTY, and assume that they might simply have just been along for the ride... and thus, how likely the possibility that some of their impressions or recollections from that final voyage might not be particularly well-informed, from a nautical perspective...

So, I'm simply suggesting that some of the comments, from some of that crew, might be rightfully taken in the context of their apparent inexperience, and perhaps with more than a grain or two of salt...


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> .....
> I will continue to have the opinion that will be important to understand the origins of this accident, meaning why Bounty's Captain had chose to do what he has done: Try to sail an Hurricane with a XVIII century designed wooden ship.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


And remember, the Bounty was not a XVIII century designed wooden ship. Do not give it that much credit. It was a ship designed to be a movie prop and hold "movie crew" (as opposed to sailing crew) and movie equipment, and be burned at the end of movie filming. It had little or no basis of design on proven historical ships.

I have asked many times what are the sailing options and techniques of this ship in a serious storm. No one has provided a response. Not even the Bounty crew member who posted on this thread a while back. From what I gather, the only technique used by bounty in a storm was furl all the sails and start the engines. That is not historically what these ships did in storms.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ... Does anone know for a fact, is it written down, what the tolerances for the ship were?
> 
> Would you say Colombus, Magellan, Vasco de Gamma, Cortez, William Perry, Rolf Almudsen, Shakley. Tenzing Nordgay, Sir Edmind Hillary Neil Armstrong, Jimmy Johnson, Richard Petty, Dennis Conners were reckless?
> 
> Yes it would be proably reckless for a Sailnet poster. But isnt there are larger assumed risk when you volunteer to board a ship going out into s storm knowingly?


Well, that is certainly a new way of looking at it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Would you say Colombus, Magellan, Vasco de Gamma, Cortez, William Perry, Rolf Almudsen, Shakley. Tenzing Nordgay, Sir Edmind Hillary Neil Armstrong, Jimmy Johnson, Richard Petty, Dennis Conners were reckless?


These men used every bit and piece of knowledge (weather prediction) and storm tactics that they knew or could get their hands on in order to sail their ships in the safest manner of their time. This cannot be said of how Bounty was sailed.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> ....
> I have asked many times what are the sailing options and techniques of this ship in a serious storm. No one has provided a response. Not even the Bounty crew member who posted on this thread a while back. From what I gather, the only technique used by bounty in a storm was furl all the sails and start the engines. That is not historically what these ships did in storms.


It seems you have seen the movies I have posted

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

[


> quote=PCP;963703].....
> 
> No matter what, the Captain was responsible for having sailed out of port in a ship *that was not seaworthy *


Again this is not a fact that is wasnt seaworthy. You keep beating this drum, but this has not been proven,. Posting something you do not know to be true and pretending it is fact is dangerous. Someone might read it and mistake it for fact and actually beleive it. Just because you find a few posts from people who comment on it, you dont know this for sure. There are conflicting reports even from even the people who were on the boat. Until they are examined with challenging questions, the repair records, the maintainence records are examined BY PROFESSIONALS, which has not been done to date you can only claim this. It is not a fact and should NEVER be posted like it is.



> These are errors that had tragic consequences, errors that a professional captain should not have made under any circumstances. These were no mistakes, this were gross errors. You have already basically agreed with this.


What I have agreed to is That IF IF the records show that he left the dock and he knew/ thought he was putting the ship and himself in danger then he made a gross error. It is still just my opinion like yours is yours. I do not beleive anything is factual until it corroborated. So while I rush to an opinion here where we differ is I do not rush to judgement.



> So it seems clear that we agree on that and that is the basic issue.


We do agree on this. But I dont say it is a fact until proved so. Until then It is your...and my hypothesis. Thats why I refuse to judge.



> About the rest there could exist or not mitigating circumstances and the interest of this thread is not on judging nobody since the facts are self evident, but to try to understand why it happen and the details regarding all the situation.


Again there are no facts yet, just conjecture and snippets of information from many and varied sources. None of which are on the record as of yet.



> This is not a court and we just make educated guesses based on evidence


.
Evidence is circunstantial and heresay right now thus my example of my time on on the jury where the circumstantial was not correct at all



> I am not judging nobody, I just manifest opinions based in what I know and most of all based on the opinion of the ones that have a much better informed opinion, namely tall ship captains or even professional mariners.


They are still speculating from their own reference points that is the tall ship captains. I put no credence in any of the other posters on gcaptain as I am a member and can post there and have no experience to speak of with this.



> I am sure that the CG will have a lot more facts than us and will be able to pin point much more accurately what happen and most of all why it happen.


Totally agree with you here



> Meanwhile I will continue to try to find more relevant information just because I am interested in the subject and in trying to understand how this could have happen


.
Understood. me too, but whatever I find till its cross examined and challnge it will not be a fact.



> Regarding that, I think that is of paramount importance for the CG investigation to know if this was an isolated incident that had (or not) as mitigating circumstances an undue pressure from the owners of the boat to be able to attend an already booked calendar or if it was normal the Bounty to sail in heavy weather, I mean if this was not an isolated event but the only one that went wrong.


Totally agree, Was Robins job threatened? Was there undo pressure put on him? If so why did he leave and still not just stay put?



> I don't even know if the CG is going to investigate that, but even if they don't do it, I will continue to have the opinion that will be important to understand the origins of this accident, meaning why Bounty's Captain had chose to do what he has done


I understand They will investigate this


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Wow, did my jury example fly over everyone's head. I wasn't referencing the disgestion of facts or whether a jury find the correct verdict.
> 
> I was specifically referencing the method in which we brought it to an end. You guys are all provoking Juror #3 and begging for the conversation to continue. So be it. You missed it.


Minnie we got it. We are Sailnetters we didnt necessarily agree


----------



## chef2sail

casey1999 said:


> These men used every bit and piece of knowledge (weather prediction) and storm tactics that they knew or could get their hands on in order to sail their ships in the safest manner of their time. This cannot be said of how Bounty was sailed.


You dont know that. What kind of info did Colombus or Shakleton get, Hillary get. How about those guys who race those vessels sailing around the world in the Roaring Fourties around Cape Horn with 40 ft seas////are they reckless. Do they stop when the conditions get worst and think about killing the rest of the crew? Hell no the put the pedal to the metal. They stop for nothing.

Dont tell me those boats are really made to stand the weather they encounter. They are Carbon fiber/ Kevlar flyers

dave


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Minnie we got it. We are Sailnetters we didnt necessarily agree


I'm in for as long as the ride lasts then. Seems like the calls to end the thread have been the only thing that stopped.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> [Again this is not a fact that is wasnt seaworthy. You keep beating this drum, but this has not been proven,. Posting something you do not know to be true and pretending it is fact is dangerous. Someone might read it and mistake it for fact and actually beleive it. Just because you find a few posts from people who comment on it, you dont know this for sure. There are conflicting reports even from even the people who were on the boat. Until they are examined with challenging questions, the repair records, the maintainence records are examined BY PROFESSIONALS, which has not been done to date you can only claim this. It is not a fact and should NEVER be posted like it is.
> ...


So after all it seems that you have changed of opinion and don't agree with this anymore?

*"Nothing found will take away from Walbrifges responsibility. It will just maybe add other causitive factors to the events of the day or days...."*

And you think that a XVIII century designed wooden small ship, whatever the condition, could sail safely an Hurricane?

How!!!! you should talk or listen to the ones that know and sail tall ships, I mean captains, designers, mates. Even if their Ships are more seaworthy, with a design advance of almost 200 years and made of steel, they would not dream of sailing an hurricane.

Even with a real crew, a XVIII century captain would have tried to evade a Hurricane.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> I'm in for as long as the ride lasts then. Seems like the calls to end the thread have been the only thing that stopped.


Yep me too. I tried a few times to. To no avail. People see it as censoring opinions I think.

Oh well. I will have to keep defending


----------



## Minnewaska

Ok, here is how I see the half time report going.........

Critics of the Captain and Bounty have found and posted several first hand accounts of the voyage and condition of the ship, letters from professional members of the Tall Ship Community, media interviews, official Bounty web pages, tracking of the boat's path, etc, and have found the preponderance of this evidence to be convincing of some level of wrong doing and criticism.

Supporters of the Captain dispute the validity or applicability of all of the above mentioned references and have offered no contradicting evidence of their own.


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> It seems you have seen the movies I have posted
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Could you provide a link, I could not find, Thanks


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> You dont know that. What kind of info did Colombus or Shakleton get, Hillary get. How about those guys who race those vessels sailing around the world in the Roaring Fourties around Cape Horn with 40 ft seas////are they reckless. Do they stop when the conditions get worst and think about killing the rest of the crew? Hell no the put the pedal to the metal. They stop for nothing.
> 
> Dont tell me those boats are really made to stand the weather they encounter. They are Carbon fiber/ Kevlar flyers
> 
> dave


Even Open 60, that are massively seaworthy boats evade really bad weather when they think their safety is at risk. Last edition of vendee globe some that have find ahead really bad weather have taken shelter behind land before the worse of the storm passed them. And if I remember well it was not an Hurricane but 60K winds.

And what has Colombus to do with it? At that time do you know what was the average rate of success from a voyage from Lisbon to Goa and back? Do you think those safety parameters are adequate today? Do you think that if they had available weather information, like Bounty did, they would sail to nasty weather instead of waiting it to go away?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> So after all it seems that you have changed of opinion and don't agree with this anymore?
> 
> *"Nothing found will take away from Walbrifges responsibility. It will just maybe add other causitive factors to the events of the day or days...."*
> 
> Paulo


I still agree with the opinion that he shouldnt have left. That he had that responsibility. He made the call. Even if the company put pressure on him he had alternatives. I dont know what he was thinking and never will. My opinion is he will be held responsible for leaving the dock.

However I have said their were other factors which caused this also which may play into this. That maybe this ship would have sunk had not other things happened. He made it most of the way except he got pinned at Hatteras the graveyard of the Atlantic.

I await as more fact become available, but my standards for facts may differ from others so I still reserve my final judgement until some things have been investigated more thoroughly. This ship was in heavy weather before it appears...so why this time?

I still beleive I have always said that there are other things responsible for this tragedy.

We have actually agreed more than you think all along. I just refuse to call things facts which arent challenged and vetted. I also may have tried lkess to come up with conclusions or judgements yet. Most of where we have duisagreed has been about that. Challanging you facts and judgements.

I am still willing to keep learning as I have in this thread about something I never gave much thought to before. And you have done a lot of research and brought a lot of different angles into it for which I thank you. I just dont always agree with the conclusions.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> You dont know that. What kind of info did Colombus or Shakleton get, Hillary get. How about those guys who race those vessels sailing around the world in the Roaring Fourties around Cape Horn with 40 ft seas////are they reckless. Do they stop when the conditions get worst and think about killing the rest of the crew? Hell no the put the pedal to the metal. They stop for nothing.
> 
> Dont tell me those boats are really made to stand the weather they encounter. They are Carbon fiber/ Kevlar flyers
> 
> dave


I am not quite sure how these men sailed there ships. But like I said, they would use whatever knowledge they had at the time. I am sure once they learned about the season of hurricanes, they would do they best they could to avoid sailing in that season. These ships followed the trade wind route for good reason, once they learned the routes. They would keep an eye on the sky and wave height and direction- from these they could make educated guess as to what was over the horizon. These men did not have satelite forecast, nor radio comms (as Bounty had), but they made the best use of what they had. Sometimes they could not avoid a storm, and would loose a ship, but they would never knowingly sail into a hurricane.

Bringing up sailboat racing into this is a whole nother topic, let's not go into that here as that would be thread drift, maybe start another thread for that.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Ok, here is how I see the half time report going.........
> 
> Critics of the Captain and Bounty have found and posted several first hand accounts of the voyage and condition of the ship, letters from professional members of the Tall Ship Community, media interviews, official Bounty web pages, tracking of the boat's path, etc, and have found the preponderance of this evidence to be convincing of some level of wrong doing and criticism.
> 
> Supporters of the Captain dispute the validity or applicability of all of the above mentioned references and have offered no contradicting evidence of their own.


Spoken like a true member of the critic brigade

I dont think you can call us supporters of the Captain. We just want a fair shake here and no rush to judgement. I think I and others see orselves more as not willing to rush to Judgement.

Those in this flotilla are waiting for true facts to come out with regards to inspections, maintainence records, condition and tolerances of the ship, experience of the crew, conditions of the seas the whole , a chronological timetable of events, questioning of the first hand particpants vs TV interviews or posts, roles of the crew the days she was sailingquestioning of the companies role on leaving and the true past sailing hisories of the Captain and the ship with regards to heavy weather/ hurricanes to name a few.

I would say we the the fact checkers as opposed to


> offering no contradicting evidence of their own


. The facts may do that when the investigation commences.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I am not quite sure how these men sailed there ships. But like I said, they would use whatever knowledge they had at the time. I am sure once they learned about the season of hurricanes, they would do they best they could to avoid sailing in that season. These ships followed the trade wind route for good reason, once they learned the routes. They would keep an eye on the sky and wave height and direction- from these they could make educated guess as to what was over the horizon. These men did not have satelite forecast, nor radio comms (as Bounty had), but they made the best use of what they had. Sometimes they could not avoid a storm, and would loose a ship, but they would never knowingly sail into a hurricane.
> 
> Bringing up sailboat racing into this is a whole nother topic, let's not go into that here as that would be thread drift, maybe start another thread for that.


The boats used to find new routes and explore were Caravelas. That was mostly done by Portuguese and some Genovese that worked with Portugal. Even Colombo learned in Portugal and was married with a Portuguese. Magalhães that discovered the way to go to Spain trough the Pacific Ocean was also a Portuguese working for Spain.

Caravelas where the best upwind boats of that time.






After the map of winds was discovered those boats were substituted by ships that were made to sail mostly downwind. to give you an idea of the size of those babies take into consideration that the Bounty had a displacement of about 500T, those babies, the called Manila Galleons, on the XVI century averaged between 1600 to 2000 tons. They had full knowledge of the Hurricane season and sailed out of it even if several big vessels were sunk by hurricanes out of season.

Manila galleon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

chef2sail said:


> Spoken like a true member of the critic brigade
> 
> I dont think you can call us supporters of the Captain. We just want a fair shake here and no rush to judgement. I think I and others see orselves more as not willing to rush to Judgement.
> 
> Those in this flotilla are waiting for true facts to come out with regards to inspections, maintainence records, condition and tolerances of the ship, experience of the crew, conditions of the seas the whole , a chronological timetable of events, questioning of the first hand particpants vs TV interviews or posts, roles of the crew the days she was sailingquestioning of the companies role on leaving and the true past sailing hisories of the Captain and the ship with regards to heavy weather/ hurricanes to name a few.
> 
> I would say we the the fact checkers as opposed to . The facts may do that when the investigation commences.


Agree 100 percent. Minnie's summary is grossly unfair to those of us who merely want to wait to hear more real facts. I do not understand why he feels the need to belittle and mock that position.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> No matter what, the Captain was responsible for having sailed out of port in a ship that was not seaworthy
> 
> 
> 
> Again this is not a fact that is wasnt seaworthy. You keep beating this drum, but this has not been proven,. Posting something you do not know to be true and pretending it is fact is dangerous. Someone might read it and mistake it for fact and actually beleive it. Just because you find a few posts from people who comment on it, you dont know this for sure. There are conflicting reports even from even the people who were on the boat. Until they are examined with challenging questions, the repair records, the maintainence records are examined BY PROFESSIONALS, which has not been done to date you can only claim this. It is not a fact and should NEVER be posted like it is.
Click to expand...

Probably just me, but I view the notion of "seaworthiness" as more of a relative term in most cases, rather than something that can be established as an empirical "fact"... We see repeatedly here, how miserably most attempts to classify or define what makes a "Bluewater" boat wind up failing, for example... I'd suggest any attempt to "prove" whether the BOUNTY was "seaworthy", or not, would entail similar difficulties...

Only thing I can assert with any certainty, at this point - just my opinion, of course...

After seeing some of the various photos posted of the engine/generator/machinery spaces, and viewing the YouTube of the BOUNTY lying ahull in what appeared to be near-gale conditions at most, well... that wallowing pig was most certainly not a vessel I would care to be aboard, anywhere in the remotest vicinity of a major hurricane... And, she certainly was not "worthy" of being placed in a position between such a storm, and Cape Hatteras...


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> Agree 100 percent. Minnie's summary is grossly unfair to those of us who merely want to wait to hear more real facts. I do not understand why he feels the need to belittle and mock that position.


I think its just his sacasm at play. When it comes down to it he is respectful and listens and has generally good arguments and also he is is the critic flotilla so you dont expect he will agree with what I wrote do you????


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Probably just me, but I view the notion of "seaworthiness" as more of a relative term in most cases, rather than something that can be established as an empirical "fact"... We see repeatedly here, how miserably most attempts to classify or define what makes a "Bluewater" boat wind up failing, for example... I'd suggest any attempt to "prove" whether the BOUNTY was "seaworthy", or not, would entail similar difficulties...
> 
> Only thing I can assert with any certainty, at this point - just my opinion, of course...
> 
> After seeing some of the various photos posted of the engine/generator/machinery spaces, and viewing the YouTube of the BOUNTY lying ahull in what appeared to be near-gale conditions at most, well... that wallowing pig was most certainly not a vessel I would care to be aboard, anywhere in the remotest vicinity of a major hurricane... And, she certainly was not "worthy" of being placed in a position between such a storm, and Cape Hatteras...


Fact is the chief had made that quote seam meaningless, I am sure it was not intentional. He quoted me: *"No matter what, the Captain was responsible for having sailed out of port in a ship that was not seaworthy"* and forget : * to sail near a HURRICANE*

Even so he seems to have doubts about that



chef2sail said:


> *quote=PCP;963703].....
> No matter what, the Captain was responsible for having sailed out of port in a ship that was not seaworthy
> *
> 
> Again this is not a fact that is wasnt seaworthy. You keep beating this drum, but this has not been proven,. Posting something you do not know to be true and pretending it is fact is dangerous. ..


the full quote:



PCP said:


> .....
> No matter what, the Captain was responsible for having sailed out of port in a ship that was not seaworthy to sail near an hurricane; he was responsible for instead of running from the Hurricane or going to one of the possible good ports available; he was responsible to chose to sail a Hurricane.
> 
> These are errors that had tragic consequences, errors that a professional captain should not have made under any circumstances. These were no mistakes, this were gross errors. You have already basically agreed with this.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

JonEisberg said:


> Probably just me, but I view the notion of "seaworthiness" as more of a relative term in most cases, rather than something that can be established as an empirical "fact"... We see repeatedly here, how miserably most attempts to classify or define what makes a "Bluewater" boat wind up failing, for example... I'd suggest any attempt to "prove" whether the BOUNTY was "seaworthy", or not, would entail similar difficulties...


 I am wondering if their are tolerances though. Stability factors. It was questioned before that the ballast was lightened and placed in a shoe. How doid this affect the relative motion of the boat. Somewhere in this thread
a expert who designed tall ships posted about the stability of the Bounty. Was it up to snuff? I think thats one of the Seaworthy factors I am talking about.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

casey1999 said:


> I have asked many times what are the sailing options and techniques of this ship in a serious storm. No one has provided a response. Not even the Bounty crew member who posted on this thread a while back. From what I gather, the only technique used by bounty in a storm was furl all the sails and start the engines. That is not historically what these ships did in storms.


Sorry, I might have missed your questions among the other posts.

I don't know what Bounty would typically sail with in bad weather, but in the past on other vessels, we have set fore and main staysails (usually "storm sail" sized) and the occasional spanker or reefed mainsail. On my first ship, when the captain decided the weather was harsh enough to take in our lighter sails, we set the main staysail, and pretty much "flew" under these smaller sails and otherwise bare poles.. I think we reached 11 knots, compared to our usual 5-6 knots. A former crewmember on Pride of Baltimore II told me they had storm trysails to set in place of the foresail or mainsail.


----------



## chef2sail

sparklepl3nty said:


> Sorry, I might have missed your questions among the other posts.
> 
> I don't know what Bounty would typically sail with in bad weather, but in the past on other vessels, we have set fore and main staysails (usually "storm sail" sized) and the occasional spanker or reefed mainsail. On my first ship, when the captain decided the weather was harsh enough to take in our lighter sails, we set the main staysail, and pretty much "flew" under these smaller sails and otherwise bare poles.. I think we reached 11 knots, compared to our usual 5-6 knots. A former crewmember on Pride of Baltimore II told me they had storm trysails to set in place of the foresail or mainsail.


Sparkle..Glad to see you back

did you have a threshold of wind speed/ sea height you would not travel in? I know this is hard to define as it could also be directional also and of course doesnt take into account what you may encounter in the course of passage making.

What are the two largest wind speeds and sea states you have sailing in on a Class A Tall Ship. Which one was it?

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> The boats used to find new routes and explore were Caravelas. That was mostly done by Portuguese and some Genovese that worked with Portugal. Even Colombo learned in Portugal and was married with a Portuguese. Magalhães that discovered the way to go to Spain trough the Pacific Ocean was also a Portuguese working for Spain.
> 
> Caravelas where the best upwind boats of that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the map of winds was discovered those boats were substituted by ships that were made to sail mostly downwind. to give you an idea of the size of those babies take into consideration that the Bounty had a displacement of about 500T, those babies, the called Manila Galleons, on the XVI century averaged between 1600 to 2000 tons. They had full knowledge of the Hurricane season and sailed out of it even if several big vessels were sunk by hurricanes out of season.
> 
> Manila galleon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo





> The Niña, like the Pinta and Santa María, was a smaller trade ship built to sail the Mediterranean sea, not the open ocean


Pinta was a caravel built in Spain,,,deck 56 ft weighed approx 60 tons
Nina was a caravel built in Spain,,,deck 50 ft weighed approx 60 tons
Santa Maria was a Nao (carack) built in Spain ocean going deck 25 feet 
weighed approx 100 tons

Bounty was a Collier built in Britian ocean going..deck length 90 wieghed 
approx 215 tons
New Bounty built Nova Scotia....ocean going...deck length 120 weighed
approx 410 tons


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> Sparkle..Glad to see you back
> 
> did you have a threshold of wind speed/ sea height you would not travel in? I know this is hard to define as it could also be directional also and of course doesnt take into account what you may encounter in the course of passage making.
> 
> What are the two largest wind speeds and sea states you have sailing in on a Class A Tall Ship. Which one was it?
> 
> Dave


I've had a busy weekend 

Phew.. this one's gonna be a toughy, mostly because of memory.
Making the decision to sail depends on decisions by the captain and mate, as well as the reasons for sailing, and takes into account the type of vessel.

One of the biggest seas in memory was several years ago en route from British Columbia to San Francisco on a 151' steel brigantine. If I recall correctly, they were about 15' feet rollers with some breakers, and 40-50 knots of wind. I think the weather lasted a little over a day, and our boat loved it. If I recall correctly, we we set our fore and main staysails, and our mainsail was undersized, so we reefed it and set that. Honestly, I felt really safe on that boat during this weather. She sailed well with a following sea, and seemed to just ride over most of the waves.

My first ship like I mentioned earlier was a 112' wooden brig, and way more like a washing machine than anything else.. I think that time she was making 11 knots was in 30 knots of wind, and waves high enough to break over the chest high caprail.. so perhaps 10 feet?

Another boat I sailed on was a 106' steel ketch with squares on her mainmast and a very shallow draft of 3'.. she was AWFUL against any head seas or winds, and felt like riding an ATV in any kind of chop. I remember a trip heading north from Morro Bay to San Fran, and all but myself, the cook, and the captain seasick.

The most squall-y sailing has been in the South Pacific with a 140' steel gaff-rigged ketch (converted from a 1950s fishing boat). I don't remember the windspeed of it, but a squall we encountered not only shredded our staysail (which was the only thing we had set), but bent our 5" diameter steel bowsprit to one side. She was great for the most part to sail in, but when she was fully loaded (used as a cargo sailing boat) to her plimsoll line, she was very roll-y and sluggish.

Other ships less than 100' have been schooners, and most of those have been dependent on passengers, so the weather would certainly be taken into consideration. As mate on a 60' steel schooner, I would often make the call with the captain whether or not we would take passengers out. Though the schooner has been in much heavier weather, usually we would decide against sailing in anything higher than 20 knots, simply because it's not a comfortable (or dry) ride for passengers. On the other hand, with just crew we raced down the Chesapeake Bay on a 104' wood schooner in 25-35 knot gusty winds with both headsails, foresail, and a reefed mainsail, and had a great, if slightly nervous, trip in less than 18 hours.

As for stuff I don't like to sail in, it really depends on the boat. The windage of Bounty, due to her higher bulwarks and freeboard, would respond much stronger and list more heavily than most schooners of similar "Class A" size (if no sails are set, of course). Also, the shape of hulls will also determine how a boat fairs in conditions. There's no real answer other than being familiar with a boat, being aware of any "issues" with it, and trusting that vessel will get you home.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Pinta was a caravel built in Spain,,,deck 56 ft weighed approx 60 tons
> Nina was a caravel built in Spain,,,deck 50 ft weighed approx 60 tons
> Santa Maria was a Nao (carack) built in Spain ocean going deck 25 feet
> weighed approx 100 tons
> 
> Bounty was a Collier built in Britian ocean going..deck length 90 wieghed
> approx 215 tons
> New Bounty built Nova Scotia....ocean going...deck length 120 weighed
> approx 410 tons


Of course, all those ships were Ocean going vessels and still are even if the difference to modern boats is huge. That does not mean that any of them is seaworthy sailing an Hurricane.

None of them, not even much bigger and more modern wooden Tall Ships would be seaworthy in an Hurricane. Many in their day were sunk by smaller storms than an hurricane and no Captain of those ships would even think in sailing an Hurricane if they new that it was out there waiting for them. They would all try to evade it, staying in port or running away from it. That is basic good seamanship.

For being seaworthy in an hurricane I mean a ship that can handle a hurricane at sea with a good safety margin, not one that can eventually get away with it if luck plays a big role in it.

Even today there are not many type of ships that can sail a hurricane. The huge majority when goes out of port not to be damaged there by it does so to run away from the hurricane not to sail it. They can do it because they have the speed to out run a Hurricane.

That was not the case of Bounty that did not try to run away from an Hurricane, but tried to sail it out. Bounty had not also the the speed needed to run away safely from an Hurricane.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> Agree 100 percent. Minnie's summary is grossly unfair to those of us who merely want to wait to hear more real facts. I do not understand why he feels the need to belittle and mock that position.


Well gee, TF. No intent to belittle and mock. Sorry.

I am trying to make the point that it is convenient to dismiss everything until some government authority tells you what they think.

There was a hit and run accident near my home last year. The guy that ran turned himself in the next day. All that saw him the night before at the bar, knew he was drunk, including his friends. It seems clear that he ran to avoid a DUI conviction. The victim was hurt, but not killed. He ultimately settled a lesser charge below fleeing the scene, but the authorities were not able to conclude, without a breathalizer or blood test, that he was actually drunk.

Official investigations are restrained. They do not include all the facts. That young ladies family knows this very well.

Personally, I dismiss the idea that these authorities are always right, or will even bother vetting half the things we are discussing.


----------



## PCP

sparklepl3nty said:


> I've had a busy weekend
> 
> Phew.. this one's gonna be a toughy, mostly because of memory.
> Making the decision to sail depends on decisions by the captain and mate, as well as the reasons for sailing, and takes into account the type of vessel.
> 
> One of the biggest seas in memory was several years ago en route from British Columbia to San Francisco on a 151' steel brigantine. If I recall correctly, they were about 15' feet rollers with some breakers, and 40-50 knots of wind. I think the weather lasted a little over a day, and our boat loved it. If I recall correctly, we we set our fore and main staysails, and our mainsail was undersized, so we reefed it and set that. Honestly, I felt really safe on that boat during this weather. She sailed well with a following sea, and seemed to just ride over most of the waves.
> 
> My first ship like I mentioned earlier was a 112' wooden brig, and way more like a washing machine than anything else.. I think that time she was making 11 knots was in 30 knots of wind, and waves high enough to break over the chest high caprail.. so perhaps 10 feet?
> 
> Another boat I sailed on was a 106' steel ketch with squares on her mainmast and a very shallow draft of 3'.. she was AWFUL against any head seas or winds, and felt like riding an ATV in any kind of chop. I remember a trip heading north from Morro Bay to San Fran, and all but myself, the cook, and the captain seasick.
> 
> The most squall-y sailing has been in the South Pacific with a 140' steel gaff-rigged ketch (converted from a 1950s fishing boat). I don't remember the windspeed of it, but a squall we encountered not only shredded our staysail (which was the only thing we had set), but bent our 5" diameter steel bowsprit to one side. She was great for the most part to sail in, but when she was fully loaded (used as a cargo sailing boat) to her plimsoll line, she was very roll-y and sluggish.
> 
> Other ships less than 100' have been schooners, and most of those have been dependent on passengers, so the weather would certainly be taken into consideration. As mate on a 60' steel schooner, I would often make the call with the captain whether or not we would take passengers out. Though the schooner has been in much heavier weather, usually we would decide against sailing in anything higher than 20 knots, simply because it's not a comfortable (or dry) ride for passengers. On the other hand, with just crew we raced down the Chesapeake Bay on a 104' wood schooner in 25-35 knot gusty winds with both headsails, foresail, and a reefed mainsail, and had a great, if slightly nervous, trip in less than 18 hours.
> 
> As for stuff I don't like to sail in, it really depends on the boat. The windage of Bounty, due to her higher bulwarks and freeboard, would respond much stronger and list more heavily than most schooners of similar "Class A" size (if no sails are set, of course). Also, the shape of hulls will also determine how a boat fairs in conditions. There's no real answer other than being familiar with a boat, being aware of any "issues" with it, and trusting that vessel will get you home.


The point that Chef wants to know and that is in discussion here is:

Do you think any of those ships you are talking about could sail with an adequate safety margin an Hurricane like Sandy?

Do you think that any of the Captains of those boats would have tried to sail an Hurricane like Sandy if they had the option to stay in Port or look for shelter in a nearby Port?

By the way, I have posted some great videos of Tall Ships in bad weather here. Have a look, I guess you are going to enjoy:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats-352.html

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Well gee, TF. No intent to belittle and mock. Sorry.
> 
> Official investigations are restrained. They do not include all the facts. That young ladies family knows this very well.
> 
> Personally, I dismiss the idea that these authorities are always right, or will even bother vetting half the things we are discussing.


Be that as it may, whos investigation would have a larger probability of establishing true facts,,,,,the Sail Net/ gCaptain one or the Coast Gaurds?


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Of course, all those ships were Ocean going vessels and still are even if the difference to modern boats is huge. That does not mean that any of them is seaworthy sailing an Hurricane.
> 
> None of them, not even much bigger and more modern wooden Tall Ships would be seaworthy in an Hurricane. Many in their day were sunk by smaller storms than an hurricane and no Captain of those ships would even think in sailing an Hurricane if they new that it was out there waiting for them. They would all try to evade it, staying in port or running away from it. That is basic good seamanship.
> 
> For being seaworthy in an hurricane I mean a ship that can handle a hurricane at sea with a good safety margin, not one that can eventually get away with it if luck plays a big role in it.
> 
> Even today there are not many type of ships that can sail a hurricane. The huge majority when goes out of port not to be damaged there by it does so to run away from the hurricane not to sail it. They can do it because they have the speed to out run a Hurricane.
> 
> That was not the case of Bounty that did not try to run away from an Hurricane, but tried to sail it out. Bounty had not also the the speed needed to run away safely from an Hurricane.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


My point in posting the sizes of the ships was this. Times have changed how we perceive danger and responsibility of the sea.

The ships the explorers and early colonists to the Americas were far smaller, much more fragile, no electric pumps or advanced building techniques, yet these poeple left for the Americas knowing they would face some heavy weather. I knew they sailed the trades back or the Westerlies over, but somewhere along the way they faced storms of simnliar force as a Sandy ( maybe not size)

We all beleive they were very brave people to have done what they did. Get in these smaller ships Overload the ship with animals, provisions and sail off to the west not really knowing the weather. Brave very brave.

Obviously what we call a good safety margin has changed.

By todays standards we would call these peoiple reckless...want the Captains if they survived held for manslaughter and sue the corporations

Times have changed.

Must be the lawyers


----------



## Faster

chef2sail said:


> ......
> 
> We all beleive they were very brave people to have done what they did. Get in these smaller ships Overload the ship with animals, provisions and sail off to the west not really knowing the weather. Brave very brave.
> 
> ........
> Times have changed.
> 
> ......


Indeed times have changed.

Not only didn't they 'know' what weather was on the way, they didn't even really know that there was anything over the horizon.. I'm not sure all the crews had a lot of choice about where they were going but the expeditions' sponsors and the Captains had a pretty powerful motive of possible fame and fortune if things went well.

It wasn't just the 'brave explorers' either...

The story of the Hector (brief wiki recap here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(ship)

Imagine being a poor, desperate Scottish farmer looking for a better life.. near 200 souls crammed aboard in tiered platforms with 4 feet headroom in the dark below.. they ran into a storm that drove them 3/4 of the way back to Scotland. The Captain persevered and got them to Nova Scotia (he wouldn't have been paid otherwise!)

This sort of story was common, of course, as Europeans flocked to the 'new worlds'....

Sorry for the drift...


----------



## chef2sail

Faster said:


> Indeed times have changed.
> 
> Not only didn't they 'know' what weather was on the way, they didn't even really know that there was anything over the horizon.. I'm not sure all the crews had a lot of choice about where they were going but the expeditions' sponsors and the Captains had a pretty powerful motive of possible fame and fortune if things went well.
> 
> It wasn't just the 'brave explorers' either...
> 
> The story of the Hector (brief wiki recap here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(ship)
> 
> Imagine being a poor, desperate Scottish farmer looking for a better life.. near 200 souls crammed aboard in tiered platforms with 4 feet headroom in the dark below.. they ran into a storm that drove them 3/4 of the way back to Scotland. The Captain persevered and got them to Nova Scotia (he wouldn't have been paid otherwise!)
> 
> This sort of story was common, of course, as Europeans flocked to the 'new worlds'....
> 
> Sorry for the drift...


Drift...in this thread....ha ha. Good post.


----------



## casey1999

sparklepl3nty said:


> Sorry, I might have missed your questions among the other posts.
> 
> I don't know what Bounty would typically sail with in bad weather, but in the past on other vessels, we have set fore and main staysails (usually "storm sail" sized) and the occasional spanker or reefed mainsail. On my first ship, when the captain decided the weather was harsh enough to take in our lighter sails, we set the main staysail, and pretty much "flew" under these smaller sails and otherwise bare poles.. I think we reached 11 knots, compared to our usual 5-6 knots. A former crewmember on Pride of Baltimore II told me they had storm trysails to set in place of the foresail or mainsail.


Sparklepl,
Thanks for coming back and post. Sounds like you have had a lot of experience. My question is with Bounty, say in winds above 60 knots, what would you think would be the best tactic? In your other post you speak of wind strength, but nothing greater than 50 knots.
Regards


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> My point in posting the sizes of the ships was this. Times have changed how we perceive danger and responsibility of the sea.
> 
> The ships the explorers and early colonists to the Americas were far smaller, much more fragile, no electric pumps or advanced building techniques, yet these poeple left for the Americas knowing they would face some heavy weather. I knew they sailed the trades back or the Westerlies over, but somewhere along the way they faced storms of simnliar force as a Sandy ( maybe not size)
> 
> We all beleive they were very brave people to have done what they did. Get in these smaller ships Overload the ship with animals, provisions and sail off to the west not really knowing the weather. Brave very brave.
> 
> Obviously what we call a good safety margin has changed.
> 
> By todays standards we would call these peoiple reckless...want the Captains if they survived held for manslaughter and sue the corporations
> 
> Times have changed.
> 
> Must be the lawyers


Chef,
What we do now with sail boats in 100 years will probably be considered reckless. We still cannot predict hurricanes very well. We sail in boats that the hulls can easily be holed and sunk fast. We depend on stainless steel to hold up our mast, in which we depend to claw off a lee shore in storm conditions.

I would be curious to know what the probablilities were to successfully cross the Atlantic say back in 1700.


----------



## nolatom

Minnewaska said:


> I'm in for as long as the ride lasts then. Seems like the calls to end the thread have been the only thing that stopped.


Too much breeze. I reefed and went back into port.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Be that as it may, whos investigation would have a larger probability of establishing true facts,,,,,the Sail Net/ gCaptain one or the Coast Gaurds?


The answer is clear to me. It will be the sum collection of the above, sorted out for inconsistencies.


----------



## Minnewaska

nolatom said:


> Too much breeze. I reefed and went back into port.


Best line of the thread.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

PCP said:


> The point that Chef wants to know and that is in discussion here is:
> 
> Do you think any of those ships you are talking about could sail with an adequate safety margin an Hurricane like Sandy?
> 
> Do you think that any of the Captains of those boats would have tried to sail an Hurricane like Sandy if they had the option to stay in Port or look for shelter in a nearby Port?


This is easy.

No, no, and no.

An adequate safety margin? I don't believe that there is any such thing. Do I think that certain vessels may be more "prepared" or "seaworthy" to handle battling with a storm? Yes. Do I think that Murphy's Law could overtake them? Absolutely. To suggest otherwise would be idiotic and yes, ego talking. Even with a well-trained, best of the best crew, things can happen.

Would any of those Captains try to sail through or around Sandy? Absolutely not. Wonder how I know? Every single one of them stayed in port.

There was no reason to leave. As I said many, many posts ago, Picton Castle was planning on leaving Nova Scotia for a circumnavigation several days before Bounty left CT. Her captain prudently stayed in port until a few days into November in order to keep his crew, ship, and passengers safe. By the way, PC is a 179' steel bark, captained by a man who is in the same ranks as Captain Miles, and has completed five circumnavigations. EDIT: Captain Moreland of PC, has completed five circumnavigations with Picton Castle. According to his bio on the PC's website, he also owns an Unlimited Masters License.

Similar size, very different approach.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> And remember, the Bounty was not a XVIII century designed wooden ship. Do not give it that much credit. It was a ship designed to be a movie prop and hold "movie crew" (as opposed to sailing crew) and movie equipment, and be burned at the end of movie filming. It had little or no basis of design on proven historical ships.(snippage)


Casey, you have said this more than once, and it's not getting any truer by repeating it. The above statement is just not accurate.



casey1999 said:


> From what I gather, the only technique used by bounty in a storm was furl all the sails and start the engines. That is not historically what these ships did in storms.


I've seen at least one video of the Bounty in fairly big seas. While I wouldn't want to estimate how heavy those seas were, nor the wind speed, the video was nevertheless fairly impressive. The Bounty was flying the equivalent of a storm jib in the video. Other posters have mentioned a video of the Bounty hove to, but I haven't seen it myself. I believe thos would be two appropriate examples of storm tactics that haven't changed since the original Bounty sailed? Not arguing the point, would like to know what other storm tactics would have been employed 250 years ago.


----------



## PCP

Faster said:


> Indeed times have changed.
> 
> ...Captains had a pretty powerful motive of possible fame and fortune if things went well.
> 
> It wasn't just the 'brave explorers' either...
> 
> ...


Welcome to the thread. Drifting is what we do best on this thread

Drifting away, you cannot imagine the amount of information about the motives to sail in difficult conditions and against bad odds the Portuguese culture has in its long memory. By tradition and by taste the Portuguese always had that need to "sail away" looking for a better future. One world famous Portuguese Poet resumed the situation saying about us: "A little peace of land to born, the world to die"

Even today half of the Portuguese (including direct descendants) are somewhere in the world out of Portugal and it is difficult to find any country in the world without Portuguese. That is truly amazing since in Portugal the population is about half of the one of on the New York City Metropolitan Area.

Of course today they don't sail away and travel has everybody by airplane but it was never fame that move them. Mostly money mixed with an adventurous soul.

Some facts that put that risk of sailing in those days in perspective: for many years the mirage of wealth was India. A considerable proportion of ones that sailed there (XVI and XVII centuries) and managed to return, returned very prosperous, some rich, so there was never a shortage of crews and voluntaries for the ships.

*The chances for them to return at all, rich or poor, were of about 50%.*

The same poet says: "Salty sea, how much of your salt are Portuguese tears?"

Regarding Captains and fame let me tell you that we know very badly who were the great mariners of that time and they are not the ones that took the fame.

Vasco Da Gama or Pedro Alvares Cabral, the ones that discovered the way to India and Brazil were not mariners at all but Soldiers charged by the king to bring the mission to good success. They were mostly the guys that pointed a charged gun to a power cask when the crew (probably with good reason) was too afraid to go on and wanted to return. Or took care of the situation when they faced hostile forces, that were many.

The true mariners where what they called the pilots that were also the ones that had made before them all the reconnaissance work that made those voyage possible (and charted the winds).

We don't really know much about them just because the discovery of the world was not to achieve fame but richness. It is more than probable that Bartolomeu Dias, probably the best sailor in the XVI century had been before in Brazil (he was the Pedro Alvares Cabral pilot) but that was a hot political issue at that time and discoveries were a state secret and Portuguese were pretty good at keeping secrets.

Most of what we know is not from Portuguese sources (they were destroyed) but by the information that was collected by spies and used to made charts with Portuguese information.

At that time the Turkish empire were Portugal biggest enemy. Both the Turks and the Portuguese tried to dominate the Indian trade routes, so it is natural that the best map made with Portuguese information is just a Turk one (1512), made by a Turk Admiral, Hadji Muhammad (Piri Reis). He deserved a better luck: we has beheaded by Sultan's order after having lost a sea battle with the Portuguese.

He know only a fragment of that map.










Piri Reis Map of 1513.

THE MYSTERIES OF THE PIRI REIS MAP - 1

On that map there are a lot of land that was not supposedly been discovered yet and that made the lovers of para-normal to attribute those knowledge to ancient lost civilizations.

The map that was made also with information from a Colobus sailor and older sources is the first one that have reached our days that show North America and South America on the same map. Regarding South America, it is detailed since rio de la Plata, and include detailed information with Greenland and surprisingly what some says it is Antarctica, others Terra do Fogo.

That leads us to the question what was the great explorer that had done that? My bet is to one that had the bad luck of not having found nothing of value. I would bet on the almost unknown Gonçalo Álvares.

We know that Gonçalo Álvares and Americo Vespucci (working for the Portuguese) were exploring South America. Vespucci made public its discoveries so it had to be other explorer sailing in unknown waters and probably a Portuguese one.

In fact on the negotiations to the treaty of Tordesilhas, that divided the exploration of the world in two parts, the Portuguese made incomprehensible demands, regarding claiming a large portion of nothing, demanding the longitude separation line to be drawn several hundred miles further west.

Portugal got away with it and some few years later Portugal found, very casually, that empty space full of nothing was Brazil. We have no prove but it is strongly suspected that Brazil had been already discovered at the date of the treaty in 1496. It was officially discovered in 1500 but I strongly suspect that it was discovered by Bartolomeu Dias one of the true great navigators and the one that contributed decisively to the mapping of the trade winds.

Bartolomeu Dias is not a very famous name but I have no doubt that has the better sailor of his generation.

But the one that had been sailing more South was Gonçalo Álvares. We know that he found the Island that has his name and also know that was only a small part of his explorations. He had sailed South in the South Atlantic, presumably along the coast to places where the water and even the wine froze (of course they only sailed with wine). He was probably the one that explored those southern South American lands that are shown on the Piri Reis map before Magalhães had been there.

Gonçalo Álvares, whose exploits are not known was nominated chief-pilot of the navigation to India and the Ocean Sea until his death in 1524. That was his prize. He was just acknowledged as the best sailor of his time as Bartolomeu Dias was before, and of course that involved a high revenue.

Fame? not really, more money and a rise in the social rank, that obviously means also more money

The sad thing is that we know that he was the best but do not really know what he has done, only that he had sailed South to where the wine and water freezes and also that in 1505 he was already been promoted to the command of a big ship, the São Gabriel a nau that sailed on the Vasco da Gama fleet on the first voyage to India.

....

Here you have another one, Cristovão de Mendonça, the commander that explored part of the Australian coast and I even don't know if he was the one that actually had found it since he commanded a fleet to explore it and they would not send a fleet if they would not know that Australia was already there.

Wreckage of a Portuguese boat, a Portuguese cannon and now a map with the detailed description of part of the Australian coast leaves no doubts regarding the Portuguese having been there in the XVI century.

Map proves Portuguese discovered Australia: new book | Reuters

We know that in 1522 he was Captain of the Nau São Cristovão and commanded a expedition to explorer what was known as the Gold Island (probably Australia). In 1524 he made port in Cabo da Boa Esperança. In 1530 he was Captain of the Ormuz fortress. He died there in 1530.

We know that one of his daughters married with one of the main nobleman of the kingdom . On that time this could only mean that is value was greatly recognized and it was quite a prize for a small nobleman and a big upgrade in family ranking.

That exploration to Australia had to be maintained secret. Australia was on the part of the world the Pope had "given" to Spain. Never has been a big controversial issue with Spain because om that expedition they did not find any gold after all.

How about that as a thread drift?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> Casey, you have said this more than once, and it's not getting any truer by repeating it. The above statement is just not accurate.
> 
> I've seen at least one video of the Bounty in fairly big seas. While I wouldn't want to estimate how heavy those seas were, nor the wind speed, the video was nevertheless fairly impressive. The Bounty was flying the equivalent of a storm jib in the video. Other posters have mentioned a video of the Bounty hove to, but I haven't seen it myself. I believe thos would be two appropriate examples of storm tactics that haven't changed since the original Bounty sailed? Not arguing the point, would like to know what other storm tactics would have been employed 250 years ago.


Yes I think I posted the Bounty video a while back on this thread. Wind probably no more than 50 knots maybe much less. No where near hurricane strength. My understanding of Bounty, when the wind got really big, they went to engines, and as I understand from crew statements, she was only on engines during the worst of sandy.


----------



## casey1999

Brewgyver said:


> Casey, you have said this more than once, and it's not getting any truer by repeating it. The above statement is just not accurate.


Tell us more...


----------



## chef2sail

sparklepl3nty said:


> This is easy.
> 
> No, no, and no.
> 
> An adequate safety margin? I don't believe that there is any such thing. Do I think that certain vessels may be more "prepared" or "seaworthy" to handle battling with a storm? Yes. Do I think that Murphy's Law could overtake them? Absolutely. To suggest otherwise would be idiotic and yes, ego talking. Even with a well-trained, best of the best crew, things can happen.
> 
> Would any of those Captains try to sail through or around Sandy? Absolutely not. Wonder how I know? Every single one of them stayed in port.
> 
> There was no reason to leave [/B]


As I said many, many posts ago, Picton Castle was planning on leaving Nova Scotia for a circumnavigation several days before Bounty left CT. Her captain prudently stayed in port until a few days into November in order to keep his crew, ship, and passengers safe. By the way, PC is a 179' steel bark, captained by a man who is in the same ranks as Captain Miles, and has completed five circumnavigations. EDIT: Captain Moreland of PC, has completed five circumnavigations with Picton Castle. According to his bio on the PC's website, he also owns an Unlimited Masters License.

Similar size, very different approach.[/quote]



> *There was no reason to leave.*


To all of us that that seems to be a true statement. Corse we dont know if he was ordered by his owner so until that has been determined that is not a fact, but a strong assumption. I dont even want to reignite the discussion he should have stayed against his owners wishes. I am sure the CG investigation will bear that out.

Actually PCP interpretations of my questions were not quite what I was asking, but Sparkle your answers seem to be what I would expect. Thank you for confirming.

Spakrle I have a few more. 
None of these are meant to blame or exonerate the Capatin of the Bounty. Robin Walbridge, I fact these questionsare about TS culture in general

You seem to be a student of tall ship history so maybe you will be able to enlighten us on some of it.

The original Bounty and many of these ships were built during the age when we really had very little weather forecasting or prediction. That science was spearheaded hugely by the introduction of space satelllites in the mid 1960s.
So when these ships sailed originally in the 14th-mid 20th centuries they ran into severe weather. Obviously they either survived the weather or sunk. We extoll the coragousness of these men for setting out and being brave explorers and colonists of the Americas and their trade.

If judged by todays standards companies like the Dutch East India Trading Company were recklessly sending these men out in leaky boats ill equipped to handle these storms. None of them had engines, electric pumps etc.

Many of the tales told about by the seaman aboard these ships reflect that going to sea was an extremely dangerous occupation, and that for some of them a way of escaping opppression and / or their poor life in theoir countries as well as escaping religios persecution. Many paid with their lives, I am sure for what today we consider recklessness.

Why when we recreate this with many of the tall ships reinactments cruises (I have been on a number) is this not looked at this way. In fact the lifestyle of the tall ship crew has almost a mystique about it like its an Outward Bound Adventure. Somewhere in this giant thread of postings there was discussion of the crew of the Bounty and they were refered to as "cult followers" in regards to the Captain. I didnt beleive that, but maybe there is an element of truth to it.

You obviously love what you do and have fallen in love with the tall ships and their beauty, pureness and historical place in our lives.

Is it safer now? Assuming you feel it is what makes it safer?
Are there inherent risks in sailing centuries old designed ships?
Why do you think those Captains who sailed 300 years ago in those
rickety boats were not considered reckless and putting their crews in
danger when the cast off into the unknown.


----------



## chef2sail

Paulo..interesting story.

Never have heard the discovery and exploration of the New World from that point of view.

I knew Portugal was a seafaring nation and had made great expeditions to India and then the Far East

What about the Spanish? I knew they were led mainly by the thier soldiers. Also they were attempting to conquer, spread religion, and find wealth.

And the English?

Why didnt Portugal continue. Its seems in the 1500 the were passed quickly by the Spanish and the English in terms of amount of expeditions, maritime trading companies and especially colonization.

Maybe this should be a new thread?
Dave


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> .....Corse we dont know if he was ordered by his owner so until that has been determined that is not a fact, but a strong assumption.....


Are you saying you have a strong assumption that he was ordered by Bounty's owner to make this voyage?


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Are you saying you have a strong assumption that he was ordered by Bounty's owner to make this voyage?


Nope

Sparle said in his post that


> There was no reason to leave


I said.


> Corse we dont know if he was ordered by his owner so until that has been determined that is not a fact, but a strong assumption


.....

So Sparkels strong assumption was there was no reason to leave, which may be right if the owner didnt order Robin Walbridge to cast off the dock. We dont really know that yet right?

Wouldnt that put a real twist in this is if that happened?


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> ...So Sparkels strong assumption was there was no reason to leave, which may be right if the owner didnt order Robin Walbridge to cast off the dock. We dont really know that yet right?


That makes more sense. Boy, was I locked and loaded to take on the assumption he was ordered to leave. I wish you had....... 



> Wouldnt that put a real twist in this is if that happened?


Not much. This was a licensed Captain with passengers. Changes nothing, other than getting the owner sued.


----------



## chef2sail

Semantics...argh

I dont want to assume


> he had no reason to leave


.....I dont want to assume the owner forced him to leave either.

I dont want to assume anything here as it is so inexplicable to any of us why he left. I want to wait for the facts. I want someone to ask the owner...under oath...what he said to Walbridge,

You know the Bounty was up for sale...had been for a while. She was also due at some point for a festival in St Petersberg, Florida/ Lets see what the owner says...under oath.


----------



## chef2sail

Are they passangers...or are they paid crew.

And it does change things if he was ordered to depart. I am not saying it allieves him of any responsibility...it changes things mightily.

Minnie are you an ALPA member?


----------



## Minnewaska

The owner can testify that he cast a spell on the Capt and I don't see why it matters. It's like waiting to see what he had for breakfast. 

How is it relevant to any possible conclusion, beyond the owner being subject to liability?


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> ...Minnie are you an ALPA member?


Negative.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Nope
> 
> ...
> 
> So Sparkels strong assumption was there was no reason to leave, which may be right if the owner didnt order Robin Walbridge to cast off the dock. We dont really know that yet right?
> 
> Wouldnt that put a real twist in this is if that happened?


It was not the owner that said the Bounty would be safer facing an Hurricane at sea than in port, but the Captain himself.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

I really dont like the idea of speculating as thats what I spoke against.

I will present a scenario- *Disclaimer*:Everyone this is not real...I am not saying it happened as I dont knokw if it did so dont go War of the Worlds on me and start using it as fact.

The owner calls up Robin and say to him. get the Bounty out of there. There is a storm coming up the coast it may hit New London. I dont want it destroyed at the dock. Wallbridge says to him, I dont want to go. Owner says to Walbridge you go or Ill fire you and get someone to move the Bounty like I did before in Florida and I will make sure you never find work again in the Tall Ship Community. We are a small community and I can make that happen

Thats tough pressure.

I dont want to go to far with this speculation of statement here as it gets to be too much

I am sure you would expect Walbridge to stand up to him. I would, but he has no protection and thinks he will be able to save the ship, He cant tell others he is being forced to go as he will be blacklisted, but he gives them an out by telling them they dont have to sail if they dont want to. Something he under normal circumstances would do in a command situation as he knows its risky.

Maybe was too much for him to bear as the Bounty was his baby for 17 years the thought of someone else moving her away from the dock getting her wrecked.
Maybe to much for him to think about losing his job at his age and getting blacklisted 
Maybe he thought if anyone could save her ....he could

You know whats odd here...we have heard no one from the Bountys owner tell us, we told him not go, we questioned his decision about leaving. Maybe its because they didnt and cant claim that, You would think if they were trying to move themself away from liability here they would have issued at least that statement already. The fact that they havent may be because that statement would be a lie. The in fact pressured him to leave.

All this is mass speculation in my pea brain the other way just as I accused others of doing. hey I can do it too I just dont like saying it, I really dont want to do that. I did this on your asking Minnie and dont want to speculate.

I want to just wait until we have the facts...The inquirey...people under oath..


----------



## casey1999

My parents taught me something from an early age- the Capt was probably taught the same thing:

If someone tells you to jump off a bridge, will you do it?


----------



## Minnewaska

Chef, I get the point you are trying to make. However, even in your theoretical scenario where he was threatened with blacklisting, etc, I find it makes no difference whatsoever. When you are a paid, licensed professional with people under your care that are incapable of assessing risk (such as Claudine), you shouldn't have the stripes, if you can't deal with this exact scenario.


----------



## chef2sail

casey1999 said:


> My parents taught me something from an early age- the Capt was probably taught the same thing:
> 
> If someone tells you to jump off a bridge, will you do it?


So youve done everything in life your parents taught you....come on thats too simplistic and in a vacum


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Chef, I get the point you are trying to make. However, even in your theoretical scenario where he was threatened with blacklisting, etc, I find it makes no difference whatsoever. When you are a paid, licensed professional with people under your care that are incapable of assessing risk (such as Claudine), you shouldn't have the stripes, if you can't deal with this exact scenario.


Understand I am not saying this absolves him, doesnt make him not responsible., I already have stood by that as you all have.....Casey has already started swimming with the bait ,,,, I am saying it isnt as simple then until I hear that from the owner


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> So youve done everything in life your parents taught you....come on thats too simplistic and in a vacum


Not everything, but have not jumped off a bridge nor sailed into a hurricane.


----------



## chef2sail

What I cant understand also is that why many of you arent looking for the other people who are and may be responsibile here. 

Your focus on Walbridge and almost tunnel vison approach may be blinding you from focusing in on the other culprits here the owners

Its almost like a Law and Order Episode. Who said follow the money in a previous post. Thats a smart idea

Who stood the most to loose if the ship sank
Who stood the most to loose if the ship didnt get to St Pete
Who had the power to short cut the maintainence issues
Who had the power to spend more money and hire more experienced crew
Who has remained totally silent
Who made the decisions on outfitting the boat, quality of materials, pumps'
Why isnt the owner upset that this " irresponsible captain" acted on his own and sank 
his ship and why has he not spoke out.
Answer to all these questions is the man with the money..the owner


Beware the man behind the screen pulling the strings who you can not see. It is to his advantage that the Captain takes the whole enchilada of blame and responsibility

Usually in liability cases % of responsibility is assigned

The inquirey will ask the questions under oath then we will know MORE of the facts. My intuition (which is MHO) is that you will be suprised somewhat. The main reason...noine of us..including me can understand why a experienced man would do this on his own.


----------



## Minnewaska

The owner is undoubtedly worried about being sued by Claudine's family, regardless of their involvement in the decision. Any attorney would put you on radio silence. No conclusion to draw from that.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> What I cant understand also is that why many of you arent looking for the other people who are and may be responsibile here.
> 
> Your focus on Walbridge and almost tunnel vison approach may be blinding you from focusing in on the other culprits here the owners
> 
> Its almost like a Law and Order Episode. Who said follow the money in a previous post. Thats a smart idea
> 
> Who stood the most to loose if the ship sank
> Who stood the most to loose if the ship didnt get to St Pete
> Who had the power to short cut the maintainence issues
> Who had the power to spend more money and hire more experienced crew
> Who has remained totally silent
> Who made the decisions on outfitting the boat, quality of materials, pumps'
> Why isnt the owner upset that this " irresponsible captain" acted on his own and sank
> his ship and why has he not spoke out.
> Answer to all these questions is the man with the money..the owner
> 
> Beware the man behind the screen pulling the strings who you can not see. It is to his advantage that the Captain takes the whole enchilada of blame and responsibility
> 
> Usually in liability cases % of responsibility is assigned


Chef,
I myself looked for others to blame, did CG or harbormaster order them out of port, or did owner? Could not find evidence of any of these. I agree the owner probably put some pressure to set sail as they wanted to get to FL for a show and probably did not want ship damaged as it was for sale (although what was the ship insured for?).

In the end, a person in this position needs to handle the ship as they see fit, and be prepared to walk from the position if need be.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Paulo..interesting story.
> 
> Never have heard the discovery and exploration of the New World from that point of view.
> 
> I knew Portugal was a seafaring nation and had made great expeditions to India and then the Far East
> 
> What about the Spanish? I knew they were led mainly by the thier soldiers. Also they were attempting to conquer, spread religion, and find wealth.
> 
> And the English?
> 
> Why didnt Portugal continue. Its seems in the 1500 the were passed quickly by the Spanish and the English in terms of amount of expeditions, maritime trading companies and especially colonization.
> 
> Maybe this should be a new thread?
> Dave


Nah this thread is perfectly alright and I will not talk about the English or Dutch that have also a great maritime story, even if not comparable in what regards discoveries. But regarding your question see it this way.

The population of Portugal in the XVI century was 16 times smaller that the population of the metropolitan area of New York. about a million people and that counts also for old women ad children and not all men where sailors or soldiers, the land was worked.

The discoveries, either the Spanish ones or the Portuguese ones where a race for wealth that would come from the first that would find a sea way to India managing take out of the way the Turks and the Venetians that dominated the trade (by the red sea and the med) and got all the profits.

Columbus was working for Spain and his intention was to reach India sailing west. For many years he was convinced he had reached India. The Portuguese had more knowledge, know that continent was not India and that's why the Portuguese king was not interested in Colombo's offer that was made to him first.

But the word discovery of the sea way for India is not an accurate one. In fact the real discovery had to do with being able to pass Cabo da Boa Esperança and that means discovering the trade winds and that has nothing of logical has you know. For doing it it s needed to sail almost to Brasil before turning to the cape. After passing the cape and that was done by Bartolomeu Dias, it was just a question to go up a bit along the coast till already well known waters, sailed for centuries by Arab traders. From there on, it was not a discovery but a fight.

At the time the Turkish empire was one of the more powerful on earth and they were the ones that dominated that trade on the oriental side of the red sea. So it was not easy, considered the disproportion of forces and the fact that for being there or to send reinforces the Portuguese would have to circle all Africa while they were already there, on the red sea. It was possible because the Portuguese were better sailors, had better boats and most of all because we have a rare ability to go along with other cultures and rapidly made local allies. I would say that being a country that had been fighting with Mouros reconquering the occupied territory for the last 300 years (before the discoveries) would has given to the Portuguese a fair amount of fighting knowledge as a winning spirit.

Regarding Portugal have disappeared as an independent force in the XVI century that was much what happened. On those times countries had not what we would call today nationalism. What counted was the royal families and the noble families. When D. Sebastião, a not very bright kid that was unfortunately also a Portuguese king died in a Stupid battle that everybody said him not to engage, the legal owner of the Portuguese throne (by descendants) was the king of Spain.

The funny thing is that if the son of our precedent king had not been killed in a stupid race horse, the situation would be inverse and it would be the king of Portugal the legitimate king of Portugal and Spain.

So, it still were two different countries with the same king but obviously the interests of Spain were not the same as the Portuguese ones and Portugal forces were taken out of India and Brasil to sustain the main interests of Spain regarding a dominant position in Europe and if the invincible armada was not destroyed by a storm, that was not even an hurricane, Europe story could be different.

The Portuguese forces and fortresses in Red Sea, India, Africa, Macau, Malaca and Brasil had to fight without reinforcements against the enemies of Spain that know were also Portuguese enemies, meaning Dutch and English.

When the people, not the nobleman had enough of this situation, about 60 years later, they trough out of the window (literally) the Spanish representative and "invented" a new king. From there Portugal, that is much smaller and had a population about 5 times smaller than Spain had to fight a survival and bitter war with Spain that lasted almost 30 years.






Meanwhile the English and the Dutch taking advantage of the situation continue attacking the Portuguese Colonies in Brasil, China and India.

Giving the situation it is pretty amazing that Portugal had not only survived but managed to maintain Brasil, the African colonies, the main Indian colonies and Macau but off course, both this situations (King of Spain also the king of Portugal and the subsequent long war) changed the geo-strategic situation and prevented Portugal to continue dominating the trade route with India.

Anyway to my view the best contribute of that original million of souls that expanded Portugal by the world was the Portuguese that from one million native speakers is today spoken by 215 million native speakers and the number of speakers is increasingly very rapidly.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> I really dont like the idea of speculating as thats what I spoke against.
> 
> I will present a scenario- *Disclaimer*:Everyone this is not real...I am not saying it happened as I dont knokw if it did so dont go War of the Worlds on me and start using it as fact.
> 
> The owner calls up Robin and say to him. get the Bounty out of there. There is a storm coming up the coast it may hit New London. I dont want it destroyed at the dock. Wallbridge says to him, I dont want to go. Owner says to Walbridge you go or Ill fire you and get someone to move the Bounty like I did before in Florida and I will make sure you never find work again in the Tall Ship Community. We are a small community and I can make that happen
> 
> Thats tough pressure.


Not necessarily... Easy solution, has already been offered numerous times here...

Go hide behind the hurricane barrier in New Bedford...

Or, head up to the Hudson...

Or, head up Delaware Bay, and thru the C&D Canal...

Or, any one of several other options, which given the forecast at the time, would have exposed his ship, and crew, to minimal risk...

I find it pretty difficult to imagine that a ship's owner who ordered his captain to sail into a hurricane, would ever be in a position within the TSC to ensure that a captain who refused to do so, would "Never be able to find work again" within said community... Seriously?

Dream on...



chef2sail said:


> You know whats odd here...we have heard no one from the Bountys owner tell us, we told him not go, we questioned his decision about leaving. Maybe its because they didnt and cant claim that, You would think if they were trying to move themself away from liability here they would have issued at least that statement already. The fact that they havent may be because that statement would be a lie. The in fact pressured him to leave.
> 
> All this is mass speculation in my pea brain the other way just as I accused others of doing. hey I can do it too I just dont like saying it, I really dont want to do that. I did this on your asking Minnie and dont want to speculate.


Well, you're probably better just sticking with your professed reluctance to speculate... (grin)

We saw this in the wake of the loss of RULE 62, as well...

Anyone who ever thought that the owner, or any one representing him, was likely to weigh in here to clarify whatever questions we had, was delusional...


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> I really dont like the idea of speculating as thats what I spoke against.
> 
> ..
> You know whats odd here...we have heard no one from the Bountys owner tell us, we told him not go, we questioned his decision about leaving. Maybe its because they didnt and cant claim that, You would think if they were trying to move themself away from liability here they would have issued at least that statement already. The fact that they havent may be because that statement would be a lie. The in fact pressured him to leave.
> 
> All this is mass speculation in my pea brain the other way just as I accused others of doing. hey I can do it too I just dont like saying it, I really dont want to do that. I did this on your asking Minnie and dont want to speculate.
> 
> ....


Why would the owner question the Captain's decision to leave when he says : The Ship is safer in the sea than in the port?

The owner certainly does not want to lose his ship and will trust the word of his Captain. He is not the one that should know what to do regarding ship safety. The Captain is the one that should know about that.

Why would he not trust the word of his Captain? For what I know the guy is not even a sailor.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> To all of us that that seems to be a true statement. Corse we dont know if he was ordered by his owner so until that has been determined that is not a fact, but a strong assumption. I dont even want to reignite the discussion he should have stayed against his owners wishes. I am sure the CG investigation will bear that out.


Now that I see everyone jumping on my quote of "there was no reason to leave," I realize most people thought I was referencing Bounty, when I was in fact, referencing every single other TallShip on the east coast.

(As an aside, I giggle every time I see my name referred to as a "he." I am most certainly of the female persuasion  Sparkle Plenty was a character from the old Dick Tracy comics.)

However, if you once again compare Picton Castle to Bounty:
Bounty did not at this time have any paying crew or paying passengers. As far as I understand, her entire crew were paid.
On the other hand, Picton Castle most certainly had paying trainees/passengers as well as paid crew. I do understand that she has a loose-ish schedule of when she is expected to be in her next port during her circumnavigation. What this means is that while there is an understanding that weather can throw a wrench in plans (whether it be due to lack of wind, postponing departure, weather systems to sail around/away from), I am sure that a paying trainee/passenger expects to arrive at their departure port at an approximate date. In other words, I am sure that when Captain Moreland delayed his departure more than a week there was some strain. Still, Captain Moreland decided what was best for the entirety of his ship, crew, and passengers. (If you read Rigel Crockett's "Fair Wind, and Plenty of It" you will get an understanding of the tension I am talking about.)

I will reply to the rest of your questions in another post, so that I can catch up a little.

Also, for those still thinking that the Facebook page was authored by Captain Walbridge, it wasn't. It was written by a young lady who worked in the office.


----------



## chef2sail

JonEisberg said:


> Not necessarily... Easy solution, has already been offered numerous times here...
> 
> Go hide behind the hurricane barrier in New Bedford...
> 
> Or, head up to the Hudson...
> 
> Or, head up Delaware Bay, and thru the C&D Canal...
> 
> Or, any one of several other options, which given the forecast at the time, would have exposed his ship, and crew, to minimal risk...
> 
> I find it pretty difficult to imagine that a ship's owner who ordered his captain to sail into a hurricane, would ever be in a position within the TSC to ensure that a captain who refused to do so, would "Never be able to find work again" within said community... Seriously?
> 
> Dream on...
> 
> Well, you're probably better just sticking with your professed reluctance to speculate... (grin)
> 
> We saw this in the wake of the loss of RULE 62, as well...
> 
> Anyone who ever thought that the owner, or any one representing him, was likely to weigh in here to clarify whatever questions we had, was delusional...


We saw this in the wake of the loss of RULE 62, as well...



> Anyone who ever thought that the owner, or any one representing him, was likely to weigh in here to clarify whatever questions we had, was delusional
> posted by Jon Eisenberg


John maybe you didnt read read the whole thing. The owner will be REQUIRED to testify at the inquirey

[/QUOTE]



> I find it pretty difficult to imagine that a ship's owner who ordered his captain to sail into a hurricane, would ever be in a position within the TSC to ensure that a captain who refused to do so, would "Never be able to find work again" within said community...


Yes seriously John. Youve been sailing by yourself on those boats in the cold to much. In the real world blacklisting happens all the time. Ever heard of whistleblower laws

Anywho I was responding about the facts will come out in the inquery. No more speculating...even if asked to


----------



## jameswilson29

sparklepl3nty said:


> Also, for those still thinking that the Facebook page was authored by Captain Walbridge, it wasn't. It was written by a young lady who worked in the office.


Has she ever referred to herself as "Bountysdaughter" by any chance?


----------



## sparklepl3nty

jameswilson29 said:


> Has she ever referred to herself as "Bountysdaughter" by any chance?


No, I don't think so. I'm willing to believe that Bountysdaughter is who she says she is, if only because I haven't "proof" to believe otherwise.


----------



## PCP

sparklepl3nty said:


> ...
> 
> (As an aside, I giggle every time I see my name referred to as a "he." I am most certainly of the female persuasion  Sparkle Plenty was a character from the old Dick Tracy comics.)
> 
> ..












Jesus, You are a girl (or a lady) I liked you before, I like you more now

I hope you join us not only for this thread. 


Regards

Paulo


----------



## Bountydaughter

jameswilson29 said:


> Has she ever referred to herself as "Bountysdaughter" by any chance?


The young lady she refers to is the Director of the Bounty Foundation,Tracie. Jameswilson29, why are all your posts, especially regarding and directed at me, so hostile?


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> The original Bounty and many of these ships were built during the age when we really had very little weather forecasting or prediction. That science was spearheaded hugely by the introduction of space satelllites in the mid 1960s.
> So when these ships sailed originally in the 14th-mid 20th centuries they ran into severe weather. Obviously they either survived the weather or sunk. We extoll the coragousness of these men for setting out and being brave explorers and colonists of the Americas and their trade.
> 
> If judged by todays standards companies like the Dutch East India Trading Company were recklessly sending these men out in leaky boats ill equipped to handle these storms. None of them had engines, electric pumps etc.


Thanks for the compliments. I spent several years before I joined any Tall Ship (or ever sailed, for that matter) working in maritime museums (Civil War and Jamestown eras), and I have been known to nerd out once in a while.

I'd make the argument that many of these sailors and explorers (in reference to officers) were by no means heading to sea blindly. There are thousands of years of knowledge and sailing lore that we use today. In the Bible, Jesus references the old adage, "red sky at night, sailor's delight. Red sky in morning, sailor's take warning," (Matthew 16:2-3) a statement that sailors heed today, even with all our fancy equipment.

There's an interesting little article on NatGeo about hurricanes, and instead of quoting it I'll just link to it. (Hurricanes of History -- From Dinosaur Times to Today)

And no, most of these ships didn't have engines or electric ships, but they did have hand pumps, which can go a long way.

Bowditch has been around sore over 200 years and Chapman's 100 years, and both are bibles to many mariners.

I'm not focused enough to think about this post too much right now (Christmas flu! Woohoo!) so please forgive me. But really, I recommend Dava Sobel's book "Longitude" and Tony Horwitz's "A Voyage Long and Strange" for some basic understanding of how much mariners did and didn't understand.



chef2sail said:


> Many of the tales told about by the seaman aboard these ships reflect that going to sea was an extremely dangerous occupation, and that for some of them a way of escaping opppression and / or their poor life in theoir countries as well as escaping religios persecution. Many paid with their lives, I am sure for what today we consider recklessness.
> 
> Why when we recreate this with many of the tall ships reinactments cruises (I have been on a number) is this not looked at this way. In fact the lifestyle of the tall ship crew has almost a mystique about it like its an Outward Bound Adventure. Somewhere in this giant thread of postings there was discussion of the crew of the Bounty and they were refered to as "cult followers" in regards to the Captain. I didnt beleive that, but maybe there is an element of truth to it.
> 
> You obviously love what you do and have fallen in love with the tall ships and their beauty, pureness and historical place in our lives.


As modern crew, we are aware of what our predecessors faced, and have had the discussion of whether we could "do it." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In the end and for the most part, we are thankful that we have the modern technology and resources we have today. I do believe that we are aware how far we have come, and how much we do not understand still. One of my favorite captains, who was 61 at the time, explained to me that after 40+ years of captaining, the sea still had lessons for him.

To get back to your questions, there is SO much we don't know about sailing 200 years ago, nevermind millennia ago. Lynx and Pride of Baltimore II, both similarly designed vessels have found out in the last 11 and 24 years respectively (and the first Pride in her nine years) that we do not know enough about basic things like rig structure of boat designs less than 200 years old.

The ancient Polynesians traveled between tiny islands thousands of nautical miles apart, and scholars have no idea how they found their way. Clearly, islanders not only knew how to travel around, but also knew the weather. As I'm writing this, there is an amazing NOVA show on television about recreating an ancient Egyptian boat, one that sailed on the Red Sea and beyond. (Video: Building Pharaoh's Ship | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video)



chef2sail said:


> Is it safer now? Assuming you feel it is what makes it safer?
> Are there inherent risks in sailing centuries old designed ships?
> Why do you think those Captains who sailed 300 years ago in those
> rickety boats were not considered reckless and putting their crews in
> danger when the cast off into the unknown.


Do I feel "safer?" We have better and more exact resources for predicting weather. We have EPIRBs, the USCG, SSB and VHF (and many other acronyms). We have backup systems like engines and engine- and electric-powered water pumps. We have watertight doors and regular inspections and drills. But no matter what tools we have or protections in place, it does come down to us as mariners maintaining our vessels, being aware, making prudent decisions, and learning from our and others experiences.

When the first Pride of Baltimore sank, the shipwrights, sailors, and everyone involved in the community learned from it. Part of that was adding watertight hatches and reducing sail.

To call it "reckless" is painting the explorers in broad ignorant strokes. As others have said, the difference between (to use posters' term) Walbridge's "reckless" decisions and the "recklessness" of past explorers and sailors is the "why" and the use of knowledge available to them.


----------



## PCP

sparklepl3nty said:


> ...
> I'd make the argument that many of these sailors and explorers (in reference to officers) were by no means heading to sea blindly. There are thousands of years of knowledge and sailing lore that we use today. ..
> 
> There's an interesting little article on NatGeo about hurricanes, and instead of quoting it I'll just link to it. (Hurricanes of History -- From Dinosaur Times to Today)
> 
> And no, most of these ships didn't have engines or electric ships, but they did have hand pumps, which can go a long way.
> 
> ....


Indeed, very interesting the article. And of course there is not needed a Hurricane to think a ship, a bad storm will do and many, even some modern ones, have suffer that fate.

One of the more impressive statements about that is what we call the História trágico marítima, this:

*"The História trágico-marítima (trans. Tragic History of the Sea) is a famous 18th C. collection of narrative accounts of the travails and wrecks of several Portuguese ships, principally carracks (naus) on the India run between 1552 to 1602, and the oft-harrowing stories of their survivors.

The accounts (some of which had been previously published as pamphlets) were collected by historian Bernardo Gomes de Brito and published in two volumes in 1735 and 1736. It is said that Brito had enough material to publish five volumes, but ended up only publishing two. .."*

História trágico-marítima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are incredible stories on that book and it is a very interesting one, a true and rare description of old tragedies and shipwrecks.

The book was translated to English:

The Tragic History of the Sea

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Thanks sparkle...

.just trying to figure out this whole distinction of reckless.

I guess some of what you are saying is when you have more information today and you venture into a 70 knott storm with 30 ft seas danger you are reckless.

400 years ago when you were sailing from Europe to the New World and you encountered the same weather/ sea state, you were brave and a hero. because you couldnt be forewarned and you survived it. 

It seems that the explorers in the 15th and 16th century who really were venturing into uinknown or making return trip to the New World may have known some of the weather when they left, but 10 days out even using the sailors poem "red sky" which I adhere to also, they woudl be out in the Atlantic in their 60 ton Carvele 60 ft long. The way the old ships are designed that must have been pretty scary when they hit gales and large winds and seas. They truly had guts. 

I would think the boats of the past surely handled similarly and all they could count on were the sails. 

I admire what you are doing and am glad someone sees the value in preserving the older vessels and is willing to work on them as well as educate people about them. 

As I know you have read some of this thread you know that I am a little more cautios about the Blame game with the Captain as well as assigning total responsibility of the sinking on him. Understand in the statement I know that the Captain of any vessel airplane is held ultimately responsible. 

Do you feel the inquirey will be a valid one? Will the CG be impartial? Will they be able to get the full story out of the owner and the crew as well as maintainence records?

Dave 

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> I would think the boats of the past surely handled similarly and all they could count on were the sails.
> 
> ...
> 
> Dave


Finally we agree on something

Except about the quoted part. Sure, most of the boats and ships before the first world war where sailing boats or ships but there is an huge difference between a steel tall ship from the beginning of the XX century and a XVIII century wooden sailing ship, even if they displace the same. The same can be said between a XVII century sailing ship and a XV century sailing ship and again between one of those and a XII century sailing ship and again the same, regarding that one an a Phoenician trade ship.

They all used sails and have no engine but the safety margins and seaworthiness have been progressively increased and the same with boat/ship speed. Also the conditions where they could be sailed were different.

But regarding sailing ships not even the more modern ones and the more seaworthy where able to sail safely hurricanes. That does not mean that they wouldn't or wont get away with it if they were lucky. If someone plays Russian roulette with a gun and if got lucky he can survive, even several times...but if he keep trying, well, the odds are really bad.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## lancelot9898

Speaking of how sailing ships of the past handled differently, I wonder how the scaled up movie set model of the Bounty handled differently than the original?


----------



## chef2sail

lancelot9898 said:


> Speaking of how sailing ships of the past handled differently, I wonder how the scaled up movie set model of the Bounty handled differently than the original?


This keeps gettting referred to which again conjures up an assumption not a FACT that the boat was built in a substandard way. You almost have everyone beliving they went sailing off in a cardboard version of a ship with toilet paper sails. Facts man facts not hysterial statements.

So where is the proof Lancelot....what expert says Bounty was than? We all know it was builit for a movie, so what, look at the other BOounty builkt for a movie ....I am not talking about how it was maintained....I am talking about the build quality and the sailability of the vessel when it ws built and when it was first used. Fron what I understand they used the exact British Navy plans only increased the length so it would be able toi be used for filming.

I am also including a link to the other movie set Bounty....the one built in NZ at a cost of @4,000,000. Do you know for a FACTthat the one bulit in NS was any different. This one appears to have been well made and is still in service.

HMAV Bounty

BTW if you rummage through the site there is some intersting reads and logs from Jamie White ( the square rigger) about his boat Torea and Jaho a Tahitian ketch which he sailed in large winds and seas. Either way an interesting read

http://fosbery.tripod.com/areflx/jaho-1.html


----------



## lancelot9898

Well Dave it may conjure all up all sorts of assumptions, but the FACT is that it was built as a movie prop and scheduled to be burned at the end of the filming.


----------



## chef2sail

lancelot9898 said:


> Well Dave it may conjure all up all sorts of assumptions, but the FACT is that it was built as a movie prop and scheduled to be burned at the end of the filming.


A misleading staement followed by another misleading statement does not make up a FACT. The only FACT is that it was built to be in the movie Bounty and was bulit to be longer to fit the film crew and that it was built to meet British Navy specs of the original Bounty.

I am sure in your research of the FACTS that you found course that in the true turn of events that the Bounty was burned in the end. That is was to be burned at the end of the movie doesnt really suprise me as thats what ACTUALLY happened to the Bounty. So again that stement means nothing either. Where are the FACTS that the Bounty replica was less than seaworthy when it was built.



> The Bounty reached Tahiti on 25 October 1788. She had been at sea for ten months. The crew stayed for five months and lived on the island. They collected 1015 breadfruit plants. The crew were very happy living in Tahiti and Fletcher Christian fell in love with a Tahitian girl named Maimiti. They did not want to have another long journey and go back to England.
> 
> Bligh and 18 sailors are left at sea
> The Bounty left Tahiti on 4 April 1789, on the way to Jamaica. On 28 April, near the Friendly Islands, Fletcher Christian led the mutiny (take over). Bligh and 18 sailors were left at sea in a small boat, while Christian and the Bounty went back to Tahiti. Christian and a small group of sailors, 11 Tahitian women, and 6 Tahitian men then went to the remote Pitcairn Island. After they arrived they took everything they could from the ship. A sailor called Matthew Quintal, burned and destroyed the Bounty on 23 January 1790


----------



## bloodhunter

The Bounty built in New Zealand (Bounty III) had a steel hull. It had twin turbo diesels with almost twice the power of the engines on the Bounty II. Seems like major differences between the two ships. Can't find specs on Bounty II so don't know if had the same length on deck, beam and draught as the original.


----------



## chef2sail

bloodhunter said:


> The Bounty built in New Zealand (Bounty III) had a steel hull. It had twin turbo diesels with almost twice the power of the engines on the Bounty II. Seems like major differences between the two ships. Can't find specs on Bounty II so don't know if had the same length on deck, beam and draught as the original.


Yes I saw that. Exactley my point. My point was really so was the NZ one.

It looks like it was made well. Much has been made of the the NS made Bounty being made as a movie prop, and on that basis alone many one here continue to ridicule it. On what basis I am not sure as I await one of them to provide expertise or experts stating it was not made to sail. Had restrictions. Tolerances less than say the original Bounty. The danger of the glib statement without fact is that after a while people begin to beleive its a fact. It gets a life of its own. Even some of the most respected posters on Sailnet have refered to it this way.

So who checked out their FACTS brfore posting and ridiculing Bounty as a movie prop?. You would figure that was done before you posted against it, and formed an opinon but there is silence right now as people are scrambling to find some facts to back up what they have been saying all along.

Usually you have the facts before you say something. When you dont and you judge something like because it was used in a movie it was inferior, a prop but you cant prove it....its called a rush to judgement.

Even if you find some mountain of information now and try and interrpret it now it wont change that, as you did it after the fact. Its a thought process.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Finally we agree on something
> 
> Except about the quoted part. Sure, most of the boats and ships before the first world war where sailing boats or ships but there is an huge difference between a steel tall ship from the beginning of the XX century and a XVIII century wooden sailing ship, even if they displace the same. The same can be said between a XVII century sailing ship and a XV century sailing ship and again between one of those and a XII century sailing ship and again the same, regarding that one an a Phoenician trade ship.
> 
> They all used sails and have no engine but the safety margins and seaworthiness have been progressively increased and the same with boat/ship speed. Also the conditions where they could be sailed were different.
> 
> But regarding sailing ships not even the more modern ones and the more seaworthy where able to sail safely hurricanes. That does not mean that they wouldn't or wont get away with it if they were lucky. If someone plays Russian roulette with a gun and if got lucky he can survive, even several times...but if he keep trying, well, the odds are really bad.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


We do agree....I framed it

And this is the best statement of the whole thread and what we should learn from this tradgedy IMHO. Minnie said this early a way back first I beleive.



> But regarding sailing ships not even the more modern ones and the more seaworthy where able to sail safely hurricanes. That does not mean that they wouldn't or wont get away with it if they were lucky.


For us take out hurricane as the average sailor wont attempt that and substitute a phrase like conditions we arent equiped to handle. The courage to risk may come from beating the situation before may lead to overconfidnce.


----------



## lancelot9898

Dave, I'm not going to waste my time with arguments on such foolish statements!

Best Regards


----------



## chef2sail

lancelot9898 said:


> Dave, I'm not going to waste my time with arguments on such foolish statements!
> 
> Best Regards


I understand it was foolish of me to to ask for some kind of proof that the Bounty was actually a poorly made ship.

I mean really now..... you are the one who made the remark " it was a movie prop" implying that it wasnt a serious ship.

I show you a similar replica Bounty built in NZ costing $4,000,000 which in no ones mind will be considered not a serious ship...it was also used to film movies.

I quote the Lunenberg, Nova Scotia site that says it was bulit to Royal Navt specs just longer. You say well " they were gonna burn it".

I point out that they were making a movie and the real HMS Bounty was burned at the end. Seems like those like Brando didnt want to see that happen so they saved it from that.

I ask for proof, real proof that the Bounty made in Lunenberg, NS was not a proper ship and you say


> I'm not going to waste my time with arguments on such foolish statements!


It is not me making the foolish statement my friend. This is not meant a a person attack, I am just FACT checking your statement.

I am still awaiting proof the original design was less than a seaworth vessel as was implied with the statement made and reiterated by many....


> she was just a movie prop


----------



## chef2sail

The builder of the Replica Bounty built in Lunenberg, NS. Cost $5.7 million dollars in todays money.



> Builder of HMS Bounty replica saddened by its demise in Hurricane Sandy
> 
> 7:42 p.m. EST, November 1, 2012|
> By Eloísa Ruano González, Orlando Sentinel
> 
> MOUNT DORA - Robert Stephens' heart sank when he heard that the replica of the HMS Bounty used in the 1962 Hollywood film "Mutiny on the Bounty" had been lost in rough seas brought by Hurricane Sandy.
> 
> Stephens oversaw construction of the three-masted Bounty that Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard sailed to Tahiti in the film. But the ship, which appeared in later movies, including the 2006 hit "Pirates of the Caribbean II: Dead Man's Chest" with Johnny Depp, foundered 90 miles southeast of the North Carolina coast earlier this week.
> 
> "It's really sad," said Stephens, 87. "It was a big thing in my life."
> 
> Stephens, who has lived in Mount Dora for 26 years and continues to work on restoring antique boats and cars, is optimistic it won't be the end for the Bounty.
> 
> "I bet you they're going to raise that baby. It just filled up with water and sank," he said while standing in his shop surrounded by old black-and-white pictures of the construction of the ship. Stephens also has pictures of Brando, Howard and other actors onboard during the filming, which he said brings back great memories.
> 
> "It's history," he said.
> 
> *The original ship's drawings from the British Admiralty were used to build the Bounty in a Nova Scotia shipping yard. Stephens said a lot of "old-timers" who still knew how to build ships out of wood were brought out of retirement.*
> "We were going to build in California," he said. "But because of the unions, it would have been a tough job to do."
> 
> *The crew worked around the clock for 11 months to complete the Bounty, Stephens said. The cost: $750,000 - or about $5.7 million in today's dollars.
> 
> The replica resembled the original, built in 1787, on the outside. But it was diesel-powered and measured 118 feet in length, about 30 longer than the original.*


HMS Bounty Hurricane Sandy: Builder of HMS Bounty replica saddened by its demise in Hurricane Sandy - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> The builder of the Replica Bounty built in Lunenberg, NS. Cost $5.7 million dollars in todays money.
> 
> HMS Bounty Hurricane Sandy: Builder of HMS Bounty replica saddened by its demise in Hurricane Sandy - Orlando Sentinel


Chef,
I am not sure of the quality of build or the materials used for the "movie" Bounty. I assume they may have been good when "new" but the ship may have out lived its useful life or was not maintained properly, as recently there seems to have been a lot of rot. Weather the ship had rot when she sank, hopefully the CG report would shed some light.

The question I have is more with the ship design and ballasting. From my understanding the ship was not built to the original Bounty design drawings. Apparently the drawings were obtained, but it is a question if they were actually used. Then the ship's length was increased 30%. This changes everything, was tank testing done on the new design? I could see they needed a bigger ship to hold camera and film crew, and seeing they planned to burn the ship at end of film, probably not concerned with the nautical design. The other question I have was the reballasting of the movie "Bounty". Seems a nautical engineer was involved, but looks like (from CG web page) CG questioned the reballasting, then a letter was provided by Bounty owner and CG was ok with the reballast- but was it really ok?

I hope the CG report on the sinking will address these issues.


----------



## chef2sail

Casey I agree. The original build quality is important as it seems to debunk the posters who said it was merely a movie prop. The maintainence will help determine whether it was kept in that condition or allowed to "rot". There have been some damning puctures and reports posted, but no one is positive if these were before shots which were corrected during the many refts.

I am attenpting to go back through the threads as I though one of the designers posted as your point about changing to a larger build is very pertinant.

Dave


----------



## PCP

The actual Bounty had about the double of the displacement of the original Bounty.

I think that given that difference in displacement it does not make sense to say that the original plans were followed because the scantlings would have to be different.

If the original scantlings were followed on a ship with a two times the original displacement ...well, then something was very wrong.

Saying this I don't know about the design of this Bounty. I suppose that a naval architect was responsible for that alteration but I never heard nothing about who was or about his competence to do the job.

Anyway I don't see the point in discussing this. Even if the Bounty was a very well built boat, it was still basically a XVIII century designed wooden ship, with limitations that had to do with the 3 centuries old design and the building materials. In any case that boat would not safe sailing an hurricane, so what's the point?

Here are all information about the Bounty and the Bounty replica:

TallShipBounty.org

HMS Bounty, Replica

HMS Bounty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_(1960_ship)


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> The actual Bounty had about the double of the displacement of the original Bounty.
> 
> I think that given that difference in displacement it does not make sense to say that the original plans were followed because the scantlings would have to be different.
> 
> If the original scantlings were followed on a ship with a two times the original displacement ...well, then something was very wrong.
> 
> Saying this I don't know about the design of this Bounty. I suppose that a naval architect was responsible for that alteration but I never heard nothing about who was or about his competence to do the job.
> 
> Anyway I don't see the point in discussing this. Even if the Bounty was a very well built boat, it was still basically a XVIII century designed wooden ship, with limitations that had to do with the 3 centuries old design and the building materials. In any case that boat would not safe sailing an hurricane, so what's the point?
> 
> Here are all information about the Bounty and the Bounty replica:
> 
> TallShipBounty.org
> 
> HMS Bounty, Replica
> 
> HMS Bounty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_(1960_ship)


I agree with what you say.

My post is really to simply answer the posting(s) of those who still want to supply false statements like the Bounty was a movie prop. What happened is aggregious enough with adding in a piece of flase information which may cause some...maybe even a newbie to imagine that they were sailing away in a cardboard model that was to be burned and had no value.

Also the original design was changed. Of course most knwledgeable know that will change the saiing characteristic of the vessel. Thats why I am hoping this is gone over in the inquirey. It may have contributed to making the Bounty unmanageable in some conditions. This would be a good lesson to learn for the futire so this mistake is not made again also. I amstill going through my posts as I distinctly rememebr a gentleman who oposted about righting moments and inspectuions of vessels. He in fact had something to do with testimony on a vessel and was a lifetime naval archetecht.

Dave


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> I agree with what you say.
> 
> My post is really to simply answer the posting(s) of those who still want to supply false statements like the Bounty was a movie prop. What happened is aggregious enough with adding in a piece of flase information which may cause some...maybe even a newbie to imagine that they were sailing away in a cardboard model that was to be burned and had no value.
> 
> Also the original design was changed. Of course most knwledgeable know that will change the saiing characteristic of the vessel. Thats why I am hoping this is gone over in the inquirey. It may have contributed to making the Bounty unmanageable in some conditions. This would be a good lesson to learn for the futire so this mistake is not made again also. I amstill going through my posts as I distinctly rememebr a gentleman who oposted about righting moments and inspectuions of vessels. He in fact had something to do with testimony on a vessel and was a lifetime naval archetecht.
> 
> Dave


Dave,
The person you speak of analized the first Pride. I cannot remeber the name but it is located here in this thread I believe. The analysis was pretty complex and I don't quite follow it all, but what it led to is the Pride II being designed a lot diffierent from the 1st Pride. I believe the CG called for a lot of the changes after the Pride sinking. They raised the free board and changed the ballast as I remember. Note that the first Pride was built to the original design of a Baltimore Clipper. It was originially to be a dockside attraction to stay in the inner harbor. After it was built, it was decide to take her to all parts of the globe.

I think this is it:
http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?148218-Pride-and-Stability

Note: read through the entire thread posted above.


----------



## chef2sail

Yeah thats it Casey...thank you

This is it

http://www.cruisingonstrider.us/Treacherous.htm
http://www.cruisingonstrider.us/RightingArms.htm
http://www.cruisingonstrider.us/USCGrules.htm
http://www.cruisingonstrider.us/Metacenter.htm

Is fascinating reasoning to ralize the effect of changing the design andits affect on the boat

I hope the CG inquirey looks into the design change from the original plans and also the reballasting of the keel weights to see if this affected Bountys menuverability or sea motion when under sail or sea state condition.


----------



## NCC320

A ~90 ft ship (originally) becomes a ~120 ft. ship because it was built from same plans? If built from same plans, it would be ~90 ft. If it is stretched in someway to 120 ft, it's not the same ship. The forces acting at sea on a 90 ft. ship and a 120 ft. ship are different. Therefore, did they hold all the dimensions just the same except put in a 30 ft extension. If designed correctly, it would be a complete redesign, structures thoughout the ship would have to be different to take into consideration the different forces. And it wasn't built like the original one.....there is that stuff about a special deck/platform built in for camera equipment. Back to the Bounties....the last one mentioned (the steel hull one) is so different that it has no relationship other than outward appearance to Walbridge's Bounty. And Walbridge's Bounty was a movie prop, destined to be destroyed as part of the movie process.....now guys, I don't care what it costs, I want the ship for this movie built exactly like the original one, no matter that we are going to burn it when the movie is finished...it's just money after all. And oh yeah, make it a good bit longer so that we'll have more room, and I need special decks below. Also, let's put in some engines, pumps, generators, and lots of other stuff in there.....but be sure to keep it exactly the same as the original, no matter what it costs.


----------



## Brewgyver

casey1999 said:


> Tell us more...


The basic information on the construction of the (1960) Bounty was posted earlier in this thread, more than once, IIRC.

It was built by Smith and Ruhland in Lunenberg, Nova Scotia. S&R had built over 200 largish wooden boats since 1900: 


> Since 1900 the yard has produced wooden fishing vessels of every description. During the heyday of the Banks fishery the yard often produced eight schooners a year employing 50 shipwrights per vessel."


Besides the Bounty, some other well-known S&R boats: the famous fishing/racing schooner Bluenose (1921), 



and the schooner Sherman Zwicker (now in the Maine Maritime Museum) the replica of the HMS Rose (used as the HMS Surprise in "Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World"), and the schooner Bluenose II.

In short, they didn't build junk.

It has also been repeatedly speculated that the Bounty was built cheap, because it was going to be filmed being burned at the end of the production, as the original was. The posters making this wildly slandersous speculation ask "Why would they build it right, when they're going to burn it anyway?" We could talk about the likelihood of a world reknowned builder of large wooden boats building an ocean-going vessel on the cheap - and thereby putting lives at risk. We could talk about the FACT that ALL of the availble information about the Bounty's construction states that it was built from the plans of the original, which were still on file in the British Admiralty's archive, but scaled up for filming purposes. We could talk about the fact that she had made SEVERAL ocean crossings over the last 50 years.

You ask why would MGM (not exactly a fly-by-night outfit) build it right? ONE very simple and overriding reason: They only had ONE. They were making Mutiny on the Bounty, after all, and you can't make that movie without the boat. So, does anybody really think they would cut any corners on the construction of a boat that would have to be sailed halfway round the world before they could expose the first frame of the film? They spent three quarters of a million dollars building it, FIFTY years ago. That works out to just shy of $6 million in 2012 dollars. Still think they built it cheap?

Then there was this assertion:


Sal Paradise said:


> Do you really know that? I'm asking because I really would like to know. I read that it was built by a reputable ship building company.





MarkofSeaLife said:


> It was. But the company had not built a sailing ship for 80 years!


Wow, Mark, NO idea where you got that. S&R wasn't even FOUNDED until 1900 (twenty years after you said they built their last sailing ship), and built almost nothing but Schooners (well over 100 of them) for the next 40 years, including the Sherman Zwicker in the '42, less than 20 years before the Bounty.

Can we _*please*_ stop saying "the Bounty was just a prop"?


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> A ~90 ft ship (originally) becomes a ~120 ft. ship because it was built from same plans? If built from same plans, it would be ~90 ft. If it is stretched in someway to 120 ft, it's not the same ship. The forces acting at sea on a 90 ft. ship and a 120 ft. ship are different. Therefore, did they hold all the dimensions just the same except put in a 30 ft extension. If designed correctly, it would be a complete redesign, structures thoughout the ship would have to be different to take into consideration the different forces. And it wasn't built like the original one.....there is that stuff about a special deck/platform built in for camera equipment.
> 
> Back to the Bounties....the last one mentioned (the steel hull one) is so different that it has no relationship other than outward appearance to Walbridge's Bounty.
> 
> And Walbridge's Bounty was a movie prop, destined to be destroyed as part of the movie process.....now guys, I don't care what it costs, I want the ship for this movie built exactly like the original one, no matter that we are going to burn it when the movie is finished...it's just money after all. And oh yeah, make it a good bit longer so that we'll have more room, and I need special decks below. Also, let's put in some engines, pumps, generators, and lots of other stuff in there.....but be sure to keep it exactly the same as the original, no matter what it costs.





> This boat was built as a movie prop. It is likely that the investors didn't build the boat to the same standards as a real sea-going ship...the original, even though is was built in another day, was likely more seaworthy.-NCC320 post 44


Well at least you are consistantly wrong on your posts. Would you care to show us the facts for these hypethetical assertions. Most have moved away from that assertion as in the rush to judge it was one of those statements s after careful inspection which isnt accurate



> 120 ft. ship because it was built from same plans? If built from same plans, it would be ~90 ft. If it is stretched in someway to 120 ft, it's not the same ship. The forces acting at sea on a 90 ft. ship and a 120 ft. ship are different. Therefore, did they hold all the dimensions just the same except put in a 30 ft extension. If designed correctly, it would be a complete redesign, structures thoughout the ship would have to be different to take into consideration the different forces.


How do you know it wasnt redesigned. The people who built this are not the dunderheads you make them out to be. They are professional boatbuliders. And your qualifications to make this assumption are?


> This boat was built as a movie prop


Show me other from a professional that it was called a movie prop. All I have seen are ametuer sleuths calling it that. This statement is a purjoritive adjective you and a few others hae appllied which makes it seem like it was less than and conjures up substandard construction. All FACTS presented seem to show the opposite. Where do you get your nformation?


> And Walbridge's Bounty was a movie prop, destined to be destroyed as part of the movie process


Yes we know why though, thestory is the at the end the Bounty in real life was burned. Not because it was built well, ad their is no evidence it was built less than because it was going to be burned. If you have some show us. In fact the reports are from the buliders and designers as wll as some posters on here it was built incredibly accurately and well.

My only concern is that the righting factor was changed and due dilligence was performed when the made the design changes. The inquirey will tell us this.

Maintainence is another story here and needs to be investigater by the authorities.

Unless you can supply us with concrete data and facts about what you said we will have to assume it was a boat built to be used in a movie, *AT SEA *to standards, by a reputable bulider with a professional designer?

We wll await your proof.


----------



## bloodhunter

It is interesting that every dimension of Bounty II was significantly larger that that of the original except the draught which was about 14 feet for each vessel. I could make all sorts of guesses as to what this could mean to the stability of the ship but not being a marine architect, they wouldn't be worth much. Would like to an analysis of this from someone qualified to make it.
Also did not see in the specs whether the masts on BountyII were taller than those on the original. Anyone know?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

bloodhunter said:


> Also did not see in the specs whether the masts on BountyII were taller than those on the original. Anyone know?


They would have been sized to fit in the camera lens. Panavision, probably but theres a variety of widths used.

You know how when you take a photo of a sailing boat you either get a nice close up of the folks in the cockpit, but cant fit the mast in the frame, unless you turn the camera on its side. Well, obviously you cant turn the cinema on its side whenever the Bounty comes into view. So the masts need to be the right ratio to the boat to fit the lens.... And make it look nice!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Or ... 
(Sorry i couldnt get both photos to upload in the same post.)


----------



## chef2sail

Bounty comparisons

TallShipBounty.org


----------



## NCC320

Sorry, Chef and others....

It was a movie prop, maybe a good one, but neverless a movie prop. And if it was significantly longer, wider, heavier, with about the same draft as the original as has been reported, it is a different vessel even though it might look similar and the original Bounty plans served as a reference basis for it's design. 

Regarding movie props, did you ever visit the production lot of a movie producer...blocks of buildings that are really just fronts with no backs, and often painted to look like stone construction? Just a little common sense would tell you that movie houses, even MGM, would watch the investment. But Bounty was a ship, therefore they wouldn't mind costs so much...? That it may have been built by well known shipbuilders with a history of building wooden vessels is not surprising; it was after all not the cardboard and toilet paper thing that Chef alluded to earlier. For the builder, there was money to be made in building this prop, which required specialized skills that few yards have today/or had in 1960. And there was the publicity value of being awarded the job. From movie makers standpoint, even if it was a prop, it had to be sufficiently capable of getting the job done, so they might prefer someone experienced in the field. Builders will generally adhere closely to the plans provided when they build something.....so what goes into the ship would have been determined by the naval architects or engineers. 

Chef....your question of what makes me qualified to speak.....you really don't want to go there. Can you answer the same question as it pertains to you?


----------



## PCP

NCC320 said:


> Sorry, Chef and others....
> 
> It was a movie prop, maybe a good one, but neverless a movie prop. ........so what goes into the ship would have been determined by the naval architects or engineers.


Yes, I have said already that long ago. Movie's producers works on tight budgets and even if I don't think that comparison with "blocks of buildings that are really just fronts with no backs" is accurate. The boat had to be sailed thousands of miles before reaching the movie scenery and if the boat sunk in the way it would make for a huge loss regarding movie budget.

Anyway MGM had to be incompetent in what regards money if they had demanded to the NA that modified the plans, to use the same scantlings that were used on the original boat, taking into account the double of the displacement. The boat was, according with MGM plans, to last only the movie and be burned (as part of the original moviescript) in the end of it.

Even if built adequate to sailing with good weather till Tahiti, there was no need to design it to be able to sustain many storms and a long working life on the sea.

Doing so it would only be a waste of money and would show incompetence from the MGM production in what regards managing budgets. It is possible but very uniquely.

Regarding the boat being build in a reputable shipyard and there, the better they could according the plans, what I have heard and see leave me to believe that it was so, but that is not the point.

They had built accordingly with the plans that were not the original ones, (that were for a boat with half the displacement) but others made by a NA, taking as guide the original plans, but obviously different since the boat was much longer, wider and displaced the double.

The answer regarding if the boat was constructed as a movie prop or as a working boat destined to have a long life will reside on the plans that I don't know and if I did know, would not probably be able to say. But they are probably still around, as the original Bounty plans and any NA specialized in that area will be able to answer that.

I don't know if the CG will be looking at that or not. As I have said, it is not pertinent to the main cause of the accident, since even a XX century steel ship would not be adequate to sail an Hurricane.



NCC320 said:


> ...
> 
> Chef....your question of what makes me qualified to speak.....you really don't want to go there. Can you answer the same question as it pertains to you?


I don't know if you are making it intentionally or not, but you are using the same intimidation techniques that others have used in this thread. Since you have referred a special qualification to access this matter, please tell what it is. Not being rude, but if someone says he knows better based on his qualifications, it seems to me it should say why

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> Sorry, Chef and others....
> 
> It was a movie prop, maybe a good one, but neverless a movie prop. And if it was significantly longer, wider, heavier, with about the same draft as the original as has been reported, it is a different vessel even though it might look similar and the original Bounty plans served as a reference basis for it's design.
> 
> Regarding movie props, did you ever visit the production lot of a movie producer...blocks of buildings that are really just fronts with no backs, and often painted to look like stone construction? Just a little common sense would tell you that movie houses, even MGM, would watch the investment. But Bounty was a ship, therefore they wouldn't mind costs so much...? That it may have been built by well known shipbuilders with a history of building wooden vessels is not surprising; it was after all not the cardboard and toilet paper thing that Chef alluded to earlier. For the builder, there was money to be made in building this prop, which required specialized skills that few yards have today/or had in 1960. And there was the publicity value of being awarded the job. From movie makers standpoint, even if it was a prop, it had to be sufficiently capable of getting the job done, so they might prefer someone experienced in the field. Builders will generally adhere closely to the plans provided when they build something.....so what goes into the ship would have been determined by the naval architects or engineers.
> Chef....your question of what makes me qualified to speak.....you really don't want to go there. Can you answer the same question as it pertains to you?[/
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding movie props, did you ever visit the production lot of a movie producer...blocks of buildings that are really just fronts with no backs, and often painted to look like stone construction?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have been to movie sets in Hollywood and also in New York and Baltimore. Why would you make this statement though unless you wanted to mislead people on the Bounty construction After all you dispute what you are saying below .
> 
> 
> 
> That it may have been built by well known shipbuilders with a history of building wooden vessels is not surprising; it was after all not the cardboard and toilet paper thing that Chef alluded to earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chef....your question of what makes me qualified to speak.....you really don't want to go there. Can you answer the same question as it pertains to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not making sweeping statements saying they are fact without proof you are. In fact I keep saying I am willing to wait until the EXPERTS on naval design and archetecture as well as the experts on naval ship building weigh in. We already have quotes from the chief builder of the Bounty which directly dispute everything you have posted.
> 
> I notice that you still have yet to post a fact....from a source. You continue to dance around that. Your posts still are just your opinion not fact which of course you are entitled to. I have no opinion on this other than to mention that the facts I have seen lead me to conclude your opinion has no factual basis. I am willing to withhold judgement on to the fact whether the Bounty was constructed soley as a movie prop or was truly built to authentic specs.
Click to expand...


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> I don't know if the CG will be looking at that or not. As I have said, it is not pertinent to the main cause of the accident, since even a XX century steel ship would not be adequate to sail an Hurricane.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I agree. I dont think I or anyone is saying that it was made or should sail into a hurricane. We all argree with you here that sailing into a hurricane is not a prudent thing.

I would hope the CG looks into the specific design characteristics of the Bounty for a couple of reasons.

One- IMHO there probably are other TS out there also who may have modified original drawings, and since we all agree that that could alter the sailing characteristics, righting moments etc, what has to be done to recertify them or what is done to retest their stability. What was done for the Bounty when they built it larger and modified the weight it carried in the keel? For all we know this was an accident waiting to happen ( not talking about sailing into a hurricane).
This could be one of the side lessons we could learn from this tradgedy and maybe other TS need to be looked at again if modifications were made.

Two- This goes to the tolerances issue which I have presented earlier. Maybe the design characateric change would say this ship should sail in anything but seas 10 ft or less, or in winds of 30 or less. I beleive theior is a distinct rating by insurance ( LLoyds I beleive) and others of ocean going ability ( I am no expert in this, but know it occurs). I think it based on tolerances, design and other criteria

Again this could be one of the side lessons we could learn from this tradgedy and maybe other TS tolerances need to be looked at

I know this may not be your issues here, and its not to take away or explain the hurricane issue, but as you have said there should be no censoring of ideas and I would like to see this addressed as a possible outcome of this investigation. 

The results may prevent future incidents in heavier weather than normal which any of these ships could encounter in sailing from port to port as the sea can be unpredictable as we know.

Dave


----------



## NCC320

PCP said:


> I don't know if you are making it intentionally or not, but you are using the same intimidation techniques that others have used in this thread.


Paulo,

Actually, it was intentional and directed to the person who challenged me. If one challenges, expect to be challenged. As to special qualifications, I am just saying that in such matters, an engineer (retired) probably knows more than a chef* as to structural and design issues....neither being qualified in the sense of being a naval architect. You, me, and everyone else has a right to express their opinion on a open public forum like this.

Not sure if it bothers others, but I don't like to see posters put down because of their opinions, nor intimidated with personal attacks, or have what they posted distorted. I, for one, will not be intimidated, and if one tries, they should expect to receive the same treatment in return. If you will note, my issues are with a particular poster who, in my opinion, distorts what people have said, must always get the last say, and failing that, issues personal attacks against people.

We are all different individuals with different backgrounds, so our positions on any question are likely to be different. That's ok, it's an open discussion. But opposing views shouldn't be mistated, overstated, or posters intimidated. I'll try to be respectful when expressing my ideas, and hope others will do likewise.

Along that line, I noticed a certain retired naval architect that posted earlier on one of these threads was challenged in a mean way by that same poster, only now, we find out (in recent postings by others) that he not only knows the field, but has done extensive work into the stability of such vessels, and we are seeing his documentation. So, we, me included, need to be careful when we challenge someone.

I apoligize to the forum if my posts have been distracting in anyway, but I don't like it when I am attacked, nor when I see others attacked unjustly or misquoted, or putdown. The nonsense about a cardboard ship with toilet paper sails is an example...who ever said that? And Mantus being challenged? And a 16 year old newby desperate for advice in advance of hurricane being put down? And many more.

* Culinary Administrator w/ Political Science and Psychology Degrees....a correction


----------



## sparklepl3nty

I'm going to say this entire discussion of is Bounty more or less a movie prop is kind of ridiculous, and somewhat besides the point.

The answer is that knowledge is not easily accessible. As far as I can tell, the only reason we have specs on the original was because of what Captain Bligh wrote in his journal. There may or may not be actual plans floating around, but I don't know. I have a friend that may be able to give me more answers regarding stability etc as he researches maritime disaster for a living.

Speaking of, and something for you all to chew over for the weekend. My friend sent out a FOIA request to the USCG for all of their inspection and COI documents. When looking this over, as it will take some time, please know that the main reason Bounty received COIs so frequently is because each time she visited a port as an "attraction vessel," that is, as offering dockside tours, she was boarded and an inspection made. For attraction vessels, the USCG primarily looks for multiple boarding/exiting gangways, fire and evac plans, and how many people are required to "man" each deck, etc. (for more info, check out page 422 of this pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/16000-16999/CIM_16000_7A.pdf). Now that I think of it, the first museum I worked for was considered an attraction vessel and had a COI. We were required to have a minimum of one person on the weather, 2nd deck, and one person on the 3rd and 4th decks, also multiple fire extinguishers, water hoses and hookups, and designated entrance/exit gangways. Plus we frequently ran fire and evacuation drills (we had overnight programs, and would run these drills when new students arrived).

Really, before you start fighting and calling names, please check with me if you have any questions about these documents and I will consult with my friend. Never have I seen such silly, nitpicky, fights among what I respected as grown adults. Hence my radio silence.

So, onto the fun stuff:
The USCG has an "information exchange" and one can search just about any vessel that has been involved in an incident or had a COI. I spent a couple hours last night looking up my former ships. This is Bounty's page https://psix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=345399.

Also, if you haven't seen this, this is eerily similar to the recent events. http://www.sptimes.com/SouthPinellas/100698/_Bounty__nearly_sinks.html


----------



## PCP

Both the documents you have posted have been posted already on this thread, The one with the inspections by someone from the Bounty organization to show that the boat had been inspected frequently. 

I asked if those inspections were made regarding the boat being a dock attractions or if not to what those inspections refer. I am still waiting for the answer.

Regarding the 1998 incident, that as I said was already posted an discussed here, even if something similar may have happen it is good to remember that the condition of the vessel in 2012 had nothing with its condition in 1998. The ship had been completely remade.

However, as I have pointed earlier, it seems to me that a contributing cause can have been the abandon of the diesel pumping system as the main system and his substitution for a not independent system (hydraulic) run directly by the engines.

In fact it was not made yet clear what was now the main pumping system: the electric one or the hydraulic one? and what was the back up system.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sparklepl3nty

PCP said:


> Both the documents you have posted have been posted already on this thread, The one with the inspections by someone from the Bounty organization to show that the boat had been inspected frequently.
> 
> I asked if those inspections were made regarding the boat being a dock attractions or if not to what those inspections refer. I am still waiting for the answer.
> 
> Regarding the 1998 incident, that has I said was posted an discussed here, even if something similar may have happen it is good to remember that the condition of the vessel in 2012 had nothing with its condition in 1998. The ship had been completely remade.


My apologies that they were already posted. I only looked back to about mid-November and might have missed that discussion.

As I said, those inspections were all made as a dockside attraction vessel. In all reality, they are not thorough enough to call a vessel "inspected frequently," implying that they were the same inspections as a vessel under subchapter T or R would have to go through. Really, they were not much more than a fire marshal inspection of a building.

I would not call the 1998/2012 differences completely remade. There was still much that was to be desired, that fact I know from discussion over the last couple years with crew (mostly those who crewed in 2007-2010).



PCP said:


> However, as I have pointed earlier, it seems to me that a contributing cause can have been the abandon of the diesel pumping system as the main system and his substitution for a not independent system (hydraulic) run directly by the engines.
> 
> In fact it was not made yet clear what was now the main pumping system: the electric one or the hydraulic one? and what was the back up system.


That I don't know the answer to. I do wonder why hand pumps were never installed on her, especially with her familiarity with water in and outside the boat. In all my years on every other boat, anything but the "boards wet" was cause of concern. On the other hand, the owner was quoted:

"At that time it wasn't considered an emergency, even though they had several feet of water inside the boat," Hansen said. "She's a very large ship, and that little bit of water really does not do anything to her." Sandy claims 'Bounty' off North Carolina - CNN.com

Now imagine, hundreds of gallons of water sloshing around a hull with no watertight compartments, and even with perfectly working engines, and pumps primed and high enough away from the water, you're still going to be screwed.


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> Paulo,
> 
> Actually, it was intentional and directed to the person who challenged me. If one challenges, expect to be challenged. As to special qualifications, I am just saying that in such matters, an engineer (retired) probably knows more than a chef as to structural and design issues....neither being qualified in the sense of being a naval architect. You, me, and everyone else has a right to express their opinion on a open public forum like this.
> 
> Not sure if it bothers others, but I don't like to see posters put down because of their opinions, nor intimidated with personal attacks, or have what they posted distorted. I, for one, will not be intimidated, and if one tries, they should expect to receive the same treatment in return. If you will note, my issues are with a particular poster who, in my opinion, distorts what people have said, must always get the last say, and failing that, issues personal attacks against people.
> 
> We are all different individuals with different backgrounds, so our positions on any question are likely to be different. That's ok, it's an open discussion. But opposing views shouldn't be mistated, overstated, or posters intimidated. I'll try to be respectful when expressing my ideas, and hope others will do likewise.
> 
> Along that line, I noticed a certain retired naval architect that posted earlier on one of these threads was challenged in a mean way by that same poster, only now, we find out (in recent postings by others) that he not only knows the field, but has done extensive work into the stability of such vessels, and we are seeing his documentation. So, we, me included, need to be careful when we challenge someone.
> 
> I apoligize to the forum if my posts have been distracting in anyway, but I don't like it when I am attacked, nor when I see others attacked unjustly or misquoted, or putdown. The nonsense about a cardboard ship with toilet paper sails is an example...who ever said that? And Mantus being challenged? And a 16 year old newby desperate for advice in advance of hurricane being put down? And many more.





> but I don't like it when I am attacked, nor when I see others attacked unjustly or misquoted, or putdown. The nonsense about a cardboard ship with toilet paper sails is an example...who ever said that-NC320
Click to expand...

Isnt this what you are doing. My statement about the cardboard posters et all was not directed at you personally, but was an opinion. But now you turn it into a personal attack on me, just what you claim to abhor.



> Quote:
> I apoligize to the forum if my posts have been distracting in anyway, but I don't like it when I am attacked, nor when I see others attacked unjustly or misquoted, or putdown- NC320


then you go and do exactly that


> Quote:
> As to special qualifications, I am just saying that in such matters, an engineer (retired) probably knows more than a chef as to structural and design issues....neither being qualified in the sense of being a naval architect.NC320


Another one of your assumptions. I have a BA in Political Science, a BA in Psychology and an MA in Political Science not that it means I am any more qualified than a chef. I currently am in charge of operations totalling44 Million dollars. This statement 
Quote:
an engineer (retired) *probably knows more than a chef

in an area of neither ones expertise on its own is just what you said you werent about a put down and a misquote

In its own way its a perjoritive statement, an example of a sterotyping and elitist thinking and insight into your character. I will be sure I forward to a few of my chef friends on the forum. one who is opne of my best friends T37chef as maybe they would care to know they are considered less than engineers. How sad a statement. Please confine your remarks to the statements of facts and not to me or what I do. When we see people do this its because they really dont have an argument and just strike out so I understand why. Again...where are your facts.*


----------



## sparklepl3nty

NCC320 said:


> As to special qualifications, I am just saying that in such matters, an engineer (retired) probably knows more than a chef as to structural and design issues....neither being qualified in the sense of being a naval architect.





chef2sail said:


> Another one of your assumptions. I have a BA in Political Science, a BA in Psychology and an MA in Political Science not that it means I am any more qualified than a chef. I currently am in charge of operations totalling44 Million dollars..
> In its own way its a perjoritive statement, an example of a sterotyping and elitist thinking and insight into your character. I will be sure I forward to a few of my chef friends on the forum. one who is opne of my best friends T37chef as maybe they would care to know they are considered less than engineers. How sad a statement.


Oh for god's effing sake, grow a pair, Chef!
He was referring to his own understanding of "structural and design issues" and that as an engineer probably knew more than a chef ABOUT said issues. He NEVER said chefs were lesser than engineers, merely that they were more knowledgeable about structure and design.

If you want something to confuse you, one of my most esteemed colleagues is both trained as a chef and an engineer, and killer at both.. but I would never say he was smarter than the both of you. In part because I know nothing more than your statements and what information you have provided on Sailnet.


----------



## chef2sail

sparklepl3nty said:


> Oh for god's effing sake, grow a pair, Chef!
> He was referring to his own understanding of "structural and design issues" and that as an engineer probably knew more than a chef ABOUT said issues. He NEVER said chefs were lesser than engineers, merely that they were more knowledgeable about structure and design.
> 
> .


In a vacum that may be correct, but he has done this in other posts also and he also assumed I was a chef...which I am not.


----------



## chef2sail

sparklepl3nty said:


> My apologies that they were already posted. I only looked back to about mid-November and might have missed that discussion.
> 
> As I said, those inspections were all made as a dockside attraction vessel. In all reality, they are not thorough enough to call a vessel "inspected frequently," implying that they were the same inspections as a vessel under subchapter T or R would have to go through. Really, they were not much more than a fire marshal inspection of a building.
> 
> I would not call the 1998/2012 differences completely remade. There was still much that was to be desired, that fact I know from discussion over the last couple years with crew (mostly those who crewed in 2007-2010).
> 
> That I don't know the answer to. I do wonder why hand pumps were never installed on her, especially with her familiarity with water in and outside the boat. In all my years on every other boat, anything but the "boards wet" was cause of concern. On the other hand, the owner was quoted:
> 
> "At that time it wasn't considered an emergency, even though they had several feet of water inside the boat," Hansen said. "She's a very large ship, and that little bit of water really does not do anything to her." Sandy claims 'Bounty' off North Carolina - CNN.com
> 
> Now imagine, hundreds of gallons of water sloshing around a hull with no watertight compartments, and even with perfectly working engines, and pumps primed and high enough away from the water, you're still going to be screwed.


Again thank you for your continued posting

Do you know if there are any additional inspections during the building/ design phase when the plans are modified to increase the size or lessen the weight carried in the keel like happened on the Bounty. I ask as when I modify my house I must go back to the zoning board with the plan modification?

Do you know of the Bounty practiced emergency procedures. Were the perfunctory and done just because they were required or did they beleive in them?

On the vessel you sail on What type of emergency procedures are practiced? I saw what you posted, I amreferring to underway....like MOB or abandon ship procedures. How is that handled?


----------



## PCP

sparklepl3nty said:


> ....
> 
> That I don't know the answer to. I do wonder why hand pumps were never installed on her, especially with her familiarity with water in and outside the boat. In all my years on every other boat, anything but the "boards wet" was cause of concern. On the other hand, the owner was quoted:
> 
> "At that time it wasn't considered an emergency, even though they had several feet of water inside the boat," Hansen said. "She's a very large ship, and that little bit of water really does not do anything to her." Sandy claims 'Bounty' off North Carolina - CNN.com
> 
> Now imagine, hundreds of gallons of water sloshing around a hull with no watertight compartments, and even with perfectly working engines, and pumps primed and high enough away from the water, you're still going to be screwed.


There is nothing to apologize.

There are some photos that were posted on another forum that shows a very vulnerable electric installation precisely to that kind of water sloshing around.

Even if the generators were working, if the system was shorted below, the electric pumps would not work anymore.

That electric pump system was the back up system back in 1998 and failed exactly because "the wires got wet" so it should be evident that was a vulnerable system. The boat was in trouble in 1998 precisely because the main diesel pump(s) failed.

It seems that Diesel autonomous main pump system was replaced by Hydraulic pumps directly connected to the engines, a non autonomous system that would fail when the engines went out of order.

It was known that the boat made water. The director of the shipyard were the boat was repaired stated that. In those conditions a reliable autonomous pump system with one or more back ups would be essential for boat safety.

I have many doubts about the installed pumping systems, their reliability and their autonomy regarding other boat systems.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sparklepl3nty

chef2sail said:


> Do you know if there are any additional inspections during the building/ design phase when the plans are modified to increase the size or lessen the weight carried in the keel like happened on the Bounty. I ask as when I modify my house I must go back to the zoning board with the plan modification?


I don't know what kind of inspections occurred regarding the size changes. Because she came from a reputable boatyard I imagine they would account for it, no matter if she was going to sail for only a couple months of filming or decades. I imagine there would be something from the shipyard/designers, but as to any inspection by the USCG.. it would not be necessary (there were no plans to use her elsewhere). Maybe an inspection by a surveyor?
I do know when an inspected boat changes anything, be they sail plan, rig changes, tonnage, etc, they have to have the plans ok'd and inspected by the USCG.



chef2sail said:


> Do you know of the Bounty practiced emergency procedures. Were the perfunctory and done just because they were required or did they beleive in them?


Anything I would answer you with would be speculation. However, I believe that safety is a culture, not just a practice, as you refer to it as "believe in them [emergency procedures]." From what I've seen and heard, I do not believe that Bounty may have had as strong a "culture" as other vessels. There are two YouTube videos which you may or may not have seen that show this. 



 




My critiques are: in the first video, they are hove-to, but there is no one at or near the helm, with the exception of the videographer. Whenever I've been hove-to or even anchored on other vessels, we've always had some sort of watch, usually two but sometimes one, depending on the weather. What would happen if the sails split and everyone else is asleep or eating dinner? Plus, the hatches are wide open. With that much wind, and 18' seas as the poster points out, those hatches should be closed in case of any knock down.

In the second video, it takes far too long for crew to climb aloft and furl that course. Giving the benefit of a doubt, if the first person to climb was green, and still slow climbing aloft, s/he should be last to climb or remain on deck. Two weeks after joining my first ship, our main topsail blew. The mate kept all of us newer crew on deck so that the nimble and more secure older hands could furl away. Secondly, no one looks like they are clipped in (if I think way back in my memory I remember that most of the yards had a single line stretched from yard arm to yard arm for crew to clip in, when the standard is a 1/2-1" steel bar attached every 2-3' to the top of the yard directly). Crew are constantly saying questions like "should I coil this?" when they should know the answer beyond a shadow of a doubt. Finally, it takes them ten minutes to furl, and they don't even finish it because the topmast gives way(!). On a properly trained ship, and even with a heavy sail like the course, ten minutes should be fine to "harbor furl," or make it look perfect for the public. In bad weather, they would "sea stow" the sail, and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Going back to my safety culture argument, I remember in 2008 a friend of mine was nearly killed when the line they were using to step a topmast parted. He had just guided in the pin to keep the topmast stepped or his head would've..

On the other hand, I know they had fire, MOB, and abandon ship drills. They obviously also had gumby suits, something not even all the other TallShips carry.



chef2sail said:


> On the vessel you sail on What type of emergency procedures are practiced? I saw what you posted, I amreferring to underway....like MOB or abandon ship procedures. How is that handled?


On 95% of every vessel I've sailed on (a dozen or so?), we've had drills at least once a month, and whenever new crew joined. For those of us that took passengers overnight, we had drills and discussions of the station bill (every permanent crew had a specific job/s to do, and there were overlaps). Of course, sometimes the safety drill doesn't become a culture.. during my first MOB drill as mate on a motored dinner cruise boat, I ran to the back deck with my station bill required gear, and found one of the other crew smoking. He had not even noticed our MOB buoy pass by, and ignored the MOB drill calls on the PA system. I cracked down on him pretty hard, and took away his "senior deckhand" privileges for several weeks.

While underway, we'd often have some sort of drills.. my most memorable was several years ago on a flat calm day motoring in the South Pacific. the captain quietly asked me to don a life jacket and grab a VHF, and jump overboard. Of our 8 crew, only he and the cook (who had been aboard 8 months, as long as I had) knew the plan. So I quietly jumped over, and watched in a quasi-terror as the boat immediately sounded the alarms, threw overboard life rings, and turned round. The conditions were perfect for such an event, but it is still nerve-wracking to see a boat only turn around at your horizon, and see how far away that appears. I later found I was only in the water for a few minutes, but it felt like an eternity.

The idea, I'm sure you know, is that if drills happen often enough, they will become like muscle memory, and even in a panicked state, we will do what we were trained to do.


----------



## Brewgyver

MarkofSeaLife said:


> They would have been sized to fit in the camera lens. (snippage)


Another assumption, based on...

right, nothing.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

Straight from the horse's mouth: Bounty ship sinking: HMS Bounty builder Robert Stephens anxiously waits for hearings on the ship's sinking - OrlandoSentinel.com

The USCG will be having their hearing on the sinking mid-February, and already I know a number of crew will be heading thataway to speak at the hearing.


----------



## rgscpat

The Orlando article still had the notion of the Bounty heading east to avoid the storm, so I left a message to ask the reporter about that and about whether Mr. Stephens might have any speculations or safety thoughts.


----------



## rockDAWG

sparklepl3nty said:


> Straight from the horse's mouth: Bounty ship sinking: HMS Bounty builder Robert Stephens anxiously waits for hearings on the ship's sinking - OrlandoSentinel.com
> 
> The USCG will be having their hearing on the sinking mid-February, and already I know a number of crew will be heading thataway to speak at the hearing.


Thanks for the heads up. Portsmouth VA is drivable, I may go to the hearing. I have lot of questions to ask.


----------



## PCP

rockDAWG said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Portsmouth VA is drivable, I may go to the hearing. I have lot of questions to ask.


That would be fantastic. If you read this thread there are a lot of good questions that scream to be asked and It would be awesome to have a first hand account of what is going on.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## rockDAWG

PCP said:


> That would be fantastic. If you read this thread there are a lot of good questions that scream to be asked and It would be awesome to have a first hand account of what is going on.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I will look into the hearing date and plan to attend this public hearing. I expect that it will last many days.

I am doubtful that I can ask questions in this meeting. No, I have not followed up this thread at all, I am sure there are many good questions. But I also trust that the panel (with expert witnesses) of this investigation are not dummy either. I am sure they will have hard questions to ask.

I will follow up when I find out more info. If anyone have more info on the hearing, please post.


----------



## rockDAWG

Just found this. The hearing will last 8 full days. I will call the CG or Board if they have an agenda in place. I don't think I can spare eight days for the hearing. I need to pick and choose where the meat is.



> The United States Coast Guard will hold a formal hearing next month to investigate the Oct. 29 sinking of the HMS Bounty, the service announced today.
> 
> A formal hearing on the incident will run from Feb. 12 to 21 at the Renaissance Portsmouth Hotel and Waterfront Conference Center in Portsmouth, Va. The hearing "will examine the facts and circumstances relating to the sinking of the vessel and will develop conclusions and recommendations to improve the safety and operations of similar vessels," according to a Coast Guard press release. The National Transportation Safety Board will also participate in the investigation.


----------



## Minnewaska

Eight days of taxpayer funded investigation, not to mention the cost if the rescue. I'm hoping the taxpayer gets something for their money.


----------



## rockDAWG

Minnewaska said:


> Eight days of taxpayer funded investigation, not to mention the cost if the rescue. I'm hoping the taxpayer gets something for their money.


I am sure the Fed will tell us:

Thou shall not sail into hurricane

And with other agendas:
Thou shall not have more than one bullet in the gun
Thou shall not kill others with a gun more than one bullet at a time
Thou shall not sell gun to the mentally ill patient. Let they use other means to harm others....
  .

I don't need their recommendations, I just want to know the facts that what happened out there.


----------



## chef2sail

I will attempt to go to at least two days of this testimony. Thanks for posting the information


----------



## rockDAWG

May be we should coordinate our attending dates, so we have a full coverage of the hearing from Sailnet community.


----------



## PCP

It seems that more information is available:

*The chief mate of a replica 18th-century sailing ship that sank off North Carolina during Hurricane Sandy told investigators Tuesday that the ship's captain twice refused his pleas to order the crew to abandon ship.
It wasn't until he made a third plea that the captain gave the order - moments before the ship rolled and tossed the crew into the water.*

....

*Svendsen said the ship was taking on water and had no power when it rolled over and sank. He also told investigators the captain didn't alert Coast Guard officials of the ship's deteriorating condition when he first suggested it, with Capt. Robin Walbridge choosing to focus on fixing failing generators instead. Svendsen disagreed with Walbridge on that decision, along with several others....

Before ever leaving New London, Conn., for St. Petersburg, Fla., Svendsen said he had told Walbridge that he and other crew members were concerned about his decision to head directly toward the top of the storm as it approached.
"I had mentioned other options as far as staying in and not going out to sea. Robin felt the ship was safer at sea," Svendsen said....*

HMS Bounty crewman says he urged abandoning ship - Yahoo! News

...


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> It seems that more information is available:
> 
> *The chief mate of a replica 18th-century sailing ship that sank off North Carolina during Hurricane Sandy told investigators Tuesday that the ship's captain twice refused his pleas to order the crew to abandon ship.
> It wasn't until he made a third plea that the captain gave the order - moments before the ship rolled and tossed the crew into the water.*
> 
> ....
> 
> *Svendsen said the ship was taking on water and had no power when it rolled over and sank. He also told investigators the captain didn't alert Coast Guard officials of the ship's deteriorating condition when he first suggested it, with Capt. Robin Walbridge choosing to focus on fixing failing generators instead. Svendsen disagreed with Walbridge on that decision, along with several others....
> 
> Before ever leaving New London, Conn., for St. Petersburg, Fla., Svendsen said he had told Walbridge that he and other crew members were concerned about his decision to head directly toward the top of the storm as it approached.
> "I had mentioned other options as far as staying in and not going out to sea. Robin felt the ship was safer at sea," Svendsen said....*
> 
> HMS Bounty crewman says he urged abandoning ship - Yahoo! News
> 
> ...


And to finish the paragraph quoted



> Walbridge explained his decision to the ship's crew before leaving Connecticut and offered to let anyone who wasn't comfortable with it leave, but nobody chose to do so.


confirming what has been reported before that the crew was given a choice to leave or stay on the vessel

http://news.yahoo.com/hms-bounty-crewman-says-urged-abandoning-ship-181112564.html]HMS Bounty crewman says he urged abandoning ship - Yahoo! News


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> It seems that more information is available:
> 
> *The chief mate of a replica 18th-century sailing ship that sank off North Carolina during Hurricane Sandy told investigators Tuesday that the ship's captain twice refused his pleas to order the crew to abandon ship.
> It wasn't until he made a third plea that the captain gave the order - moments before the ship rolled and tossed the crew into the water.*
> 
> ....
> 
> *Svendsen said the ship was taking on water and had no power when it rolled over and sank. He also told investigators the captain didn't alert Coast Guard officials of the ship's deteriorating condition when he first suggested it, with Capt. Robin Walbridge choosing to focus on fixing failing generators instead. Svendsen disagreed with Walbridge on that decision, along with several others....
> 
> Before ever leaving New London, Conn., for St. Petersburg, Fla., Svendsen said he had told Walbridge that he and other crew members were concerned about his decision to head directly toward the top of the storm as it approached.
> "I had mentioned other options as far as staying in and not going out to sea. Robin felt the ship was safer at sea," Svendsen said....*
> 
> HMS Bounty crewman says he urged abandoning ship - Yahoo! News
> 
> ...


A poster from gCaptain is covering the hearings, as well...

Looks like from that particular day of testimony, his account of the proceedings is a bit more accurate than that of the AP, or VIRGINIAN-PILOT...



> The first time I weighed in about the Bounty sinking I said that if "I've learned anything in my career, it's that speculation rarely lines up with facts." It turns out that facts rarely line up with facts, either. My own local paper - The Virginian Pilot - reported that Svendsen stated that he "twice urged Walbridge to abandon ship before Walbridge agreed," and later in the same article report that "Svendsen twice told Walbridge they should abandon ship before Walbridge agreed. The boat rolled before an orderly evacuation could happen, spilling crew members into the ocean." *The Pilot left out that the time between his first urging and Walbridge's agreement was two minutes. * Sincerely - there was a time for an "orderly evacuation," and it was long before Svendsen first urged his captain.
> 
> Bounty Hearings Begin - Chief Mate Testifies | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## chef2sail

Bounty hearings streamed

HMS Bounty hearings


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> Bounty hearings streamed
> 
> HMS Bounty hearings


Nothing there from the link. May be there are on break at 12:30 pm


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> Nothing there from the link. May be there are on break at 12:30 pm


Yes on break till 1300


----------



## rockDAWG

Video is back, but no audio :hothead


It is WERKING now.


----------



## chef2sail

Listening to the shipwright/builder from Boothbay. Previous to himn was the the President of the Tall Ships association of America


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> Listening to the shipwright/builder from Boothbay. Previous to himn was the the President of the Tall Ships association of America


I am watching now.

Since the video is being streamed, I canceled my trip to Portsmouth this evening.


----------



## rockDAWG

1. Only 15 % of the seams were re-caulked for the whole boat. After the boat was hulled out, there were 4 to 5 weeping area from the hull.

2. Crews did decent job to repair the seams.
3. Above waterline and deck, bad shape and need repair, Upside, only 6 years old, but excessive decay.
4. Planking decayed from inside to about 2/3 of the plank


----------



## chef2sail

Yes he is talking about the shocking degradation (rot) of the wood on the side planking. He differentiated between rot ( fresh water) with spores and other rot. Only way to fix is to replace. He recommended to Walbridge to replace all. Walbridge replaced some, but wanted to wait until the next haul

When asked if he told CG at the next inspection he said no. He said he told his boss.


----------



## rockDAWG

Also:

They (crews) also painted over rotted frame before installing the planking, while he (I need to find his name) of Boothbay Shipyard was out for 2 days.

He concerned about the safety of Bounty when the boat left Boothbay. He told Captain to pick and choose the weather.


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> Also:
> 
> They (crews) also painted over rotted frame before installing the planking, while he (I need to find his name) of Boothbay Shipyard was out for 2 days.


The shipwright is saying he told Waldbridge of his concernes and said Walbridge was terrified about what he found also. The shipwright said he felt concerned for the safety of the vessel. he says he told Walbridge but not the CG. he told his boss, and he basically said his boss pushed the question away down the road to the next inspction.

Shipwright says he had converstaion with Walbridge that he had to pick and chose his weather.


----------



## chef2sail

His tesimony may be quite damning, but must be taken with a grain of salt, he is basically claiming he told the captain the vessel was unseaworthy and felt that was the end of his responsibility. I dont know that I beleive him. Hopefully there were others present when he did to corroborate his testimomny. I am suprise that walberg is the only one he is telling this to.

The only caveat is that is would be in his and his bosses best interest to cover their asses and throw the blame on Walberg so that no one says what the repair was wasnt adequate and thats why the ship took on water.

It is easy to jump at each piece as it occurs in real time. Prudence says let it all unfold first, although this is damning.


----------



## rockDAWG

This is expected that he will speak for the best interest of the shipyard. But I hope he would not lied under oath. His testimony is still very valuable and the condition of the boat was bad shape when she leave the Boothbay shipyard.

He answered the question if the crews used DAP as chaulking below water line. And the shipyard does not use DAP for seams.

Edited:
Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat asap, Captain fears of lawsuit.


----------



## nolatom

Keep an eye peeled at the 6-month anniversary or a few days before, for the possibility (likelihood?) that Bounty's owner will file a Petition for Limitation of Liability in federal court somewhere.

If so it would be tactically advantageous for owners and underwriters to keep all fault "on board" and none on shore, because any of the latter can create "privity" by owners to the faults or unseaworthiness of the vessel or crew--and destroy their chances to limit their liability to the value of Bounty post-sinking, that is, zero.

Doubtful that none of the fault, at least in the condition of the ship, generators, pumps, etc wasn't known or caused by owners/managers, but to keep that chance of limitation alive, they would tend tactically to push all fault onto the errors of an otherwise trained, experienced, and qualified captain and crew, on a properly-maintained and seaworthy ship, and not known by or created by managers on shore.

Along with the limitation action will probably come a plea for "exoneration" from fault based on Act of God. So, no fault, or if there was fault, it was not fault of the shore people.

I am not giving a legal opinion on this case here, just advising what the law is and how it might be used, and how it might affect the motives of the parties in interest and witnesses in the hearing.


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> This is expected that he will speak for the best interest of the shipyard. But I hope he would not lied under oath. His testimony is still very valuable and the condition of the boat was bad shape when she leave the Boothbay shipyard.
> 
> He answered the question if the crews used DAP as chaulking below water line. And the shipyard does not use DAP for seams.
> 
> Edited:
> Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat asap, Captain fears of lawsuit.


Yes he saw the Bounty crew used DAP and approved it though. Yeah but he said he talked to the Captain 30 times about it. First hes said no one was there...hard to beleive. When pressed he said a couple of times 5 people were present. Never did a post work walk though other than to look for leftbehind equipment and see if there were leaks. He never documented anything....but mysteriously he had 30 pictures. he said he never even showed them to his boss. If he was so worried about the condition he showed amazing restraint in telling anyone till after she sank.


----------



## rockDAWG

Yes, I heard that too. I am sure he will be cross examined when the lawyers have a chance to review all the testimony. 

Regarding the pictures, He used an iPhone to take those picture, it should have a date and GPS coordinates stamped on the file. I was surprised the lawyer who asked the question did not know it.


----------



## Roger Long

These certainly muddy the waters although I'm not sure how relevant they might be to the question of taking an old ship out with that weather forecast. If she had been a brand new steel sailing vessel, I would feel almost exactly the same way about the decision to sail.

Schooner High and Dry for Repairs

HMS BOUNTY: How Sound Was She?

You should also read this from someone I know personally and consider one of the most knowledgeable people about boat systems I have ever met.

http://forums.sbo.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=149549&#post999880


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Ah Ha!!!!!!!!!! Tonnage certificates did have something weird going on!!!!!!!!!



> In July of 2011, at the urging of USCG Activities Europe and MCA, Simonin walked through a new Tonnage Certificate issued by ABS that set Bounty's gross tonnage at 409. During a visit, MCA inspectors noticed a change to the ship's construction - specifically the removal of a tonnage opening - that was not reported to ABS. The new assessment made the Bounty subject to SOLAS, and the HMS Bounty Organization appealed. A year later they changed the vessel back to its previous configuration and received a new tonnage certificate that brought them back down to 266 regulatory tons, but it would seem that for a year Bounty operated in violation of IMO regulations.


Rotted Frames on Bounty | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

This GCaptain reporter is excellent! Really doning well.


----------



## Jeff_H

Rotted Frames on Bounty | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

Rotted Frames on Bounty
BY MARIO VITTONE ON FEBRUARY 13, 2013

The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard's evidence # CG-41: a series of 29 photographs he had taken of Bounty during its most recent yard period. Mr. Kosakowski - the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty.

The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship's representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood. He convinced Kosakowski that they would make the repairs before their next Coast Guard hull inspection. The final witness of the day and the discussions of the evidence was stunning to those of us in the crowd.

He had given the photos to the USCG Investigator back in December. That same Coast Guard investigator - Commander Kevin Carroll - was on the other side of the table today, asking questions.

Carroll: "And you had a conversation&#8230;did you tell Captain Walbridge?"

Kosakowski: "Yes."

Carrol: "What did he say?"

Kosakowski: "He was also concerned. I told him I thought that he had to pick and choose his weather&#8230; he said that he was terrified of what we had found."

Kosakowski said that he didn't voice his concerns to anyone other than Captain Walbridge of Bounty and his own boss, Eric Graves, telling Carroll, "I believe that the owner's rep is the extent of my debt to notify."

Looking around to see if anyone else looked as dismayed as I felt, I didn't have to look hard. What we were hearing from Kosakowski came at the end of a long day of testimony that painted a picture of maintenance and management of Bounty that was suspect at best.

Todd Kosakowski with Chief Mate John Svendsen after the second day of testimony into the sinking of Bounty. (Photo M. Vittone)

Morning testimony by Miss Tracey Simonin - the HMS Bounty Organization's "Director of Shoreside Operations" revealed confusion about the ship's status as it related to tonnage certificates and maintenance management, ABS and USCG notification of repairs, and who may or may not be in charge of repair work aboard Bounty.

In July of 2011, at the urging of USCG Activities Europe and MCA, Simonin walked through a new Tonnage Certificate issued by ABS that set Bounty's gross tonnage at 409. During a visit, MCA inspectors noticed a change to the ship's construction - specifically the removal of a tonnage opening - that was not reported to ABS. The new assessment made the Bounty subject to SOLAS, and the HMS Bounty Organization appealed. A year later they changed the vessel back to its previous configuration and received a new tonnage certificate that brought them back down to 266 regulatory tons, but it would seem that for a year Bounty operated in violation of IMO regulations. Like so much of what I've seen so far in these hearings, there are more questions than answers; Simonin answered "I don't know," and "I don't remember," frequently.

In Simonin's defense, there was someone in the room better suited to answer the Commander's questions today, but Mr. Robert Hansen (seated in the front row) is asserting his fifth amendment rights and will not be testifying. Simonin did clear up a couple of things. We learned that the person who posted on Bounty's Facebook page was Jim Salapatek. He - not the captain - was the one who posted that the voyage into the hurricane was a safe decision, that the Coast Guard had issued a UMIB (Urgent Marine Information Broadcast) for Bounty on October 28th but had rescinded it (they hadn't), and he did all of that from his home in Illinois. His connection to Bounty? His son, Drew (29) was crew aboard Bounty. How did he get his information? "I don't know," said Simonin.

There was a break from strained testimony and nervous answers when Mr. Bert Rogers, the executive director of Tall Ships America, was called as a witness. "Bounty was the star of the show at our events because of her star appeal and we featured her as a headliner vessel at our events," Rogers said. When asked about Walbridge's competence, Rogers spoke well of the captain and his efforts over the past 17 years to "turn Bounty around." He said complimentary things about Bounty's crew and the ship's relationship and value to his organization.

It was 20 minutes of good news about the ship and her performance from a respected and experienced leader in the tall ship community. And then Rogers - the first experienced tall-ship captain to take the stand - was asked by Carroll, "Would you have taken her out into that storm?" "No, I would have sought safer harbor upriver." No one was surprised.

Carroll: "Do you think the ship was safer at sea?"

Rogers: "I don't believe that a ship is safer at sea. It is circumstantial. There are cases where that is the example and cases where it is not."

Carroll: "Is the crew safer at sea?"

Rogers: "That is absurd; they are of course safer in bed than at sea. But if you have to decide between crew safety and ship safety you would have to go to the crew."

Rogers left before he could hear Kosakowski recount the condition of Bounty and the rotted frames. He didn't hear about the Walbridge's decision to wait until the next yard period to get into extensive repairs. He didn't hear about the shipwright's warning to keep the boat out of heavy weather. If he had, I wonder what he would have thought about those "circumstances?"

The last to question Rogers was the attorney for the Christian family, Mr. Jacob Shisha. The body of the Christian's daughter, Claudine (42), was recovered by the Coast Guard on October 29th.

Shisha: "In late October - how many member vessels did you have on the Atlantic Coast?"

Rogers: "About fifty."

Shisha: "How many made a decision to leave port in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy?"

Rogers: "None that I know of&#8230;besides Bounty."


----------



## chef2sail

Jeff_H said:


> Rotted Frames on Bounty | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News
> 
> Rotted Frames on Bounty
> BY MARIO VITTONE ON FEBRUARY 13, 2013
> 
> The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard's evidence # CG-41: a series of 29 photographs he had taken of Bounty during its most recent yard period. Mr. Kosakowski - the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty.
> 
> The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship's representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood. He convinced Kosakowski that they would make the repairs before their next Coast Guard hull inspection. The final witness of the day and the discussions of the evidence was stunning to those of us in the crowd.
> 
> He had given the photos to the USCG Investigator back in December. That same Coast Guard investigator - Commander Kevin Carroll - was on the other side of the table today, asking questions.
> 
> Carroll: "And you had a conversation&#8230;did you tell Captain Walbridge?"
> 
> Kosakowski: "Yes."
> 
> Carrol: "What did he say?"
> 
> Kosakowski: "He was also concerned. I told him I thought that he had to pick and choose his weather&#8230; he said that he was terrified of what we had found."
> 
> Kosakowski said that he didn't voice his concerns to anyone other than Captain Walbridge of Bounty and his own boss, Eric Graves, telling Carroll, "I believe that the owner's rep is the extent of my debt to notify."
> 
> Looking around to see if anyone else looked as dismayed as I felt, I didn't have to look hard. What we were hearing from Kosakowski came at the end of a long day of testimony that painted a picture of maintenance and management of Bounty that was suspect at best.
> 
> Todd Kosakowski with Chief Mate John Svendsen after the second day of testimony into the sinking of Bounty. (Photo M. Vittone)
> 
> Morning testimony by Miss Tracey Simonin - the HMS Bounty Organization's "Director of Shoreside Operations" revealed confusion about the ship's status as it related to tonnage certificates and maintenance management, ABS and USCG notification of repairs, and who may or may not be in charge of repair work aboard Bounty.
> 
> In July of 2011, at the urging of USCG Activities Europe and MCA, Simonin walked through a new Tonnage Certificate issued by ABS that set Bounty's gross tonnage at 409. During a visit, MCA inspectors noticed a change to the ship's construction - specifically the removal of a tonnage opening - that was not reported to ABS. The new assessment made the Bounty subject to SOLAS, and the HMS Bounty Organization appealed. A year later they changed the vessel back to its previous configuration and received a new tonnage certificate that brought them back down to 266 regulatory tons, but it would seem that for a year Bounty operated in violation of IMO regulations. Like so much of what I've seen so far in these hearings, there are more questions than answers; Simonin answered "I don't know," and "I don't remember," frequently.
> 
> In Simonin's defense, there was someone in the room better suited to answer the Commander's questions today, but Mr. Robert Hansen (seated in the front row) is asserting his fifth amendment rights and will not be testifying. Simonin did clear up a couple of things. We learned that the person who posted on Bounty's Facebook page was Jim Salapatek. He - not the captain - was the one who posted that the voyage into the hurricane was a safe decision, that the Coast Guard had issued a UMIB (Urgent Marine Information Broadcast) for Bounty on October 28th but had rescinded it (they hadn't), and he did all of that from his home in Illinois. His connection to Bounty? His son, Drew (29) was crew aboard Bounty. How did he get his information? "I don't know," said Simonin.
> 
> There was a break from strained testimony and nervous answers when Mr. Bert Rogers, the executive director of Tall Ships America, was called as a witness. "Bounty was the star of the show at our events because of her star appeal and we featured her as a headliner vessel at our events," Rogers said. When asked about Walbridge's competence, Rogers spoke well of the captain and his efforts over the past 17 years to "turn Bounty around." He said complimentary things about Bounty's crew and the ship's relationship and value to his organization.
> 
> It was 20 minutes of good news about the ship and her performance from a respected and experienced leader in the tall ship community. And then Rogers - the first experienced tall-ship captain to take the stand - was asked by Carroll, "Would you have taken her out into that storm?" "No, I would have sought safer harbor upriver." No one was surprised.
> 
> Carroll: "Do you think the ship was safer at sea?"
> 
> Rogers: "I don't believe that a ship is safer at sea. It is circumstantial. There are cases where that is the example and cases where it is not."
> 
> Carroll: "Is the crew safer at sea?"
> 
> Rogers: "That is absurd; they are of course safer in bed than at sea. But if you have to decide between crew safety and ship safety you would have to go to the crew."
> 
> Rogers left before he could hear Kosakowski recount the condition of Bounty and the rotted frames. He didn't hear about the Walbridge's decision to wait until the next yard period to get into extensive repairs. He didn't hear about the shipwright's warning to keep the boat out of heavy weather. If he had, I wonder what he would have thought about those "circumstances?"
> 
> The last to question Rogers was the attorney for the Christian family, Mr. Jacob Shisha. The body of the Christian's daughter, Claudine (42), was recovered by the Coast Guard on October 29th.
> 
> Shisha: "In late October - how many member vessels did you have on the Atlantic Coast?"
> 
> Rogers: "About fifty."
> 
> Shisha: "How many made a decision to leave port in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy?"
> 
> Rogers: "None that I know of&#8230;besides Bounty."


Take the article posted above with a grain of salt. Thats not to say the the testimony wasnt riviting and that it wasnt an example of the Bounty maintainence. The problem with the news media is just that the news media. The post for sensationalism

An example: Posted by Jon Eisenberg


> The first time I weighed in about the Bounty sinking I said that if "I've learned anything in my career, it's that speculation rarely lines up with facts." It turns out that facts rarely line up with facts, either. My own local paper - The Virginian Pilot - reported that Svendsen stated that he "twice urged Walbridge to abandon ship before Walbridge agreed," and later in the same article report that "Svendsen twice told Walbridge they should abandon ship before Walbridge agreed. The boat rolled before an orderly evacuation could happen, spilling crew members into the ocean." The Pilot left out that the time between his first urging and Walbridge's agreement was two minutes. Sincerely - there was a time for an "orderly evacuation," and it was long before Svendsen first urged his captain.


I watched the live video feed for almost all of Kosakowskis testimony. Watched his face, voice inflections, etc, Curiously the reporter left out a few other questions of this man which went to his motives and potential covering of his ass thus challanging his testimony. Heres what the reporter left out. The shipwright Kosakowski was the project leader for the shipyard affecting the repairs. He stated he had 30 conversations with the Captain about the repairs and what he found. He continued to affect repairs of the areas he was repairing and mentioned 2 times to Walbridge that the vessel MAY have damage in other areas that he wanted to explore further.. He testified also he took a moisture metter in these areas and the results we negative for moisture. He also stated that he needed to remove the planking to be sure. he stated that he reported his finding only to his boss. The first time he was asked by the CG was anyone there to verify he told the Captain that he should take it out in heavy weather until this was checked. He said no. When he admitted he had talked 30 times to Waldbridge he was asked again incredulously by the CG Commander that not one of the times was anyone there. He back tracked and said there were and there were two occasions. He further remembered there were 5 people present both times. To me ( Rockdawg is also watching the video feed too that I know of) this mans testimony was a bit self serving and ass covering for further legal actions by the Bounty Company.

It is apparent to me so far and I want to reserve judgement until I hear everything, that one of the main problems with this vessels was the funds to repair her completely in one shot. The repair work which was done by the shipwrights appeared to be first class where they worked on her. Funding for these vessels to continue their upkeep are a continual problem.

Caveat- I am not speaking to the ssue of his leaving in a hurricane, but just to what we have heard so far.

If you have a moment try and spend some time on the live feed.

HMS Bounty hearings


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> The shipwright is saying he told Waldbridge of his concernes and said Walbridge was terrified about what he found also. The shipwright said he felt concerned for the safety of the vessel. he says he told Walbridge but not the CG. he told his boss, and he basically said his boss pushed the question away down the road to the next inspction.
> 
> Shipwright says he had converstaion with Walbridge that he had to pick and chose his weather.


Jesus, this make things even worse. How having care with the weather plays with Walbrige taking the boat to an Hurricane?

Walbrige is not around for blaming and the question here is if the boat owner knew about the boat's bad condition and that the boat should not be sailed in bad weather. If so that would be blaming him for letting Walbrige sail out to an Hurricane. All evidence points in that sense but no factual prove yet.

Cheers

Paulo


----------



## millerandy

rockDAWG said:


> This is expected that he will speak for the best interest of the shipyard. But I hope he would not lied under oath. His testimony is still very valuable and the condition of the boat was bad shape when she leave the Boothbay shipyard.
> 
> He answered the question if the crews used DAP as chaulking below water line. And the shipyard does not use DAP for seams.
> 
> *Edited:
> Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat asap, Captain fears of lawsuit.*




Where did this come from? Did someone testify that the Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat?


----------



## mad_machine

This is all very interesting stuff so far. Shame I could not make it down for the testimony.

My biggest question about the bounty remains: As a ship that was built as a movie prop, was she ever really "Sea worthy"?


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Jesus, this make things even worse. How having care with the weather plays with Walbrige taking the boat to an Hurricane?
> 
> Walbrige is not around for blaming and the question here is if the boat owner knew about the boat's bad condition and that the boat should not be sailed in bad weather. If so that would be blaming him for letting Walbrige sail out to an Hurricane. All evidence points in that sense but no factual prove yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paulo


Yep. As this unfolds there will be lots of blaming and finger pinting and ass covering, Thats apparent. Therewill be other things to maybe learn as well as think about changing along with the obvious blame thats afixed to Walbridge for taking the vessel out in the face of a hurricane.

The owner who lurks in the backround here influence and authority in the upkeep of the Bounty as well as the pressures he applied will come into focus more clearly.


----------



## chef2sail

millerandy said:


> [/B]
> 
> Where did this come from? Did someone testify that the Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat?


Second hand testimony from a shipwright whose complete honesty I would call into question. He appeared to be major trying to cover his ass yesterday and did all along. Funny he takes pictures of the rot in one part of the boat and saves a piece, yet shows it to no one not even his boss until the vessels gone down. He also claims he kept no records or diary of repair, yet the man who testified today said there are boxes of records at the shipyard.

The more I hear, the more his testimony is called into question.


----------



## chef2sail

mad_machine said:


> This is all very interesting stuff so far. Shame I could not make it down for the testimony.
> 
> My biggest question about the bounty remains: As a ship that was built as a movie prop, was she ever really "Sea worthy"?


The CG Commander in charge has been very addamant about using the word seaworthy and admonishes those who use it.

Follow the streamed testimony here. They are breaking till 1300 (1)

HMS Bounty hearings


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ... as well as the pressures he applied will come into focus more clearly.


Well, that would be very damaging to the owner and would lift some guilt of the Captain's shoulders but I never heard nothing about that. The talk is that Captain's said to the owner that the best would be to face the Hurricane on the sea. Maybe that's more to that story but we did not hear nothing about it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## rockDAWG

rockDAWG said:


> This is expected that he will speak for the best interest of the shipyard. But I hope he would not lied under oath. His testimony is still very valuable and the condition of the boat was bad shape when she leave the Boothbay shipyard.
> 
> He answered the question if the crews used DAP as chaulking below water line. And the shipyard does not use DAP for seams.
> 
> Edited:
> *Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat asap, Captain fears of lawsuit.*





millerandy said:


> [/B]
> 
> Where did this come from? Did someone testify that the Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat?


I overheard that during the Todd Kosakowski testimony. I am not sure if others like Dave heard that too. ?

During the last haul out, captain and the owner knew that they could not have fix all the rots. And both were surprised by the extents of rotted structure. They deferred the fixes until the next haul out. I am not surprised that lawsuit was in their mind if anything happens to Bounty.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Second hand testimony from a shipwright whose complete honesty I would call into question. He appeared to be major trying to cover his ass yesterday and did all along. Funny he takes pictures of the rot in one part of the boat and saves a piece, *yet shows it to no one not even his boss until the vessels gone down*. He also claims he kept no records or diary of repair, yet the man who testified today said there are boxes of records at the shipyard.
> 
> The more I hear, the more his testimony is called into question.


He said to his boss about the condition of the boat and probably show him what is in the pictures (on the boat). Probably his boss dismissed is concerns as excessive and he just for precaution took the pictures, just in case....

That's what I would have done. If he insisted with the boss probably he would lose his job.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## rockDAWG

This is unrelated to the hearing. But I wonder if anyone noticed that.

All survivors wore the Gumby dry suit when the CG picked them up. The suits are not cheap, and considered the financial problem that Bounty organization has. I wonder when those suits were purchased. 

If those suit were purchased just before Sandy, I would be worried.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> He said to his boss about the condition of the boat and probably show him what is in the pictures (on the boat). Probably his boss dismissed is concerns as excessive and he just for precaution took the pictures, just in case....
> 
> That's what I would have done. If he insisted with the boss probably he would lose his job.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


When asked he said he didnt even show his boss the pictures and the boss never saw the pictures he took. This from the same man who testified he made and had no notes.

Paulo...click on the link and watch some of it if you can...its fascinating.


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> This is unrelated to the hearing. But I wonder if anyone noticed that.
> 
> All survivors wore the Gumby dry suit when the CG picked them up. The suits are not cheap, and considered the financial problem that Bounty organization has. I wonder when those suits were purchased.
> 
> If those suit were purchased just before Sandy, I would be worried.


Yes They also had regular drills too., If you read the reporters writing they got thrown off the boat when the ship rolled and they were shocked, yet all of them already had on survival suits.

I think when the crew memebers testify about the days events there will come a clearer picture of the last moments as some of them have already reported they were trained in surviva or abandoning the ship


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> I overheard that during the Todd Kosakowski testimony. I am not sure if others like Dave heard that too. ?
> 
> During the last haul out, captain and the owner knew that they could not have fix all the rots. And both were surprised by the extents of rotted structure. They deferred the fixes until the next haul out. I am not surprised that lawsuit was in their mind if anything happens to Bounty.


Yes.. you are right and i did hear that.

His testimony was that he fixed what they let him. he ASSUMED since what he found in that area was the same throughout. That assumption was challanged by the Bounty attorney and the CG Commander who asked did he see it or just assume it. He said he took mositure readings, but they didnt show there was moisture, but the only way to know was to unpeal the planking itself. This is what they then agreed to do when the ship got hauled again this year and that she would be ok till then. He never proved it was rotten, but is assuming it was. The only way to tell was to pull the planks. Interestingly the man today testified they could have take wood core samples to find out also.

The man today was in charge of the project and noted that the entire hull under the waterline was redone with oak ( the best) in 2006, and that the rest was being done with fir, It seemes incredulous to think it rotted in 6 years. I also learned about the keel hump (hog) today vs center of gravity and how they removed the hog ( sandboxes) to add the lead ballast ( 20,000) as the keel had to be straingt in 2006. When they pulled it the hump was back, but the lead had softly formed around it.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> The man today was in charge of the project and noted that the entire hull under the waterline was redone with oak ( the best) in 2006, and that the rest was being done with fir, It seemes incredulous to think it rotted in 6 years. I also learned about the keel hump (hog) today vs center of gravity and how they removed the hog ( sandboxes) to add the lead ballast ( 20,000) as the keel had to be straingt in 2006. When they pulled it the hump was back, but the lead had softly formed around it.


I am curious as to where shipyards get their wood used for repair and ship building. Most of the wood available now is second growth (not the old growth that would have been used for ships built 100 or more years ago). With this second growth wood, I could see it not lasting more than 6 years. I had some old birch plywood (not marine grade) that I was going to throw away (full of dry wood termites), had it sitting in the yard exposed to rain and sun on daily basis. After a week it had delaminated and was covered in black mold.

The old growth wood had very tight grain structure, as the trees grew very slowly in the well shaded dense forest. Todays lumber trees are farmed to grow very rapidly and have large grain that soaks up water like a sponge.

Chef, sorry if I missed it but why was the ballast of Bounty changed to lead?

Regards


----------



## chef2sail

casey1999 said:


> I am curious as to where shipyards get their wood used for repair and ship building. Most of the wood available now is second growth (not the old growth that would have been used for ships built 100 or more years ago). With this second growth wood, I could see it not lasting more than 6 years. I had some old birch plywood (not marine grade) that I was going to throw away (full of dry wood termites), had it sitting in the yard exposed to rain and sun on daily basis. After a week it had delaminated and was covered in black mold.
> 
> The old growth wood had very tight grain structure, as the trees grew very slowly in the well shaded dense forest. Todays lumber trees are farmed to grow very rapidly and have large grain that soaks up water like a sponge.
> 
> Chef, sorry if I missed it but why was the ballast of Bounty changed to lead?
> 
> Regards


The wood used was second cut wood only for the stuff above the water line. The oak used for the below water line came from Tennessee and they went down to supervise it being cut to insure the lengths were as long as possible so there would be less butts to caulk.

The fir was also top grade. From the PCNW. He bought them as timbers and then had them cut. He picked them out personally. He went into detail about the knotting and such. He said it was second growth, but he looked for tighter grain. The fir was used for the deck as well as the planks above the waterline. He picked out the woods himself making sure he wasnt using sap wood vs center wood. he talked about the glucose levels. The expectation was that these timbers would would last way more than 6 years. However he thought the ventilation and the fact the Bounty was kept in the south took away from it lifespan as ity was a perfect laboratory for growth. Thats why he pushed for ventilation

The lead was added in 2006/7 to try and increase the stability of the vessel. It already had some lead in the keel. He also mentioned that the fir was 15 lbs lighter per 12 board ft and saved about 5000 lbs when put in.

He was complimentry about the build quality of the boat built in Ludenberg originally and that when he got it first to refit in 2001 he was totallly suprised at the techniques and complicated build. when asked if it was a prop, he laughed and said no, the techniques were used as the old traditional ships were. He never looked at it as a movie prop nor did he feel the build quality was shortcutted as in a movie prop. In fact he went into detail how string the builkd had to be for the extra fuel tanks needed for the filmeing in the remote south pacific far away from supplies..

He said the owner as well as Walbridge wanted the CG to inspect and to make things as safe as possible as they were going to eventually have it inspected for passengers. He said the owners asked the CG at various time to look at stuff and they did it completely voluntarily.

He was suprised that the vesesel was still intact in the pictures when they left it. Not a picture of a poorly constructed vessel which had failed due to it coming apart. he said deck, chainplates and all structures appeared to be intact that the ship hadnt broken up even a day later was still partially afloat.
He said when he saw the Bounty had left the dock at New London he said OH My God. He had a relationship with Walbridge and was suprised he left


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> I am curious as to where shipyards get their wood used for repair and ship building. Most of the wood available now is second growth (not the old growth that would have been used for ships built 100 or more years ago). With this second growth wood, I could see it not lasting more than 6 years. I had some old birch plywood (not marine grade) that I was going to throw away (full of dry wood termites), had it sitting in the yard exposed to rain and sun on daily basis. After a week it had delaminated and was covered in black mold.
> 
> The old growth wood had very tight grain structure, as the trees grew very slowly in the well shaded dense forest. Todays lumber trees are farmed to grow very rapidly and have large grain that soaks up water like a sponge.
> 
> Chef, sorry if I missed it but why was the ballast of Bounty changed to lead?
> 
> Regards


That is true. Do you know that old wood for boat building was subjected to a special preparation? I can only talk about the local tradition but Portugal had a long tradition building wooden ships: The wood was for years in swamps before being sun dried. The objective was the mineralization of the wood cells a way to prevent rooting.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> That is true. Do you know that old wood for boat building was subjected to a special preparation? I can only talk about the local tradition but Portugal had a long tradition building wooden ships: The wood was for years in swamps before being sun dried. The objective was the mineralization of the wood cells a way to prevent rooting.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yes he even said that it takes 3 years to completely dry out wood and that old shipyards had it that way, but since no one builds wooden ships anymore no one has this wood laying aorund drying out.


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> That is true. Do you know that old wood for boat building was subjected to a special preparation? I can only talk about the local tradition but Portugal had a long tradition building wooden ships: The wood was for years in swamps before being sun dried. The objective was the mineralization of the wood cells a way to prevent rooting.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,
Here in US there are companies that recover "lost" timber. It is in the rivers. Here is one:
Cape Fear Riverwood » History


----------



## chef2sail

casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> Here in US there are companies that recover "lost" timber. It is in the rivers. Here is one:
> Cape Fear Riverwood » History


Testimony was that the Douglas Fir came from thr Pacific NW and that the Oak came from Tennesse. Because of the length of the planks they are not normal wood and they are bought as "strips" and then after they identify which strips ( which are large pieces of woods), they wish to purchase they are then milled into planks 24 ft long or longer of possible. They can get 15-20 planks out of a strip.

The Bounty naval archetectic from ( 2001-2013) is now on stand/ He also was the maine surveyor for the owner of the Bounty at that time.


----------



## casey1999

Chef,
Thanks for providing the updates and facts.


----------



## sparklepl3nty

rockDAWG said:


> This is unrelated to the hearing. But I wonder if anyone noticed that.
> 
> All survivors wore the Gumby dry suit when the CG picked them up. The suits are not cheap, and considered the financial problem that Bounty organization has. I wonder when those suits were purchased.
> 
> If those suit were purchased just before Sandy, I would be worried.


I've been watching the hearings all day and read some transcripts for last two days. I'm getting very nervous for the fate of wooden ships and shipyards that work on them, and it makes my heart heavy because I know Bounty was an exception to the rule.

To answer your questions, when I last spent a major amount of time with Bounty in 2008, she had Gumby suits for the crew. I was actually surprised that she did, as many Tall Ships (likely because they sail in smaller areas, in bays, or very near the coast, and cannot afford the cost) do not carry survival/immersion suits.

I asked a former crewmember this morning the description of the MOB bucket that John Svendsen said saved his life (on the GMA interview) and she said it was a big white rubbermaid bucket that sat between the lifeboats at the stern, and there was a bunch of survival items inside tied together with rope- a gumby suit, flares, food and water rations, flashlight. The idea was if someone fell overboard, the bucket would be emptied over in the hopes that the MOB could swim to the items in the meantime.


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> The Bounty naval archetectic from ( 2001-2013) is now on stand/ He also was the maine surveyor for the owner of the Bounty at that time.


Yes, David Wyman is on the stand now starting at 2:35 pm. He was the surveyor and as well as design engineering for hydralic pump and rudder. CG asked if it was a conflict interest or common practices.

CG raised the questions a number times if he indeed completed the survey. He finally admitted that the survey was not completed and he did not inform the owner that the survey is not complete.

It is a kind strange. It appears there are a buddy-buddy relationship there. Of course it is my opinion.

Added:

1. He looked at the 24 pictures that provided by Shipwright, he claimed the rot was not bad.

2. He admitted that he had a numerous conference calls with the Bounty lawyers prior to the hearing. That is a dumb move for Bounty's lawyers. Now he is subjected to tell all the discussion to the CG.


----------



## northptsailor

If your good friend is the captain of a ship that you have been paid to do design work on, and the boat needs to get underway asap for a chance to get more funding that will enable your good friend the captain to keep his job - how on God's green Earth, are you not in a conflict of interests Mr. Wyman?


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> Yes, David Wyman is on the stand now starting at 2:35 pm. He was the surveyor and as well as design engineering for hydralic pump and rudder. CG asked if it was a conflict interest or common practices.
> 
> CG raised the questions a number times if he indeed completed the survey. He finally admitted that the survey was not completed and he did not inform the owner that the survey is not complete.
> 
> It is a kind strange. It appears there are a buddy-buddy relationship there. Of course it is my opinion.
> 
> Added:
> 
> 1. He looked at the 24 pictures that provided by Shipwright, he claimed the rot was not bad.
> 
> 2. He admitted that he had a numerous conference calls with the Bounty lawyers prior to the hearing. That is a dumb move for Bounty's lawyers. Now he is subjected to tell all the discussion to the CG.


I agree

He came across underprepared to answer questions and like a boob. I think the relationship to question here is not his with Waklbridge, but the one with the owner


----------



## chef2sail

First I have now heard about the filters. 2microns way too small

Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> First I have now heard about the filters. 2microns way too small
> 
> Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com


That was posted before, I think in another thread about the Bounty. Also it is the first time that someone talks about a plausible reason fore the owner and the captain to risk that passage other than by that odd reason about a ship being more safe facing an Hurricane at sea. Speculation for the moment but at least an informed one:

*"But the full answer to why the Bounty sank was much more complex than a captain's rash decision. It was a story decades in the making, a veritable opera of near misses and fantastic schemes involving a dogged captain, a fiercely loyal crew, and an owner who was looking to sell. And in the ship's last act, an unlikely new character had emerged: a young woman with Down syndrome who, perhaps inconceivably, held the key to the Bounty's future...

..., Walbridge and his crew made do with what little income the ship fetched through $10-a-head tours,... Sometimes, one of the crew told me, they had to use cash from the day's till to buy groceries. Another crew member, Doug Faunt, said that it was not uncommon for the Bounty to have to wait to dock until more money had been freed up on the ship's credit card....

but as the 2012 tour season wrapped up, Walbridge believed he had secured a fresh infusion of cash and purpose for the Bounty. Both, he believed, could come from the Ashley DeRamus Foundation, a private organization dedicated to raising awareness about Down syndrome. Walbridge looked forward to using the Bounty as an educational platform for people with special needs, and it may have been that new mission, in part, that led him into the storm...."*

But he fails to explain why it was so urgent to get the boat to the next port and what was the relation with that new possible Bounty contributor.

Regarding the fuel filters, the mechanic and surely the captain new from the start that they had the wrong pieces and even so choose to set sail.

*"Barksdale was responsible for maintaining the Bounty's engine room, two diesel engines on either side of the hull topped by complementary generators that spun electrical power for the vessel. A large fuel bay supplied each. Walbridge had just rebuilt the starboard generator, and he told Barksdale to use the port one as much as possible-so they'd have a fresh generator if anything went wrong. Meanwhile, a supplier's snafu meant that Barksdale had the wrong fuel filters for the generators-two-micron instead of 20-micron ones, which captured more sediment. But he wasn't too concerned. "We just decided to be really vigilant, since we knew they'd clog up a whole lot faster," Barksdale told me. "Everything was running smoothly. It seemed like it was going to be fine.""*

Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com

Cheers

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Regarding the fuel filters, the mechanic and surely the captain new from the start that they had the wrong pieces and even so choose to set sail.
> 
> *"Barksdale was responsible for maintaining the Bounty's engine room, two diesel engines on either side of the hull topped by complementary generators that spun electrical power for the vessel. A large fuel bay supplied each. Walbridge had just rebuilt the starboard generator, and he told Barksdale to use the port one as much as possible-so they'd have a fresh generator if anything went wrong. Meanwhile, a supplier's snafu meant that Barksdale had the wrong fuel filters for the generators-two-micron instead of 20-micron ones, which captured more sediment. But he wasn't too concerned. "We just decided to be really vigilant, since we knew they'd clog up a whole lot faster," Barksdale told me. "Everything was running smoothly. It seemed like it was going to be fine.""*
> 
> Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paulo


And yet, according to the article, the finer filters proved not to be the problem that resulted in the loss of power...



> The engine room was forgotten. But though the generators' two-micron filters hadn't been a problem, another one had emerged: In the chaos, no one had noticed that the sight tube-a narrow piece of glass at the base of the port fuel bay-had broken. By the time the crew realized what had happened, all the fuel had drained from the port tank, shutting off the port engine and generator.
> 
> Restarting a diesel engine once it has run out of fuel is a major job. While Faunt and Barksdale got the starboard set running, Sanders struggled to bleed the port system. Eventually, he was able to restart the generator, but the engine remained dead.


Fuel tank sight gauges without shutoff valves are a MAJOR no-no, one would think a CG inspection might have noticed if they were absent from the system... Otherwise, they should only be opened when checking the tank's fuel level, then closed again... So, either a poor installation, or poor practice by the engineer - should be interesting to see what the testimony on this one turns out to be...

One can only imagine how much water was sloshing around in the BOUNTY's bilge, for the emptying of such a large amount of diesel into it to have gone unnoticed, until after the engine and generator had run out of fuel... Although, it does appear that Barksdale happened not to be in the engine room for an extended period during that occurrence...


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> *Quote:
> The engine room was forgotten. But though the generators' two-micron filters hadn't been a problem, another one had emerged: In the chaos, no one had noticed that the sight tube-a narrow piece of glass at the base of the port fuel bay-had broken. By the time the crew realized what had happened, all the fuel had drained from the port tank, shutting off the port engine and generator.
> 
> Restarting a diesel engine once it has run out of fuel is a major job. While Faunt and Barksdale got the starboard set running, Sanders struggled to bleed the port system. Eventually, he was able to restart the generator, but the engine remained dead.*
> 
> One can only imagine how much water was sloshing around in the BOUNTY's bilge, for the emptying of such a large amount of diesel into it to have gone unnoticed, until after the engine and generator had run out of fuel... Although, it does appear that Barksdale happened not to be in the engine room for an extended period during that occurrence...


It seems that that leads not only to one generator stooping but much worse to one of the boat engines to stop too. And that was far worse because there was an hydraulic pump connected to it (that stopped too) and because contrary to the generator they did not succeed in putting it running again. I wonder if the other boat engine was still running and what lead to bringing it out of service.

Yes, firstly I thought that the diesel tank they were talking about that spilled by that broken glass was just an auxiliary diesel tank for the generator. It seems now that it was one of the two main diesel tanks, one that feed an generator and one of the boat engines.

How many litters are we talking about? Many hundreds possibly thousands of liters? The smell should be incredible and the place should have become as slippery as ice. No wonder the "engineer" had become hurt by many falls.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

> When discussing the hogging in Bounty's keel (the droop for and aft after years in the water), Jakomovicz said, "The key thing here is that it's a 50 year old boat. You have to realize that that's tired."
> 
> Carroll: "Tired?"
> 
> Jakomovicz: "When you have a hog in the keel, that boat's tired. When the backbone is tired and you take that boat in the seaway, that boat's gonna work, and when it works, it's gonna leak." ("Work" refers to the movement of the timbers under strain.)
> 
> Carrol: "And you felt comfortable that Bounty was going to make the trip?"
> 
> Jakomovicz: "Oh, I had no idea it was going to go into a hurricane!"


The whole thing goes frm bad to worse!
Day Three Testimony Highlights Complexity in Bounty Case | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

We were much closer to the truth in our thread than some thought!
See the next days stuff on tonnage etc.


----------



## rockDAWG

No live streamed video since the lunch break at noon. Now is 2:24 pm, is me or affect others too??


----------



## sparklepl3nty

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The whole thing goes frm bad to worse!
> Day Three Testimony Highlights Complexity in Bounty Case | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News
> 
> We were much closer to the truth in our thread than some thought!
> See the next days stuff on tonnage etc.


I'm pretty stunned from everything said yesterday. Well, not stunned that there was damage, but the extent.. even more than I knew of as a sailor but one that hadn't crewed with Bounty. What did make me think.. the USS Constellation in Baltimore was condemned in the 90s due to a 36 inch hog (she is a much larger ship than Bounty as well, and built in 1851), and when it was decided she would be restored, there were cables from one end of the ship to the other literally holding her together.
Of course, she hadn't actively been sailing in a century, and hadn't been in open waters in 50 or so years, either..



rockDAWG said:


> No live streamed video since the lunch break at noon. Now is 2:24 pm, is me or affect others too??


 Nope, friends already contacted WAVY and they're working on it. I am following the Twitter pages of two reporters there than seem to be only adding a little sensationalism, but helps to keep up with the proceedings.

https://twitter.com/Kathryn_Miles (author of the Outside Mag article)

https://twitter.com/mikemather


----------



## sparklepl3nty

They're back online.


----------



## PCP

*"Third Mate on sailing in two hurricanes before Sandy: The main difference is that, in those storms, our bilge pumps kept up.

Crew couldn't get the emergency pump to work. That's the pump no one had been trained to operate...."*

https://twitter.com/mikemather

After all it seems that the ship had sailed previously in Hurricanes. Does anybody find normal that with today's way of predicting weather a wooden XVIII century designed ship, mostly of the time in bad sailing condition, had sailed in 3 hurricanes?

It seems he thinks normal that a ship could be maintained afloat because pumps are getting out more water than the one that is coming in. It seems pumps were not used in emergencies but as a normally used component on sailing that ship.

I heard old stories about wooden ships that had to be continually pumped...they were ships in bad shape trying to make their last voyage home...and not always succeeding.


----------



## rockDAWG

Very emotional telling by Laura Groves - Boatswain of Bounty, now is being shown in the video. (5:41 pm)


----------



## Maine Sail

I saw her on the rails at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard no less that three times. The most extensive re-fit I saw was the below waterline re-planking back in the early 2000's. Problem was there was nothing much to fasten the planks to....

One would have to ask, if she was completely re-planked in the early 2000's what structural issues could POSSIBLY cause her to need to be re-planked, even if just partially, again only a few years later.....????? The rot was so extensive back than I was shocked to see them slapping on new planks over the sad structure. A real "lipstick on a pig" event. The later re-planking also replaced SOME ribs but only the worst of the worst... The stem was cut out in one of the re-fits but I can't recall which one..

When we anchor in Boothbay I would land and walk the dogs at BHS. I liked to walk around the ship as I always love to watch wooden boat construction, having grown up with them..

In October & November I posted/hot linked to NUMEROUS photos from her re-fits at Boothbay. EVERY SINGLE PHOTO/EVIDENCE HAS BEEN WIPED CLEAN FROM THE NET INCLUDING INTERNET ARCHIVE SEARCHES???

Why? Where did they go? How do you wipe "internet archives"... That costs some $$$$$$ one would assume..... ?

What are they trying to hide? I said it back in October and I will say it again IMHO this vessel was not fit for open ocean sailing let alone sailing directly into a hurricane. I grew up around wooden boats and this is not one I would have gone to sea in even after the re-fits after having seen what I saw and what was actually under the pretty prom dress......

I don't need to read stories in Outside Magazine or anywhere else as I saw the derelict condition of this vessel with my own eyes, on multiple occasions, right down to her structural level. The work BHS did was good from what I saw. The wood used was good from what I saw especially the oak in the early 2000's, what they had to work with, structurally, SUCKED IMHO as seen with my own eyes...

Even more telling of her level of care, or lack there of, is a photo posted by Roger Long of her fuel filers. The fuel in them was as black as coffee. We now know they stuffed 2 micron filters in there, perhaps in an attempt to remedy an "issue"? Perahaps out of ignorance? Who knows, all I know is that fuel on a boat or ship should NEVER look like that, especially if heading into rough weather..

Why would anyone or any organization go to such great lengths to erase such images from history? Who did it? I certainly don't know who but do they are GONE. I know because I linked to them in numerous posts and now the images are GONE.... I should have saved them to my hard drive but that would have been copyright infringement. I tried to do the right thing and then some people SQUASHED the TRUTH and ERASED the images.

It seems quite interesting & telling to me that the only images of her that remain from her time in Boothbay are with fresh coats of paint, a highly varnished wheel & spit shined ready for launch. You can put a prom dress on a pig but she's still a pig... The real meat and potatoes images have been ripped from internet history...

BTW the fuel in the transparent Racor bowls should be red NOT black like coffee...

Here are two image addresses that were of some HORRIFYING photos that have been erased from history.. They were from 2007 well after the major re-fit in the early 2000's..

From 2007now mysteriously missing....

http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...U3MzU2ZDA2MmU4

http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...M0N2E5NzE2N2Qx

If I had known then that she actually sailed the ocean blue I would have taken extensive photos myself.. I mistakenly assumed she was a dockside attraction like Old Ironsides and the repairs were "good enough"... ..


----------



## TakeFive

I had not watched it until about an hour ago, because I was too busy at work. I don't know all the characters, but can kind of figure out who they are from their self-serving questions.

I was impressed with the candor of Laura's testimony, and how she did not allow them to lead her. I suspect that she must be under quite a bit of pressure, as certain attorneys are probably trying to build a case for a liability case against everyone, including crew members -- although I suspect that the crew members don't have very "deep pockets." I also don't know whether the maritime limitations apply to crew members also, or just the owner of ship.


----------



## chef2sail

Maine Sail said:


> I saw her on the rails at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard no less that three times. The most extensive re-fit I saw was the below waterline re-planking back in the early 2000's. Problem was there was nothing much to fasten the planks to....
> 
> One would have to ask, if she was completely re-planked in the early 2000's what structural issues could POSSIBLY cause her to need to be re-planed again only a few years later.....????? The rot was so extensive back than I was shocked to see them slapping on new planks over the sad structure. A real "lipstick on a pig" event. The later re-planking also replaced SOME ribs but only the worst of the worst... The stem was cut out in one of the re-fits but I can't recall which one.. When we anchor in Boothbay I would land and walk the dogs at BHS. I liked to walk around the ship as I always love to watch wooden boat construction, having grown up with them..
> 
> In October & November I posted/hot linked to NUMEROUS photos from her re-fits at Boothbay. *EVERY SINGLE PHOTO/EVIDENCE HAS BEEN WIPED CLEAN FROM THE NET INCLUDING INTERNET ARCHIVE SEARCHES....*
> 
> Why? How? How do you wipe "internet archives"... That costs some $$$$$$ one would assume..... ?
> 
> What are they trying to hide? I said it back in October and I will say it again IMHO this vessel was not fit for open ocean sailing let alone sailing directly into a hurricane.
> 
> I don't need to read stories in Outside Magazine or anywhere else as I saw the derelict condition of this vessel with my own eyes on multiple occasions right down to her structural level. The work BHS did was good, the wood used was good, what they had to work with SUCKED IMHO as seen with my own eyes...
> 
> Even more telling of her level of care, or lack there of, is a photo posted by Roger Long of her fuel filers. The fuel in them was as black as coffee. We now know they stuffed 2 micron filters in there, perhaps in an attempt to remedy an "issue".... Who knows all I know is that fuel on a boat or ship should NEVER look like that......
> 
> Why would anyone or any organization go to such great lengths to erase such images from history? Who did it? I certainly don't know but they are GONE....
> 
> It seems quite interesting & telling to me that the only images of her that remain from her time in Boothbay are with fresh coats of paint, a highly varnished wheel & spit shined ready for launch. You can put a prom dress on a pig but she's still a pig... The real meat and potatoes images have been ripped from internet history...
> 
> BTW the fuel in the tranparent Racor bowls should be red NOT black like coffee...
> 
> Here are two image addresses that were of some HORRIFYING photos that have been erased from history.. They were from 2007 well after the major re-fit in the early 2000's..
> 
> From 2007now mysteriously missing....
> 
> http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...U3MzU2ZDA2MmU4
> 
> http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...M0N2E5NzE2N2Qx
> 
> If I had known then that she actually sailed the ocean blue I would have taken extensive photos myself.. I mistakenly assumed she was a dockside attraction like Old Ironsides and the repairs were "good enough"... ..


Links are broken. Do you publish this here on Sailnet? Someone censored them from here? That would be big time wrong to do that IMHO.

They said that there was huge destruction of the newer work they had done in warly 2000 that I guess you saw because of the lack of ventilation and fresh water intrusions and thats why it didnt last long,

I agree more and more with you accessment about her being let out to sail and not just in a hurricane but at all. I guess if she had to be moved to Flordida it would have been only in optimal conditions and with and escort of some kind. The leaking alone would mean that. None of us would risk taking our boats out for even a day sail in a protected bay if the only way we knew wed saty afloat is if out pumps worked.

She should have stayed a dockside attraction somewhere and not only would her legacy remained intact, peoples lives wouldnt have been lost.

I cant help but think why these people who sailed aboard her thought the amount of water and the deteriorated wood as well as the cobbled solutions were good enough. And then to go blue water with her. And then to sail in hurricane like conditions. She appeared doomed everytime she cast off her lines. That it was only a matter of time.

Another thing bothers me though about Boothbay Shipwright and I know its a very reputable yard. Since they were putting all this good repair on bad structure why did they not cover their own asses by stating that in writing. In todays litigenous society where people know and are quick to cover their asses you would think that that was SOP. If they truly worried that the ship couldnt handle sailing conditions, and I beleive you assessment, why are they saying it could get to the next refit. Why arent they saying we will not certify any fix since it is being put on material as a base which will fail? Any reputable construction builder if he was rehabbing a building wouldnt put the skin on the building of the frame and I beams supporting the building were not sound. Why did they do that? It calls into questions Boothbays ethics?


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> *"Third Mate on sailing in two hurricanes before Sandy: The main difference is that, in those storms, our bilge pumps kept up.
> 
> Crew couldn't get the emergency pump to work. That's the pump no one had been trained to operate...."*
> 
> https://twitter.com/mikemather
> 
> After all it seems that the ship had sailed previously in Hurricanes. Does anybody find normal that with today's way of predicting weather a wooden XVIII century designed ship, mostly of the time in bad sailing condition, had sailed in 3 hurricanes?
> 
> It seems he thinks normal that a ship could be maintained afloat because pumps are getting out more water than the one that is coming in. It seems pumps were not used in emergencies but as a normally used component on sailing that ship.
> 
> I heard old stories about wooden ships that had to be continually pumped...they were ships in bad shape trying to make their last voyage home...and not always succeeding.


After listening to the Bosun today it was apparent that the Bounty didnt really sail into hrricanes except the last one. This may be an exagreation of the press as well as his statements.

He described their procedure was to stay behind the foreward motion of the hurricane and utilize the winds wrapping around it from behind. If they accelerated or started catching up to the hrricane they deployed a sea anchor, anchor, or even hove too for a few days in one instance.

This is where the Captain said and meant he was


> chasing hurricanes


. I understand his tactic now and it is not unlike what Vendee Globe or Whitbread sailors did in some of their tactics with low pressure systems. Of course the conditions will be heavy duty as it still is a big storm with winds and seas, but with the hurricane pulling away from you it allows you max winds with the every present danger pulling away and conditions improving. To me he put to rest today the newsmedias frenzy about teh phrase chasing hurricanes. He also commented the Bounty was such a pig, normal SOG was 4-5. In 30 knots they could actually get up to 7-9.

This in no way is an excuse for sailing towrad Hurricane Sandy which he did, Also apparent by Maines comments and first hand eyes she maybe should never have been allowed to sail,,,,ever....Just be a dock attraction.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> *"Third Mate on sailing in two hurricanes before Sandy: The main difference is that, in those storms, our bilge pumps kept up.
> 
> Crew couldn't get the emergency pump to work. That's the pump no one had been trained to operate...."*
> 
> https://twitter.com/mikemather
> 
> It seems he thinks normal that a ship could be maintained afloat because pumps are getting out more water than the one that is coming in. It seems pumps were not used in emergencies but as a normally used component on sailing that ship.
> 
> .


This is so the crux of things. Would you ever sail your boat like this? ( except emergency)


----------



## PorFin

PCP said:


> Crew couldn't get the emergency pump to work. That's the pump no one had been trained to operate...."


This in itself is a particularly damning assertion; I'll be following to see if it is in fact true. I am almost speechless.


----------



## mad_machine

chef2sail said:


> This is so the crux of things. Would you ever sail your boat like this? ( except emergency)


I have known boats that needed their pumps to stay afloat.. all were dock queens. This includes the USS Constellation in Baltimore before her recent refit


----------



## lancelot9898

The Bounty was a dock side attraction for a number of years after it was rescued from its scheduled demise from being set ablaze at the end of the filming of the movie. After Ted Turner unknowly purchased the boat with his acquisition of MGM film rights, he ordered the accountants to get rid of it and from that time forward it entered the realm of blue water sailing....Just follow the money...or lack of it

The crew was lucky to have those survival suits considering the shoe string budget.


----------



## Maine Sail

chef2sail said:


> Links are broken. Do you publish this here on Sailnet? Someone censored them from here? That would be big time wrong to do that IMHO.


No they were "hot linked" meaning referenced in my posts both here and on Sailboatowners.com but they were still hosted on a Bounty web site.

The images have been DELETED. Beyond that they have also been removed from deep scan internet archive searches which is very abnormal. My neighbor is a forensic computer consultant. Yesterday I emailed him to see if he could find them. His response was "this is weird I can always find something in cached archive searches but these addresses are simply gone."...



chef2sail said:


> They said that there was huge destruction of the newer work they had done in warly 2000 that I guess you saw because of the lack of ventilation and fresh water intrusions and thats why it didnt last long,


This would not surpise me. The frame was so rotted that it must have allowed enough movement/flex of planking etc. and allowed water in.



chef2sail said:


> I agree more and more with you accessment about her being let out to sail and not just in a hurricane but at all. I guess if she had to be moved to Flordida it would have been only in optimal conditions and with and escort of some kind. The leaking alone would mean that. None of us would risk taking our boats out for even a day sail in a protected bay if the only way we knew wed saty afloat is if out pumps worked.


I have been saying this since the day I learned the boat sank in October and realized it was the boat I had seen on the rails at BHS so many times.

No one wanted to listen or cared back then and the only focus was on the captain. He still made a bad decision and still should have KNOWN the condition of this "pig in a prom dress" but still chose to set sail. Still, the boat should have been deemed a dockside attraction only IMHO....



chef2sail said:


> She should have stayed a dockside attraction somewhere and not only would her legacy remained intact, peoples lives wouldnt have been lost.


Until the sinking that is what I had assumed she was. I never really paid much attention to the HMS Bounty other than knowing she was a Hollywood set in a Brando movie. If I had known she actually sailed with novice crew and ventured purposely into hurricanes I would have taken HUNDREDS of photos myself as it would have made a good thread........



chef2sail said:


> I cant help but think why these people who sailed aboard her thought the amount of water and the deteriorated wood as well as the cobbled solutions were good enough.


IMHO because they were novices and die hard TS hobbyists so focused on their passion that they cared less about the safety reality than someone who is a professional.. I do recall reading that many folks who actually knew anything about wood ships bailed quickly on this venture, including some ships engineers. The final engineer was not, in any sense of the word, as related to boats...



chef2sail said:


> And then to go blue water with her. And then to sail in hurricane like conditions. She appeared doomed everytime she cast off her lines. That it was only a matter of time.


Quite frankly I am amazed she held up as long as she did and it is a really testament to BHS IMHO. She was literally held together by the "prom dress" and paint...



chef2sail said:


> Another thing bothers me though about Boothbay Shipwright and I know its a very reputable yard. Since they were putting all this good repair on bad structure why did they not cover their own asses by stating that in writing.


IMHO likely because this is Maine where we still do things on a hand shake and a nod..



chef2sail said:


> In todays litigenous society where people know and are quick to cover their asses you would think that that was SOP.


In most places it is an I can assure you more yards in Maine will be covering their collective arses after this...



chef2sail said:


> If they truly worried that the ship couldnt handle sailing conditions, and I beleive you assessment, why are they saying it could get to the next refit.


Sailed gently it likely could have made it to the next repairs. I don't think anyone at BHS expected him to sail her directly into one of the largest storms in the North Atlantic in 30+ years..



chef2sail said:


> Why arent they saying we will not certify any fix since it is being put on material as a base which will fail? Any reputable construction builder if he was rehabbing a building wouldnt put the skin on the building of the frame and I beams supporting the building were not sound. Why did they do that? It calls into questions Boothbays ethics?


Quite likely because this was the umpteenth time, over a 20 year period, this boat had been there and there was a "comfortable" relationship which was largely hand shake and verbal..

Jakomovicz and Walbridge were also "friends". I found Jakomovicz testimony to be some of the most offensive I have seen. Here is a guy with a claimed 40 years of experience who can only say under oath "Well because I have 40 years of experience and he only has 5"...How about citing some FACTS other than "I'm better than he is because I've been doing it longer"??? How about stating WHY the ship was safe? How about some details that show what Kosakowski said was not true? Surely Jakomovicz owns an awl? A camera? I mean the BHS has plenty of photos of projects on its site? At least Kozakowski came armed with photographic evidence. What did Jakomovicz present other than "I have 40 years experience he has 5".... LAME!!!!! Give us some SPECIFICS based on your 40 years experience......

I think teh conversation below was very, very telling and despite Jakomovitch arguing against Kozakowski I think it sealed the deal on "condition"..

*Jakomovicz:* "The key thing here is that it's a 50 year old boat. You have to realize that that's tired."

*Carroll:* "Tired?"

*Jakomovicz:* "When you have a hog in the keel, that boat's tired. When the backbone is tired and you take that boat in the seaway, that boat's gonna work, and when it works, it's gonna leak." ("Work" refers to the movement of the timbers under strain.)

*Carrol:* "And you felt comfortable that Bounty was going to make the trip?"

*Jakomovicz:* "Oh, I had no idea it was going to go into a hurricane!"

There were sooooooo many mistakes in this debacle it is hard to pinpoint any one main contributing factor other than to say.....

THE BOAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!


----------



## chef2sail

Maine Sail said:


> No they were "hot linked" meaning referenced in my posts both here and on Sailboatowners.com but they were still hosted on a Bounty web site.
> 
> The images have been DELETED. Beyond that they have also been removed from deep scan internet archive searches which is very abnormal. My neighbor is a forensic computer consultant. Yesterday I emailed him to see if he could find them. His response was "this is weird I can always find something in cached archive searches but these addresses are simply gone."...
> 
> This would not surpise me. The frame was so rotted that it must have allowed enough movement/flex of planking etc. and allowed water in.
> 
> I have been saying this since the day I learned the boat sank in October and realized it was the boat I had seen on the rails at BHS so many times.
> 
> No one wanted to listen or cared back then and the only focus was on the captain. He still made a bad decision and still should have KNOWN the condition of this "pig in a prom dress" but still chose to set sail. Still, the boat should have been deemed a dockside attraction only IMHO....
> 
> Until the sinking that is what I had assumed she was. I never really paid much attention to the HMS Bounty other than knowing she was a Hollywood set in a Brando movie. If I had known she actually sailed with novice crew and ventured purposely into hurricanes I would have taken HUNDREDS of photos myself as it would have made a good thread........
> 
> IMHO because they were novices and die hard TS hobbyists so focused on their passion that they cared less about the safety reality than someone who is a professional.. I do recall reading that many folks who actually knew anything about wood ships bailed quickly on this venture, including some ships engineers. The final engineer was not, in any sense of the word, as related to boats...
> 
> Quite frankly I am amazed she held up as long as she did and it is a really testament to BHS IMHO. She was literally held together by the "prom dress" and paint...
> 
> IMHO likely because this is Maine where we still do things on a hand shake and a nod..
> 
> In most places it is an I can assure you more yards in Maine will be covering their collective arses after this...
> 
> Sailed gently it likely could have made it to the next repairs. I don't think anyone at BHS expected him to sail her directly into one of the largest storms in the North Atlantic in 30+ years..
> 
> Quite likely because this was the umpteenth time, over a 20 year period, this boat had been there and there was a "comfortable" relationship which was largely hand shake and verbal..
> 
> Jakomovicz and Walbridge were also "friends". I found Jakomovicz testimony to be some of the most offensive I have seen. Here is a guy with a claimed 40 years of experience who can only say under oath "Well because I have 40 years of experience and he only has 5"...How about citing some FACTS other than "I'm better than he is because I've been doing it longer"??? How about stating WHY the ship was safe? How about some details that show what Kosakowski said was not true? Surely Jakomovicz owns an awl? A camera? I mean the BHS has plenty of photos of projects on its site? At least Kozakowski came armed with photographic evidence. What did Jakomovicz present other than "I have 40 years experience he has 5".... LAME!!!!! Give us some SPECIFICS based on your 40 years experience......
> 
> I think teh conversation below was very, very telling and despite Jakomovitch arguing against Kozakowski I think it sealed the deal on "condition"..
> 
> *Jakomovicz:* "The key thing here is that it's a 50 year old boat. You have to realize that that's tired."
> 
> *Carroll:* "Tired?"
> 
> *Jakomovicz:* "When you have a hog in the keel, that boat's tired. When the backbone is tired and you take that boat in the seaway, that boat's gonna work, and when it works, it's gonna leak." ("Work" refers to the movement of the timbers under strain.)
> 
> *Carrol:* "And you felt comfortable that Bounty was going to make the trip?"
> 
> *Jakomovicz:* "Oh, I had no idea it was going to go into a hurricane!"
> 
> There were sooooooo many mistakes in this debacle it is hard to pinpoint any one main contributing factor other than to say.....
> 
> THE BOAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!


I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said,,,and I have since the beginning

I have not been the Captain basher as I actualy met him a few times, although he bears major responsibility in this taking an unift boat into a storm of increasing ferocity

The more the testimony I heard from the Jakomavitz the more I was sickened and didnt beleive him actually.

The people who singed on to sail and learn on this vessel the more you listen were really not experienced enough to see and recognize the warning signs that they were in danger actually from the boat and seemed convincecd that this lack of maintainence and structural integrity was somehow " normal". They truly were innocent vistims in this in many ways.

Even my friend Walbridge appears to have been so involved with his own dream of the wooden sailing boats and teaching others his craft, he seems to have lost the ability to recognize the limits of this vessel. He had invested many years in it, and with his knowledge surely should have toned down the sea time as this vessel aged. Certainly not faced off a storm.

Its all tragic and could/ should have actually been worse. This could have let go at anytime it appears. The only reason the3 survived appears is that they had trained and knew what to do when the boat sank, they had the equipment and survivual suits, and the unbeleiveable efforts of the CG to reescue them.

He had one last chance to save the boat before things really came completely unglued when under way and that was the duck in the Delaware River or even Norfolk and he didnt. He knew by then the serverity of what he was facing and that hed have to run accross the front of the storm and have his vessel pounded. He certainly wasnt chasing a hurricane as he did before by follwoing it, but was headed at it. At least in those locations he would have run with the wind and once there had far less battering of the vessel. Instead he chooses to shoot the Hatteras Canyon, gaveyard of the Atlantic,

The owner is still lurking in the backround....like the wizzard of oz. He has some responsibility I am sure in pushing the boat along and not repairing her or letting her sail in these conditions. He could have somewhere in this said no way. You also dont know the pressure he applied. He sits protected right now by his corporate lawyers.

It was hard to listen to all their testimony first hand

Sorry for the rant Very sad.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> He described their procedure was to stay behind the foreward motion of the hurricane and utilize the winds wrapping around it from behind. If they accelerated or started catching up to the hrricane they deployed a sea anchor, anchor, or even hove too for a few days in one instance.
> 
> This is where the Captain said and meant he was . I understand his tactic now and it is not unlike what Vendee Globe or Whitbread sailors did in some of their tactics with low pressure systems. Of course the conditions will be heavy duty as it still is a big storm with winds and seas, but with the hurricane pulling away from you it allows you max winds with the every present danger pulling away and conditions improving. ....


Chief, that ship as not the seaworthiness of a modern Open 60 and even so skippers of those boats do not sail Hurricanes. In fact they do what you say with low pressure depressions with winds of 30/35K. With more than 35K they take avoiding measures and I have seen them taking cover on anchor at the shelter of land waiting it to clear with 40/45K winds.

On the proximity of an hurricane the winds will be far in excess of 40K. A hurricane moves faster than that boat (that is not the case with Open 60) and its course is not completely predictably. Chasing hurricanes for wind on that boat is like playing at Russian roulette with a gun. It is a recklessness thing to do with a wooden XVIII century designed sailing ship. it is madness with a ship in the shape the Bounty was.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> Even my friend Walbridge appears to have been so involved with his own dream of the wooden sailing boats and teaching others his craft, he seems to have lost the ability to recognize the limits of this vessel......


I guess you are close to the truth. Not only wooden Ships, he loved that particular ship and love can alienate reason and make us do stupid and irrational things. Would we not be able to do irresponsible and dangerous things to save our boat? I am not sure but I am sure I would never put my crew or family in danger.

Anyway there is a big difference here: He was a professional Captain and had a crew to his responsibility. His first concern should always be regarding the crew not the Ship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Chief, that ship as not the seaworthiness of a modern Open 60 and even so skippers of those boats do not sail Hurricanes. In fact they do what you say with low pressure depressions with winds of 30/35K. With more than 35K they take avoiding measures and I have seen them taking cover on anchor at the shelter of land waiting it to clear with 40/45K winds.
> 
> On the proximity of an hurricane the winds will be far in excess of 40K. A hurricane moves faster than that boat (that is not the case with Open 60) and its course is not completely predictably. Chasing hurricanes for wind on that boat is like playing at Russian roulette with a gun. It is a recklessness thing to do with a wooden XVIII century designed sailing ship. it is madness with a ship in the shape the Bounty was.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo

I agree of course about the seaworthiness aspect 100%. Of course this boat should have never been out in those condtions at all as we now see from testimony. I am in total agreement with that. Thats not the issue I was identifying here so I am sorry if I wasnt clear.

My point was to the previous discussions in the thread where the Captain was villified with this statement ..."We chase hurricanes". The MEDIA ( and we know how they can exagggerate statemnts) appears to have taken what he said out of context. This statement made it look like when he saw a hurricane he steered toward it and actually waited for hurricanes cause he like the adventure and had done it before, gotten away with it and was doing it again with Sandy. With Sandy he cut in front of it.

After watch the testimony personally not having it reported to me by some newspaper persona and seeing the persons complete statement with facial expressions, tones, and inflections, it became readily apparent as to what Walbridge meant by that statement. The third mate as well as talked about this as he was asked directly by the CG Commander in charge of the hearing.

Maybe I was not clear in how I explained it. His answer was as I explained. They would never steer at incoming hurricanes ( until Sandy). But two different times when he was with the Bounty, once in the Pacific in and once in the Gulf of Mexico, the had the occasions to be behind a forward moving hurricane and tried to take advantage of it winds to make headway. Just the same as we were talking about the Vendee or Whitbread racers do. They stayed way away behind it but still had the advantage of the trailing circular wind field and it direction and sea motion. In the Gulf in the testimony her recounted that the Hurricane actually slowed down forcing them to hove to for 2-3 days. They were starting to pull in to close to its core as he stated as the hrricane was moving 4 knots and the ship was moving 11. This tactic makes perfect sense and is employed by others is my point and not some wild eyed Ahab chasing Moby Dick, or Walbridge chasing a hurricane to tangle with it as was portrayed in the press and then grabbed upon by other posters. The tesimony which again was not filtered by a news reporter was honest, plausable, and made perfect matter of fact sense the way it was described. 
Thats all I was saying

I am in no way exonerating Walbridge for sailing into a hurricane path directly, l;eaving New London, or not pulling off and finding shelter and continuing once his vessels started failing to handle conditions, I feel I must continue saying this as sometimes when you post anything contrary to popular opinion here you get ;abeled as supporting his actions. I do not.

What makes his actions and the actions of the HMS Bounty LLC even more preposterous and suspect is the conditon of the ship/ Maine Sails personal observations as well as the current testimony paints a picture of patchwork but good repairs to an ailing frame which could never withstand even a continuos gales or repeated use of the vessels. The foisting of all blame on Walbridge would be to ignore some of the other issues which may have been a contribution and would have occured anyway eventually. Through this we may be able to have a great understanding what to watch for to prevent similar occurances in the future. Had this vessel needed inspections to carry people it comes out, that this may never have occured as hopefully the CG would have identified the issues beforehand.

My observation and maybe the reason the CG Commander asked the questions was to get to the bottom of the statement which had the effect of debunking the public myth created by the sesationalization of the news media that this Captain steered toward and sought out hurricanes to test himself and the ship for pleasure. It would make all the TS captains out to be like this/ The news media must sell their papers and mags so its understandable why they do it, we just shouldnt get caught up in at thats all I am saying.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> I guess you are close to the truth. Not only wooden Ships, he loved that particular ship and love can alienate reason and make us do stupid and irrational things. Would we not be able to do irresponsible and dangerous things to save our boat? I am not sure but I am sure I would never put my crew or family in danger.
> 
> Anyway there is a big difference here: He was a professional Captain and had a crew to his responsibility. His first concern should always be regarding the crew not the Ship.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Agreed as we all do when we take our boats out with others. Same responsibility. We are ultimately the person to hold the responsibility

Same responsibility when you have with others on ocean passages like the 1500 or are helping other moved boats as delivery captains.

Its is why I am so wary of peoples credentials when I help deliver boats. Anyone can claim they have the experience to help someone deliver a boat. That makes me really suspect as many are trying to gain it and over qualify themselves.

It makes me cringe when I see it and hope nothing happens to them or their shipmates. Especially when it involves deep ocean voyages to other countries as well as off shore where no one has been before.

I have only gone with credentialed captains on major offshore on deliveries tp places I have never been. I have helped others move boats and have been the most "seasoned" and "experienced" person on board, but usually inshore and only to areas I am familiar with. That has a huge responsibility attached to it IMHO. I never present myself as having more experience than I do as I have seen others do.

This is another thread though


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Day 4 hearing report from gCaptain.com
Love this guys writing style.

The Illusion of Experience - Bounty Hearings - Day 4 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## chef2sail

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Day 4 hearing report from gCaptain.com
> Love this guys writing style.
> 
> The Illusion of Experience - Bounty Hearings - Day 4 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


I like his writing *style* too, even though he sometimes seems to sensationalize and choose issues on the periphery. Not unlike others though

For instance he talked about the obvious lack of true experience about the two Bounty officers who tesitified and ridicules thier answers of thinking that using DAP or their ways of caulking as the marks of an inexperienced crew in " love " with their vessel. And that it was the "new" teaching the "new" improper or less than techniques. He comapared that with Kosojowski ( sp) the project manager who testified earlier about DAP not being used because it was inferior and who put down the on-board maitainence techniques of the crew. This is all well and good, but the gCaptain writer either was asleep or failed to mentiuon that the 3rd officer said in his testimony he would loved to have worked with Kosokowski for a long period of time so he could learn from him as that was his foeld and specialty. Kosokowski self admitted that he had no real training ewither and learned from others,

The gCaptain also failed to mention that many of Koksokowskis statements were rebutted and refutted by Jankovmicz the 40 year exeprience professional shipyard manager, his boss. After personally listening to Kosokowsji I found it incredulous to beleive he took pictures of substandard stuff and never showed them to anyone not even his boss until the CG said they were doing an inquirey. He took no notes on the project, yet Jankovmicz said the shipyard had boxes of notes on the project. Kosokowski said he told Walbriidge ( supposedly) to change his method of sailing because of what he thought MIGHT be present, and when further questioned by the CG Commander he said he met with Walbridge 30 times. and couldnt rememeber whether anyone else was present. Then he miracuously remembered where there were 5 present, but no one else remembered him saying what he claimed to Walbridge. I found Kosokowskis testimony questionable and self serving like he was covering his own ass. The CG Commander must have also as he asked him that directly, "Are you covering your ass" The g Captain writer reported none of this...

Heres what the WAYV repeorted ( they are doing the live stream


> Project manager Joe Jakomovicz, who has 40 years of experience, said Kosakowski's analysis is incorrect because Kosawkowski has "five or six years of experience."
> 
> Kosakowski worked with the Bounty when it visited Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in 2006 for repairs. He said the decay in the hull of the Bounty was not the worst he has ever seen.
> 
> His younger colleague believes the structural integrity of the hull was in question and has second thoughts about the decision of the Bounty's owners to set sail without a certificate of inspection.


I have watched the tesimony every day. I find the gcaptain reporting to be one dimensional and havent yet decided whether it is intentional with an agenda, or that they have selective hearing. Either way it certaianly is not even handed anymore than the sensationalism of other reporting I have seen.


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> I have watched the tesimony every day. I find the gcaptain reporting to be one dimensional and havent yet decided whether it is intentional with an agenda, or that they have selective hearing. Either way it certaianly is not even handed anymore than the sensationalism of other reporting I have seen.


That is why I prefer to hear with my own ears instead of letting someone gives me a reader digest version of it. Unfortunately, on Friday the streaming video was not working well, lot of good important testimony was not available. Also there is not way to get back to watch it again. And the beginning of each hearing, they delete the old clip. There was no court stenographer presented i hearing.


----------



## Smier

I'm not sure if anyone posted this already in this massive thread, but in case they didn't here is an interesting national geographic clip with some early footage of when the HMS Bounty was built, as well as some footage from when it was sailed to make the movie "Mutiny on the Bounty". Sorry if its a repost...


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> That is why I prefer to hear with my own ears instead of letting someone gives me a reader digest version of it. Unfortunately, on Friday the streaming video was not working well, lot of good important testimony was not available. Also there is not way to get back to watch it again. And the beginning of each hearing, they delete the old clip. There was no court stenographer presented i hearing.


If you try the link I posted eaerlier it seems to work back to the stream. Res real tesimony is so much better with facial movement, inflections and the comlete in context ******. Wish it was transcribed so I could read what I miss but I cant find that.

Stream came back about 3:30 or so,,,i tuned in at 4. Was interesting. Just sad though.


----------



## lancelot9898

I too like the writing style of the gcaptain.com, but also think that he gives an honest summary of the day's testimony. There are many details that are not covered, but IMHO he is covering the major points and does not appear to have an ax to grind unlike many to the so called journalist of today.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

lancelot9898 said:


> I too like the writing style of the gcaptain.com, but also think that he gives an honest summary of the day's testimony. There are many details that are not covered, but IMHO he is covering the major points and does not appear to have an ax to grind unlike many to the so called journalist of today.


He is writing to his audience at gCaptain, professionals running cargo and passenger ships. 
I think they might be incredulous of the difference between the inspections and surveys, and requirements between them and Tall Ships.

The gCaptain mob are very interested in it... the articles are 4 of the top 5 most read... with the Carnival Triumph problem coming in at #3.

What surprises me most is that everyone is talking! I thought everyone would decline to answer questions. Only the owner has refused. Startling stuff.

I would love to be there, or to be able to watch the feed live.

The tall Ship industry around the world is gunna be given one big shak-up after this. I doubt the old "they look lovely we need to keep them no matter what" will be ditched and unless the ship and crew are worthy they will be immovable meuseum pieces.


----------



## chef2sail

lancelot9898 said:


> I too like the writing style of the gcaptain.com, but also think that he gives an honest summary of the day's testimony. There are many details that are not covered, but IMHO he is covering the major points and does not appear to have an ax to grind unlike many to the so called journalist of today.


Are you watching the live feed or have you been there? If so it would be great for you to also post your observations?

Dave


----------



## lancelot9898

While I'm not a fan of regulation, I think most of the tall ships have stricter regulatory requirements than the Bounty due to the Bounty not taking paying passengers. I think that loop hole will be tighten up and feel disgusted with the Bounty organization for using that loop hole.


----------



## lancelot9898

Mark,

I'm too surprised that people are talking as much as they are even though some may not be as forthright as others. The lawyers are going after the deep pockets and that points to the owner who is taking the 5th.


----------



## PCP

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...
> The tall Ship industry around the world is gunna be given one big shak-up after this. I doubt the old "they look lovely we need to keep them no matter what" will be ditched and unless the ship and crew are worthy they will be immovable meuseum pieces.


To the exception of Germany and US most countries with a maritime tradition has only one or two true tall ships that in a way or another are state funded and are in good condition. There are are also several countries, including Britain, Portugal or Sweden that have several other wooden tall ships on display I would not as dock attractions but as museums and not in sail condition.

Tall ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Almost all of the Tall ships are today steel ships justly because it is a lot more expensive to maintain a wooden ship than a steel one.

I don't believe this will have any influence regarding European ships. As I have said not only mostly of the ships are state funded as the European legislation in what regards private owned boats and inspection is a lot more tight than the American one, being Europe a nanny state and all that jazz.

I believe the repercussions will be mostly over US Tall ships and in the end if reasonable measures were taken it will not affect negatively the Industry.

If the Bounty was classified as a boat restricted to sail in Coastal waters with winds in not excess of 5B (a fair weather limited boat) and had mandatory CG demanding inspections (not as a dock attraction) nothing of this would have happened.

Nothing is as damaging to the tall ship Industry as the series of accidents that have been happening on the last years with Tall ships.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

lancelot9898 said:


> . The lawyers are going after the deep pockets


Yep. The lawyer for the dead woman is onto it. He will get a payout for sure. The lawyers for the insurance company must be worried.
Lets hope it was properly insured!


----------



## TakeFive

lancelot9898 said:


> Mark,
> 
> I'm too surprised that people are talking as much as they are even though some may not be as forthright as others. The lawyers are going after the deep pockets and that points to the owner who is taking the 5th.


As I pointed out in my prior post, there must be a lot of pressure on the crew under questioning, since the lawyer guy is going to try to trap everyone into some liability, although maybe not since their pockets are not deep.

However, I am not surprised that they are all talking. The only way to refuse to testify is to take the 5th, which is a tacit admission that you either broke the law or did some things that are at least accusable. Taking the 5th cannot be held against you in a court of law, but it can be held against you in almost every other way. If I was called in for questioning about my on-the-job actions and took the 5th, I would be fired instantly. (Of course, if I answered the questions in a way my employer didn't like, I'd be fired then too.  )

Every one of those crew members lost their job (since the vessel sank), and if they took the 5th, that would severely hurt their future employability in any line of work. The vessel owner will forever have a black mark on his record (probably deserved) that will prevent him from ever leading another foundation or any other high-flying executive job that those types seek. He's got a world of hurt coming his way.


----------



## chef2sail

lancelot9898 said:


> While I'm not a fan of regulation, I think most of the tall ships have stricter regulatory requirements than the Bounty due to the Bounty not taking paying passengers. I think that loop hole will be tighten up and feel disgusted with the Bounty organization for using that loop hole.


May I ask why. What is the "loophole" you refer to? If you listened to the testimony you heard from the Shipyard manager who had been dealing with wooden boats for 40 years tell stories about the commercial fishing boats and how horrible in repair state they were. Way worse than the Bounty. It seems the norm in the industry.

How would you tighten the "loophole" up specifically. How do you differenciate the Bounty who doesnt take passangers from any other commercial or privately owned boat who has a crew? What regulations would you impose? I am sure these are the questions the CG will struggle with when they make their conclusions as well as regulations.

How do you regulate what essentially is a private vessel? And to what degree?

I also asked whether you had watched any of the testimony personally and you havent replied. I am interested on your personal take.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> To the exception of Germany and US most countries with a maritime tradition has only one or two true tall ships that in a way or another are state funded and are in good condition. There are are also several countries, including Britain, Portugal or Sweden that have several other wooden tall ships on display I would not as dock attractions but as museums and not in sail condition.
> 
> Tall ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Almost all of the Tall ships are today steel ships justly because it is a lot more expensive to maintain a wooden ship than a steel one.
> 
> I don't believe this will have any influence regarding European ships. As I have said not only mostly of the ships are state funded as the European legislation in what regards private owned boats and inspection is a lot more tight than the American one, being Europe a nanny state and all that jazz.
> 
> I believe the repercussions will be mostly over US Tall ships and in the end if reasonable measures were taken it will not affect negatively the Industry.
> 
> If the Bounty was classified as a boat restricted to sail in Coastal waters with winds in not excess of 5B (a fair weather limited boat) and had mandatory CG demanding inspections (not as a dock attraction) nothing of this would have happened.
> 
> Nothing is as damaging to the tall ship Industry as the series of accidents that have been happening on the last years with Tall ships.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I almost totally agree.

I guess where the differentiation comes in on the classification of the Bounty. While it is considered a tall ship, it does not take passangers, therefore it is essentially a private vessel.

A private vessel not unlike say your vessel or even at most comercial fishing boat with paid crew. Regulations would have to be imposed on them which would affect many other commercial vessels which are like they are. What restrictions other than safety equipment do they operate under? My bet is many of them would not pass the true test of seaworthiness.

Just playing devils advocate here


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> The only way to refuse to testify is to take the 5th, which is a* tacit admission that you either broke the law or did some things that are at least accusable*. Taking the 5th cannot be held against you in a court of law, but it can be held against you in almost every other way. .


So of a policeman arrests you and you ask for a lawayer and refuse to answer his questions that is a tacit admission of guilt or did things which are at least accusable?

I agree with the second thing you said and not the tacit broke the law. That presumes guilt before innocence.

I dont know about you but I have taught my daughter to be very careful about answering questions posed by the police even if they tell her by her not doing that it makes her look guilty.

It is far different testifying if you are accused of doing something which in this hearing they are not, oit is fact finding. When they have the civil case, which I am sure Christine will against the owner, they will be able to question him under oath if he choses to testify. The right of self incrimnination is one of your basic rights.

Now that doesnt go to say in the eyes of public opinion that people wont thing they way you said. They will no matter what he says, thats why he says nothing. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Youd do the same in a similar situation as would I.


----------



## lancelot9898

Dave,

My personal take is that the vessel should have remained a dock side attraction which is what it was for almost 2 decades and never should have been put into service as a blue water passenger carrying vessel. To me lacks fishing vessel regualtions are no justification for application to the Bounty. Nor is it wise to skirt the requirements that other tall ships must comply with by not taking on "passengers" and merely calling them "crew".

While I agree with some of your postings and appreciate your insights, there are many of you postings that I find nit picky and condecending. I do not have the time nor inclination to debate any such matters and wish you well. If I was still in the Annapolis area I might even make it to one of the sailnet get togethers and many times talking in person is so much better than typeing behind a computer screen.


----------



## TakeFive

chef2sail said:


> So of a policeman arrests you and you ask for a lawayer and refuse to answer his questions that is a tacit admission of guilt or did things which are at least accusable?


Dave, I disagree with the premise of your question. If you are already arrested by the police, then it's pretty clear that they think you've committed an act that is prosecutable. But that's not the situation here with the crew members. None of them appears to have committed a crime.

My suggestion was to avoid unnecessarily "upping the ante" by taking the 5th when subpoenaed for a fact-finding investigation in which you are not the target. Taking the 5th is anyone's right, but it also raises suspicion of having committed an act that could be prosecutable and makes you an even bigger target for civil litigation, termination by your employer, etc. As I said, the Constitution protects you against certain things when you take the 5th, but there are a whole lot of other things (such as termination from employment) that it does not protect you against. And many people do not realize the full consequences of taking the 5th.

The premise of your question was that a person has already been arrested by the police, so that threshhold has already been exceeded. If you've been arrested by the police, you're already in big legal trouble (obviously they think you've committed a prosecutable act) and you should absolutely not answer a single question until you have a lawyer present.



chef2sail said:


> ...I dont know about you but I have taught my daughter to be very careful about answering questions posed by the police even if they tell her by her not doing that it makes her look guilty...


I share your skepticism of police, but the fact that you told her to "be very careful" and not to always "take the 5th" is evidence that you are agreeing with my statement, not disagreeing.

Caution is certainly advised whenever dealing with the police. I know of too many cases where they made up exaggerated stories to support their case, planted evidence, and entrapped people. I had a good friend who was about the only one in his family who was not a NJ State Trooper, and he told me that they all racially profile, pull people over without just cause, etc. I myself was pulled over by a local Ridley Township cop who accused me of planning to make an illegal U-turn at a traffic light 1/4 mile down the road. It's a long story, it was an intersection where a whole bunch of cars make illegal U-turns and they had a "sting" that day. I guarantee you that if I "took the 5th" I would have gotten my ass hauled off to the judge. Instead I pointed out that I was headed home from work and the address shown on my drivers license proved that I would be making a left turn at the light, and I had no reason to make a U-turn there. (By the way, that very cop was fired and prosecuted a year later for beating up a Wawa cashier in her own store. Her crime? Asking for ID to purchase tobacco, as required by state law.)



chef2sail said:


> ...Now that doesnt go to say in the eyes of public opinion that people wont thing they way you said. They will no matter what he says, thats why he says nothing. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Youd do the same in a similar situation as would I.


No, I think he took the 5th because he was (in my opinion) running a passenger-carrying vessel that was merely credentialed as a dockside attraction. The apparent evidence that he was planning to start carrying disabled kids in Florida raises the stakes even more.


----------



## chef2sail

lancelot9898 said:


> Dave,
> 
> My personal take is that the vessel should have remained a dock side attraction which is what it was for almost 2 decades and never should have been put into service as a blue water passenger carrying vessel. To me lacks fishing vessel regualtions are no justification for application to the Bounty. Nor is it wise to skirt the requirements that other tall ships must comply with by not taking on "passengers" and merely calling them "crew".
> 
> While I agree with some of your postings and appreciate your insights, there are many of you postings that I find nit picky and condecending. I do not have the time nor inclination to debate any such matters and wish you well. If I was still in the Annapolis area I might even make it to one of the sailnet get togethers and many times talking in person is so much better than typeing behind a computer screen.


I actuality I agree with your acessment of the Bounty remaining a dockside attraction. Under such circumstances she definately would have not kept up financially and could not survive. It seems like they were caught between the rock and hard place and constantly had to move her for funding for survival. Her upkeep and repair were way behind safety measures for having passangers on board and to fix things to that level would have required a funding they couldnt acheive. She was in major disrepair behind the facade and an accident waiting to happen if she continued sailing.

Her captain could not give up their love for the traditional wooden vessel and failed to see the reality of the condition to the end risking her in rough weather when maybe she never should have really left the dock. Her crew were inexperienced and just did what they did for the love of the lore of the tall ship sailing vessel as well as the trust of their teacher the captain.

How the CG can prevent something similar from happening on a private vessel will be interesting to see, as they need to do the same with other private vessels too such as commercial fishers, which I do not think they are prepared to enter that arena and would get major pushbcak from the private maritime industry. As Pauio points out the vessels owned by countries have the reasources to truly keep up with the upkeep required.

You may call it condescending, but my issue with your post concerning the gCaptain writer was that both the writer and I watched or were present for the whole hearing so far. You werent I assume. Yet you stated unequivocally I was wrong about his bias. I cant figure out what that is based on and have asked you to explain. I have tried to post each of the testimonies as has Rockdawg as we both seem to be the only ones watching it. I wish more people were so we would have different viewpoints.

I felt the posting was a little self serving and by omission of some critical parts of the statements of the testifiers or posting their comments out of context help sensationalize things somewhat and gave them a bias. news media is biased in the first pplace and as was pointed out the audience was the gCaptain site members who have alreaduy formed their opinions so it made sense to substantiate them.

My feelings about what happened have not changed soince day one when I pleaded for restratint and not jumping to conslusions on all aspects of this Bounty as it would p[revent us learning for the future. Aside from the obvious statement the Capatain should have never left the dock which has remnained true throughout for me and everyone, some of the testimony has brought forth other culpable people as well as cleared up some of the early posts opr reporting.

Had you not watched the hearing and had the ophrase explained to you by the crew...the statement that the Captain " chased hurricanes" was one example of this.

The desrepair was reported by Mainesail early on and he thinks it should never have left the dock, Listening to the testimony is almost incredulous to me that a reputable yard would tack new boards onto ricky ones and let the vessel sail of without so much as a protest or informing the CG. Instead one of them took pictires to cover their ass which never sbhowed up till after she sank. And then there is the owner and Bounty Corp LLC whose culpability is shrouded oin secracy as of yet, but which feels like there was some pressure there. We will have to wait till the ;awsuits to figure out what actual part they played.

I dont know the answers or recommendatuons yet from the CG. I can say that if the Bounty had to rely on only gate admissions to remain solvent it would not have. She wasnt worth anything to anyone in her present repair state and had the oppertunity we just found out for a possible endowment in Florida, thus she was moved. The ownership of her was faced with either a financial loss by scrapping her, a move to Florida to find funding, or an insurance claim if she sank or burned. I am not accusing anyone just staing the obvious. Like someone posted before follow the money.

Its a sad sad story because we al love the image of the old tall ships. If she was some old tuna fisherman or commercial fishing boat we woulkdnt care about all this, but she represented the Bounty.


----------



## Classic30

chef2sail said:


> I dont know the answers or recommendatuons yet from the CG. I can say that if the Bounty had to rely on only gate admissions to remain solvent it would not have. She wasnt worth anything to anyone in her present repair state and had the oppertunity we just found out for a possible endowment in Florida, thus she was moved. The ownership of her was faced with either a financial loss by scrapping her, a move to Florida to find funding, or an insurance claim if she sank or burned. I am not accusing anyone just staing the obvious. Like someone posted before follow the money.
> 
> Its a sad sad story because we al love the image of the old tall ships. If she was some old tuna fisherman or commercial fishing boat we woulkdnt care about all this, but she represented the Bounty.


True enough in my experience. I wonder how many here have actually spent more than an hour or two sailing on a Tall Ship? Very, very few I expect.. and that's amongst sailing people, not the general populace.

As the years pass, the priviledge of sailing on an old wooden sailing vessel is one known to fewer and fewer people because the significant amount of money required for the up-keep of these vessels (built when labour was cheap and materials expensive, it is now the other way around) means they usually become unwanted museum exhibits or stripped, discarded and burned. Possibly the best end they could have is to be lost at sea - like the Bounty.

Truth is, there are very, very few countries left in the world that actually give a stuff about their maritime heritage (Portugal and New Zealand are the only two I know) - and the direct result is that the general populace don't either.

eg. I consider myself very priviledged to have spent many months at sea aboard what was, officially, the world's oldest active passenger vessel. It, like the QEII and a host of other now-forgotten fully-rivetted ships, was effectively banned from sailing the oceans of the world with the introduction of SOLAS 2010, leaving us with the current generation of steel boxes. As a result, current and future generations will never experience what life was like on a genuine old ship. Perhaps the end is near for training sail also?


----------



## JonEisberg

TakeFive said:


> No, I think he took the 5th because he was (in my opinion) running a passenger-carrying vessel that was merely credentialed as a dockside attraction. The apparent evidence that he was planning to start carrying disabled kids in Florida raises the stakes even more.


That's an interesting point, was my first thought after reading the OUTSIDE article where that possibility was raised, as well...

The BOUNTY foundation would have been straying dangerously close to RAW FAITH territory, there...










Lest we forget, another recent high-profile American maritime tragedy featured a program designed to get disabled out on the water - that clown who was running those cruises on San Diego Bay, with a grossly overloaded Macgregor 26...

The RAW FAITH saga was a classic example of the Coast Guard turning a blind eye towards those sort of 'private' operations, repeatedly rescuing, yet ultimately turning a blind eye towards the piece of crap it was, and the incompetence and lunacy of the builder/operator... It was a miracle no lives were lost when that POS finally, mercifully went down...


----------



## PCP

Hartley18 said:


> ...
> Truth is, there are very, very few countries left in the world that actually give a stuff about their maritime heritage (Portugal and New Zealand are the only two I know) - and the direct result is that the general populace don't either.
> 
> ...


That is not fair neither true. Most European countries have a proud naval history and the populations are aware and proud of that. Not only Portuguese but Dutch, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Danes, French and British, just to mention some, have great naval traditions and all own more than one tall ship, mostly Navy or Merchant Marine owned (that means state anyway) professionally crewed. The boats are in good condition and almost all have circumnavigated probably more than one time. Here are some of them:


















































































Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> That is not fair neither true. Most European countries have a proud naval history and the populations are aware and proud of that. Not only Portuguese but Dutch, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Danes, French and British, just to mention some, have great naval traditions and all own more than one tall ship, mostly Navy or Merchant Marine owned (that means state anyway) professionally crewed. The boats are in good condition and almost all have circumnavigated probably more than one time. Here are some of them:


Paulo, you missed my point. Australia has "more than one Tall Ship" too - and at least one I know of, the Endeavour Replica, has circumnavigated via the Horn at least once.. yet, I did not list Australia simply because it's a well-known fact: our government does not give a stuff about preserving our maritime heritage.

Having a "proud naval history" is a wonderful thing - hey, even China has a proud naval history if you can find someone who'll talk about it - but that doesn't translate to (a) *government* $$$ to pay for the keep and restoration of what they currently have and (b) *government* courage to enact legislation to protect it.

If you look deeper into the way most of the Tall Ships are funded, you'll find vast *private* $$$ being poured in for overhauls and re-fits for tax or philanthropic reasons with, if they're incredibly lucky, maybe a few pennies from some state Trust or Naval Fund for on-going maintenance and operations (or simply free berthage and the like) - and *no* legislation to protect said ship or ships eventually being sold offshore to whoever wants it. If you doubt me, look at the bruhaha surrounding who will pay the bill any time one of these ships needs an overhaul..

I agree that the French have done something to protect their old fishing fleets and run a few festivals like Douarnenez (my apologies for forgetting them) but am not aware of the British Government, for example, doing anything similar outside of the Norfolk Broads.

But once no-one visits the ships any more (certainly attendance at Maritime Museums in this country is dropping every year) eventually those private funds dry up and the vessels disappear.. It's a sorry fact of life, but a fact it is. ..and incidents like those surrounding the "Bounty" are an unfortunate symptom of that fact.


----------



## PCP

Maybe you are right but in what regards Europe I don't think that is the case. The British "wasted" a fortune recovering the Cutty Sark that was destroyed some years ago by a fire:

Curator's tours of the Cutty Sark : Events : Visit : RMG

The Swedish took from the bottom of the ocean the Vasa, a XVII century ship, preserved it and put it in a museum at a fabulous cost.

K-Something,Blonde: Vasa Museet

The French besides having several Tall ships have almost finish a new one, a copy of L' Herminoine the ship on which La Fayette embarked in 1780, to bring help and support to the American insurgents.






Hermione, freedom

Maritime museums in Europe are popular places and I would say that existent tall ships here are not at risk and have enough funding, state or from private sponsorship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> Maritime museums in Europe are popular places and I would say that existent tall ships here are not at risk and have enough funding, state or from private sponsorship.


Paulo, that is good to hear and I do wish that were true in this part of the world. It seems to me that whenever governments need money, "non essential" things like maritime heritage tends to suffer.

It would be interesting to know what the state of maritime heritage funding is like in America, although, if the "Bounty" is an example it can't be too healthy. Given the amount of money the US government is reported to spend on a non-essential like their space program, it's a little surprising to me that more isn't being done to ensure vessels like the "Bounty" aren't maintained in better condition..


----------



## rgscpat

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578875_2912435451333_2117393001_n.jpg

San Salvador, re-creation of Juan Cabrillo's 16th-century ship in San Diego, USA.

A few items may not be typical of Spanish ships from 400 years ago:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c101.0.403.403/p403x403/318915_335340616564788_2144000792_n.jpg


----------



## rgscpat

And


----------



## TakeFive

Hartley18 said:


> ...Given the amount of money the US government is reported to spend on a non-essential like their space program, it's a little surprising to me that more isn't being done to ensure vessels like the "Bounty" aren't maintained in better condition...


GIVE ME A BREAK!! While I love sailing and tall ships, suggesting that the space program is less essential to our collective well-being than refurbishing old rotted out movie props is really stretching the limits of credibility. Given the defense and intelligence ramifications of space, I think there's pretty strong argument that the government should be funding space program - much stronger than the other option that you propose.


----------



## Capt Len

It seems to me that most parts of the world offer an interested public and some degree of assistance and funding for classic or historic vessels. Here in Victoria BC it's tourism based on whale watching.The tallship regattas have been canceled by the city Even the Salts tall ships don't get a break on moorage. See them at SALTS Sail and Life Training Society - Home and for my own little tallship try '. 



 Fortunately this lament is buoyed by seeing PCP's note.


----------



## Classic30

rgscpat said:


> San Salvador, re-creation of Juan Cabrillo's 16th-century ship in San Diego, USA.


I don't see your point. With enough time and money anyone can build a new/old ship anywhere, anytime they choose. Here's one of "ours" no better, no worse than that one: Notorious (ship) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without government involvement in setting the right rules & regulations framework and providing funding either directly or through some other framework to keep it afloat for the benefit of the people, it's no different to any other private yacht...


----------



## PorFin

Hartley18 said:


> Given the amount of money the US government is reported to spend on a non-essential like their space program...


You mean the space program that launches all those satellites that allow us unprecedented ability to forecast and track storms so that mariners shouldn't get caught in harms way?

In the Bounty skipper's case -- yeah, absolutely useless...


----------



## Classic30

TakeFive said:


> GIVE ME A BREAK!! While I love sailing and tall ships, suggesting that the space program is less essential to our collective well-being than refurbishing old rotted out movie props is really stretching the limits of credibility. Given the defense and intelligence ramifications of space, I think there's pretty strong argument that the government should be funding space program - much stronger than the other option that you propose.


My point exactly.

If, just like here in Oz, your government and your people doesn't actually give a stuff about fostering genuine maritime heritage and making sure appropriate legislation is put in place to prevent "rotted out movie props" being used to cart people around oceans in the first place, why should you be surprised when one meets an unfortunate end?

..and thanks for the space program. We don't have one - but we do get to enjoy yours.


----------



## Classic30

Capt Len said:


> It seems to me that most parts of the world offer an interested public and some degree of assistance and funding for classic or historic vessels.
> .....
> Fortunatly this lament is buoyed by seeing PCP's note.


Not here I'm afraid. We even have a Register of Historic Vessels  and being on that and two bucks-fifty might buy you a cup of coffee..

.. but my lament too is buoyed by seeing PCP's note. 

EDIT: I've found it interesting delving into New Zealand's system. It turns out that the NZ government wasn't as interested in the boats as much as the Kauri they're built from, which it has since made it illegal to ship out of the country. Since a result was that it was then complicated for the locals to sell their yachts overseas, the government made it possible for gambling revenue to be put into various Trusts that, amongst other things, now own and operate many of their significant yachts.. Very clever indeed.


----------



## PCP

Preserving a naval tradition is no different then preserving any other significant cultural part of a culture. For some cultures the naval tradition is stronger and more important than in others and therefore the preservation has a memorial is more important. For other countries the literature, art are more or less important.

Anyway a culture belongs to a nation and for a nation to be healthy their cultural roots have to be strong. Regarding America it is no different. Look at the importance that the Americans give to their constitution. On most countries in Europe they are already in their 3th or 4th constitution and we don't have that reverence regarding the Constitution. All cultures are different as the different value they give to different cultural aspects.

The preservation of fundamental aspects of a culture can be made by individuals but should always have a government frame. After all a culture belongs not to individuals but to a nation and that means all. It is in this perspective that the preservation of a Naval tradition should be looked at.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> Preserving a naval tradition is no different then preserving any other significant cultural part of a culture. For some cultures the naval tradition is stronger and more important than in others and therefore the preservation has a memorial is more important. For other countries the literature, art are more or less important.
> 
> Anyway a culture belongs to a nation and for a nation to be healthy their cultural roots have to be strong. Regarding America it is no different. Look at the importance that the Americans give to their constitution. On most countries in Europe they are already in their 3th or 4th constitution and we don't have that reverence regarding the Constitution. All cultures are different as the different value they give to different cultural aspects.
> 
> The preservation of fundamental aspects of a culture can be made by individuals but should always have a government frame. After all a culture belongs not to individuals but to a nation and that means all. It is in this perspective that the preservation of a Naval tradition should be looked at.


This all sounds nice, but you seem to mistake preserving the culture, which can be done quite economically, with preserving the actual ships, which are made out of biodegradable materials and are extraordinarily expensive to maintain. At a certain point priorities need to be set, and that may mean you can't afford to keep pouring money down that "hole in the water."

European economies, including Portugal, are learning this the hard way right now. The severe austerity measures have been a disaster, but some changes are going to have to be made to bring your spending down to a sustainable level, and with so many truly critical things to spend money on, I am not sure that maintaining these old ships can or should continue at the same level that it has in your countries.

I am a naive Yankee outsider, so take my comments with the appropriate grain of salt.


----------



## chef2sail

Sanderson testifyimng. He was in the engine room the whole time till the water shorted out all of the generators. He recounted changing filters...losing the battle against the rising water. Changing filters fir the generators. He addressed the issue of the floting pices of wood clogging the intakes and said it wasnt a real problem. He kept the the ends of the dewatering equipment under the water. he also spoke about the last time he saw Christine and Walbridge after they abandoned ship.

He also spoke about being in the water being hard to clear the rigging on the ship and then the final rescue, cllimpbing on the life raft.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail

NTSB questioner focused on the expeience of the engineer ( Barksdale) and while he was not ever around the whole time that there were issues in the engine room thast led to the sinking. Questions about the old water tanks which were now used as fuel tanks were the dried out. Was water coming into fuel tanks from the deck vents from the hurricane? 

Was asked repeatedly about why he never asked the Captain about sailing S and not continueing East . This man was one of the officers and appeared to have absolutley no input in decision making of course. He appeared to not want to answer questions about who decided the course of the Bounty and was asked repeatedl;y about that, Since he was an officer oif the watch 8 hours each day the questioners seemed incredulous at either his lack of knowledge or lack of input into even wanting to know what direction they were going in. Points to the obvious lack of knowledge of the crew to even basic seamanship. Also note this Man Sanderson went to a 4 year seamans ship acheademy where this stuff was taught and he came out with a 500 mates liscence.

Dave. Breaking for lunch.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

chef2sail said:


> NTSB questioner focused on the expeience of the engineer ( Barksdale) and while he was not ever around the whole time that there were issues in the engine room thast led to the sinking. Questions about the old water tanks which were now used as fuel tanks were the dried out. Was water coming into fuel tanks from the deck vents from the hurricane?
> 
> Was asked repeatedly about why he never asked the Captain about sailing S and not continueing East . This man was one of the officers and appeared to have absolutley no input in decision making of course. He appeared to not want to answer questions about who decided the course of the Bounty and was asked repeatedl;y about that, Since he was an officer oif the watch 8 hours each day the questioners seemed incredulous at either his lack of knowledge or lack of input into even wanting to know what direction they were going in. Points to the obvious lack of knowledge of the crew to even basic seamanship. Also note this Man Sanderson went to a 4 year seamans ship acheademy where this stuff was taught and he came out with a 500 mates liscence.


I noticed that too - Unbelievable..
He also named one of the classes he took as "Hurricane Avoidance" and was repeatedly asked by NTSB what was he tought, his answer was "I don't recall".. - can you believe it?

Also he was asked what was the safest zone of the hurricane - his answer was "South East" corner..

It looks like he really doesn't want to talk why or who made a change to SW.. 

p.s. He was IN CHARGE of charts and course plotting..

p.p.s. Engineer testifing now.. says he "doesn't recall" hp rating of the engine.. didn't inspect inside of water tanks before putting diesel in them?? Doesn't "Recall" fuel consumption of engines?? Was slow to respond on what cooling system the engines have.. Keel coolers?


----------



## rockDAWG

Barksdale's testimony was interesting. I don't have a good feeling I wanted to trust him. I was at the airport, and I missed the early part of his testimony. Someone please fill in or give a link..


----------



## Capt.Mhack

rockDAWG said:


> Barksdale's testimony was interesting. I don't have a good feeling I wanted to trust him. I was at the airport, and I missed the early part of his testimony. Someone please fill in or give a link..


He was asked about his job, he replied - "I was responsible for engines, generators and _I SUSPECT_ bilge system.. not sure.."


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> This all sounds nice, but you seem to mistake preserving the culture, which can be done quite economically, with preserving the actual ships, which are made out of biodegradable materials and are extraordinarily expensive to maintain. At a certain point priorities need to be set, and that may mean you can't afford to keep pouring money down that "hole in the water."
> 
> European economies, including Portugal, are learning this the hard way right now. The severe austerity measures have been a disaster, but some changes are going to have to be made to bring your spending down to a sustainable level, and with so many truly critical things to spend money on, I am not sure that maintaining these old ships can or should continue at the same level that it has in your countries.
> 
> I am a naive Yankee outsider, so take my comments with the appropriate grain of salt.


Yes, it is all a question of priorities, mainly to the people. The money needed to preserve 3 or four boats is quite insignificant even in the budget of a country like Portugal.

Around here people are quite pissed about the huge money that was spent on two new modern attack submarines (more than enough to take care of all old boats for a huge amount of years).

If any emblematic boat needed maintenance and the state could not provide it it would only be necessary to open a raising fund and the people would get the money because it is important to them and to us as a culture.

It would not be the first time. Some years ago a huge amount of money was raised that way to recover the XIX century Frigate Fernando e Gloria (badly damaged after a fire), the last ship from the "Carreira da India", the last of many hundreds on the last 500 years.

Dom Fernando II e Glória - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The boat is today a museum and a very good one.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.Mhack

lancelot9898 said:


> Dave,
> 
> My personal take is that the vessel should have remained a dock side attraction which is what it was for almost 2 decades and never should have been put into service as a blue water passenger carrying vessel.


I think it's not the vessel, it was still floating hours after CG rescue.

It's the Captain who didn't spend the money to properly maintain it - and that happens in life, but behaved like he had an excellent 110% maintained vessel to attempt what he attempted and sail not only in to a hurricane but also in to Gulf stream with N winds.


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> Yes, it is all a question of priorities, mainly to the people. The money needed to preserve 3 or four boats is quite insignificant even in the budget of a country like Portugal.
> 
> Around here people are quite pissed about the huge money that was spent on two new modern attack submarines (more than enough to take care of all old boats for a huge amount of years).
> 
> If any emblematic boat needed maintenance and the state could not provide it it would only be necessary to open a raising fund and the people would get the money because it is important to them and to us as a culture.
> 
> It would not be the first time. Some years ago a huge amount of money was raised that way to recover the XIX century Frigate Fernando e Gloria (badly damaged after a fire), the last ship from the "Carreira da India", the last of many hundreds on the last 500 years.
> 
> The boat is today a museum and a very good one.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


All I can say is... you are very, very lucky Paulo. As much as we'd all like it to, that simply does not happen in most countries.

Over here, such a ship would sit, and wait, and rot whilst various groups of excited enthusiasts tried to raise the money for the repair from their own funds. Only if it looked like some political advantage could be gained, would the government offer to help out in some small way. Sometimes they succeed (eg. James Craig) but most of the time they don't...


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> I think it's not the vessel, it was still floating hours after CG rescue.
> 
> It's the Captain who didn't spend the money to properly maintain it - and that happens in life, but behaved like he had an excellent 110% maintained vessel to attempt what he attempted and sail not only in to a hurricane but also in to Gulf stream with N winds.


I wouldnt go that far.

Even had he had a 100% well maintained vessel....sailing toward a hurricane or cutting accross it is not responsible

The Captain didnt have the ability because of ownership to spend the money to maintain it it was prohibitive to the real condition of the boat we are find out. Small operation on a shoestring with no money except the gate of dockside visitors. I blame Bounty LLC and the owner for the condition. Like Mainesail has ststed before this should never have left the dock in any kind of weather as the frame was rotted beneath the structure. Testimoney today supported that. It was an accident waiting to happen.

The fact the it floated for a while before sinking means nothing. It was made of wood and wood floats and there were pockets of bouyancy in the boat. What is anstonishing though is that inspite of the leaks and the pounding that she remained intact for hours after the crew abandoned. Especially the masts


----------



## Capt.Mhack

chef2sail said:


> I wouldnt go that far.
> 
> Even had he had a 100% well maintained vessel....sailing toward a hurricane or cutting accross it is not responsible


Agreed. My point exactly! I don't care what his plan was, even in USS Enterprise it is still crazy to do so.. Biggest NO-NO and fail on his part.



chef2sail said:


> The Captain didnt have the ability because of ownership to spend the money to maintain it it was prohibitive to the real condition of the boat we are find out.


Agreed. My point is that captain is ultimate authority and the person in charge of every soul on board - not enough funds - happens to all of us, what he didn't do right is to take that in to account and not go out.

I think he would have made it in to some port along the shoreline or far far east or north.

Again, not arguing that the boat was in any kind of "good" condition - obviously it was in a very rough shape!



chef2sail said:


> small operation on a shoestring with no money except the gate of dockside visitors. I blame Bounty LLC and the owner for the condition. Like Mainesail has ststed before this should never have left the dock in any kind of weather as the frame was rotted beneath the structure. Testimoney today supported that. It was an accident waiting to happen.


I think every good sailor will share this opinion..



chef2sail said:


> The fact the it floated for a while before sinking means nothing. It was made of wood and wood floats and there were pockets of bouyancy in the boat. What is anstonishing though is that inspite of the leaks and the pounding that she remained intact for hours after the crew abandoned. Especially the masts


I think the fact it still floated, although couldn't be counted upon during the storm, shows us that the Bounty was probably the safer place to be in that storm at least for the people who died. I did look remarkably intact with no boards torn away..

Also one point I want to bring up that this Bounty-replica was modified from the original drawings in the way that made it unstable - for example they made it wider, wich screws up all the stability calculations put in the original.

It was more of a flat bottom boat than a proper XVII century ship.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ..
> Even had he had a 100% well maintained vessel....sailing toward a hurricane or cutting accross it is not responsible
> ..


You have been doing a great job covering the inquiry but I have some doubts yet, maybe you or someone had already noticed something that was said to en-light these doubts.

1- When did the boat lost power and why? we know that one of the engine was lost over that diesel tank incident, running out of diesel and impossible to restart again. Was the other engine still running? When and why they lost the second engine?

2- Pumps: What was the main system? the electric one, or the hydraulic one, directly operated by the engines?

3- When someone said that the crew was not trained in the use of the back-up pumping system and didn't know how to work with it, he was referring to any of those or to a third one and if so that what system?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.Mhack

PCP said:


> You have been doing a great job covering the inquiry but I have some doubts yet, maybe you or someone had already noticed something that was said to en-light these doubts.
> 
> 1- When did the boat lost power and why? we know that one of the engine was lost over that diesel tank incident, running out of diesel and impossible to restart again. Was the other engine still running? When and why they lost the second engine?
> 
> 2- Pumps: What was the main system? the electric one, or the hydraulic one, directly operated by the engines?
> 
> 3- When someone said that the crew was not trained in the use of the back-up pumping system and didn't know how to work with it, he was referring to any of those or to a third one and if so that what system?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Please correct me if I'm wrong -

1. No timeline was established but it is known one engine run out of fuel rest short circuited when water was high enough, which was rather quickly.

2. 5 pumps:

- 2 electrical 150 gpm - main system 208V, connected to 2" pipe

- 2 hydraulic 800 gpm each rated if connected to 4" pipe, they were not. 
Hydraulic system can only run 1 at a time they were connected to much smaller pipe ~ 250 gpm

Bounty leak rate was estimated at 800 gpm, pumps as configured could pump 550 gpm ( 2 electric + 1 hydraulic )

Nobody was trained on hydraulic pumps, they were not tested and hard to start.

Last pump was a gas pump that didn't work as it was not used in 2 years.

3. Nobody was trained on hydraulic pumps or gas.


----------



## Classic30

Sounds to me like, for all their Gumby suits, there were a few rather glaring gaps in their emergency procedures. You'd think "man the pumps!" would be a basic one on a leaky boat...


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong -
> 
> 1. No timeline was established but it is known one engine run out of fuel rest short circuited when water was high enough, which was rather quickly.
> 
> 2. 5 pumps:
> 
> - 2 electrical 150 gpm - main system 208V, connected to 2" pipe
> 
> - 2 hydraulic 800 gpm each rated if connected to 4" pipe, they were not.
> Hydraulic system can only run 1 at a time they were connected to much smaller pipe ~ 250 gpm
> 
> Bounty leak rate was estimated at 800 gpm, pumps as configured could pump 550 gpm ( 2 electric + 1 hydraulic )
> nobody was trained on hydraulic pumps, they were not tested and hard to start.
> 
> Last pump was a gas pump that didn't work as it was not used in 2 years.
> 
> 3. Nobody was trained on hydraulic pumps or gas.


The timeline I belkeive was that somewhere aorund 1800-2000 The pumps failed and the water started shorting out the entire electrical system and they wre in the dark. They had already made plans to abandon ship the had already contacted the CG through Email ( 2nd time) as the SSB and Ham were not operable so they still had power then and the elctrical pump was still working. The third mate then came out of the engine room and put his Survival Suit on. The started working there way to the back of the ship. Not long after that they were knocked off. All of them were very confused time wise. The last pump failed fairly close to when they abandoned.


----------



## chef2sail

Hartley18 said:


> Sounds to me like, for all their Gumby suits, there were a few rather glaring gaps in their emergency procedures. You'd think "man the pumps!" would be a basic one on a leaky boat...


Actually after listening to tesimony I thought they had a fairly good emergency procedure for abondoning, and good equipment...its what save d them ultimately. Plus they practiced beforehand

They didnt have enough qualified people on board and the pumps failed to lack of knowledge, mainatainence and they were overwhelmed by leakage


----------



## Capt.Mhack

chef2sail said:


> Actually after listening to tesimony I thought they had a fairly good emergency procedure for abondoning, and good equipment...its what save d them ultimately. Plus they practiced beforehand
> 
> They didnt have enough qualified people on board and the pumps failed to lack of knowledge, mainatainence and they were overwhelmed by leakage


Jessica just said she was in a great cabin when 1st mate came to the captain and told him to call CG.. Captain said no. This is if I understood correctly was the time they lost power and pumps.

I'm surprised they only had 2 reliable pumps pumping 300 gpm or less, and No manual pumps, i think few manual pumps would have helped in case like this..

She also said gas pump was stored with gas in the system for 2 years.

She says that in the beginning every watch would run electrical pumps to stay ahead of flooding, at some point they had to use a hydraulic pump wheb electrical were not enough.

The lawyer brings up an interesting point why the crew refuses to criticize the captain..


----------



## Classic30

Capt.Mhack said:


> I'm surprised they only had 2 reliable pumps pumping 300 gpm or less, and No manual pumps, i think few manual pumps would have helped in case like this..


So... Manual pumps aren't required by maritime law in the USA??


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Hartley18 said:


> So... Manual pumps aren't required by maritime law in the USA??


Of course not! Whats a manual bilge pump gunna do on a 1000 foot cruise ship? Or 1000 foot oli tanker?

Or on the bounty when it was leaking 800 gallons per minute... 48,000 gallons per hour?


----------



## Capt.Mhack

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Of course not! Whats a manual bilge pump gunna do on a 1000 foot cruise ship? Or 1000 foot oli tanker?
> 
> Or on the bounty when it was leaking 800 gallons per minute... 48,000 gallons per hour?


Well the only had 2 electrical pumps 150 (max) each, they could have used 5 manual gusher 30 to have 150 gpm extra.. Looks like 16 people on board only 1-2 dealing with pumps..


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong -
> 
> 1. No timeline was established but it is known one engine run out of fuel rest short circuited when water was high enough, which was rather quickly.
> 
> 2. 5 pumps:
> 
> - 2 electrical 150 gpm - main system 208V, connected to 2" pipe
> 
> - 2 hydraulic 800 gpm each rated if connected to 4" pipe, they were not.
> Hydraulic system can only run 1 at a time they were connected to much smaller pipe ~ 250 gpm
> 
> Bounty leak rate was estimated at 800 gpm, pumps as configured could pump 550 gpm ( 2 electric + 1 hydraulic )
> 
> Nobody was trained on hydraulic pumps, they were not tested and hard to start.
> 
> Last pump was a gas pump that didn't work as it was not used in 2 years.
> 
> 3. Nobody was trained on hydraulic pumps or gas.


It seems to me that the one designed to be the main was the hydraulic one but I am a bit confused. For what I have understood there were two hydraulic pumps, one for each engine, drive directly. So why do you say that only one could be drive at any given time?

Yes, it seems you are correct. No timeline regarding the last engine going out of service. Anyway I seem to recall that when the last electric pumps stooped to work (short circuit) no ship engine was working, except one of the generators.

I find odd that at this time of the inquiry the time table of events is not yet completely clear.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Capt.Mhack

PCP said:


> It seems to me that the one designed to be the main was the hydraulic one but I am a bit confused. For what I have understood there were two hydraulic pumps, one for each engine, drive directly. So why do you say that only one could be drive at any given time?
> 
> Yes, it seems you are correct. No timeline regarding the last engine going out of service. Anyway I seem to recall that when the last electric pumps stooped to work (short circuit) no ship engine was working, except one of the generators.
> 
> I find odd that at this time of the inquiry the time table of events is not yet completely clear.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Well, it looks like electric were primary.

Hydraulic were secondary.

The problem with them is the way the designer/surveyor friend of the captain installed them.

One was hardwired to the 2" pipe ( instead of 4") and the other to 3" flexible hose instead of 4".

Also they both were driven by hydraulic fluid pump on 1 engine. This pump was 9gpm which was enough to drive just 1 pump at a time. There was no way to run both at the same time.

For the timeline - each crew member gave estimates of the time, but at the end of each day 1st mate was allowed to "question" them and he asked questions like "Could it be that you stood 8-12 watch instead of 16-20?" You see what he was doing it was very transparent..


----------



## Smier

Chef kind of touched on my question earlier when he mentioned not enough qualified/trained crew... How many crew(qualified) should a ship of this size have had realistically? 16 total crew members seems kind of small in my mind. Then you factor in the weather, their actual skill levels, and injuries...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Smier said:


> Chef kind of touched on my question earlier when he mentioned not enough qualified/trained crew... How many crew(qualified) should a ship of this size have had realistically? 16 total crew members seems kind of small in my mind. Then you factor in the weather, their actual skill levels, and injuries...


Thats the interesting thing about the shuffling of the displacement of the vessel! Because they changed something to bring it back under 300 tons they didnt need any qualified crew.

This hearing is finding what could be lies upon lies that force fitted this vessel into one the USCG never had the ability to properly inspect and never needed to be surveyed for the level ship she was actually.

Thats why this hearing is intriguing. And that we had previously brought up all these points in this thread! 

If it is found to be deception on part of people still alive there may be a referal for criminal proceedings. Thats probably why the owner is not answering questions at this hearing.

To answer your question specifically they should have had a marine qualified engineer, mate and second mate... at least!


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> Well, it looks like electric were primary.
> 
> Hydraulic were secondary.
> 
> The problem with them is the way the designer/surveyor friend of the captain installed them.
> 
> One was hardwired to the 2" pipe ( instead of 4") and the other to 3" flexible hose instead of 4".
> 
> Also they both were driven by hydraulic fluid pump on 1 engine. This pump was 9gpm which was enough to drive just 1 pump at a time. There was no way to run both at the same time.
> 
> For the timeline - each crew member gave estimates of the time, but at the end of each day 1st mate was allowed to "question" them and he asked questions like "Could it be that you stood 8-12 watch instead of 16-20?" You see what he was doing it was very transparent..


I didn't say they were the primary system I had said they were designed to be the primary system

Something was very wrong with that set up. Two pumps run by the same engine that could only run one is crazy...and the boat had two engines. If the pumps were correctly installed, run one by each engine, with adequate piping, that would be the primary system with a capacity vastly superior to the electric one.

Previously the ship had as main pumping system a diesel one and the electric one as auxiliary. Then they stayed with the electric one and substituted the Diesel one by the hydraulic one. It seems to me that should be the main one, if not castrated by a ridiculous installation.

I don't know what is worse, if that or the electrical system of the boat with all those connections low on the bilge were in case of flooding the water would short circuit everything.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Maine Sail

Smier said:


> Chef kind of touched on my question earlier when he mentioned not enough qualified/trained crew... How many crew(qualified) should a ship of this size have had realistically? 16 total crew members seems kind of small in my mind. Then you factor in the weather, their actual skill levels, and injuries...


That's the whole thing this entire debacle was doomed from the very beginning. The more the testimony goes on the more horrified I am. I though I was horrified by what I saw on the rails a BHS, but it pales in comparison to the rest of what Ive seen in these hearings.......

MY OPINION HERE:

*Unqualified/inexperienced crew
*Rotted & completely unsafe vessel
*Gross & egregious levels of cost cutting (DAP 33 etc)
*Skirting/avoidance of the "rules"
*Lack of proper maintenance
*Lack of proper funding
*Lack of a ships engineer who knew enough about the systems on-board
*Lack of experienced crew who knew how to use critical safety equipment/systems (pumps)
*A captain with too much faith/love/ignorance for his ship to see the forest for the trees.
*A bunch of hobbyists who idolized their captain like a cult and could not see the forest because the TREE (read captain) obliterated their view.

And above all else...

*A COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF ANY COMMON SENSE

The captain is STILL 100% at fault but there were way more contributing factors than I ever imagined possible.....


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Honestly it is just beyond incompetence.
As I was hearing "engineer" who had NO idea what engine horsepower rating was.. Or what fuel consumption was..

Surveyor designed a pump system that was connected to much smaller pipes which restricted flow to 1/4 of gph..

Overall it seems like they are all in the state of denial of what happened and what were they doing..

Navigator who didn't know where the hurricane was or what/when/why they changed course.. 

Possible explanation of course that they very well aware of all of this but circled the wagons and are playing dumb.


----------



## Minnewaska

Maine Sail said:


> That's the whole thing this entire debacle was doomed from the very beginning. The more the testimony goes on the more horrified I am. I though I was horrified by what I saw on the rails a BHS, but it pales in comparison to the rest of what Ive seen in these hearings.......
> 
> MY OPINION HERE:
> 
> *Unqualified/inexperienced crew
> *Rotted & completely unsafe vessel
> *Gross & egregious levels of cost cutting (DAP 33 etc)
> *Skirting/avoidance of the "rules"
> *Lack of proper maintenance
> *Lack of proper funding
> *Lack of a ships engineer who knew enough about the systems on-board
> *Lack of experienced crew who knew how to use critical safety equipment/systems (pumps)
> *A captain with too much faith/love/ignorance for his ship to see the forest for the trees.
> *A bunch of hobbyists who idolized their captain like a cult and could not see the forest because the TREE (read captain) obliterated their view.
> 
> And above all else...
> 
> *A COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF ANY COMMON SENSE
> 
> The captain is STILL 100% at fault but there were way more contributing factors than I ever imagined possible.....


I agree with this view completely and is essentially the consensus of most prior to the hearings even beginning. This has been hard to catch up, being away last week. However, other than some trivia, have we really learned anything we didn't already expect?

I'm very curious about testimony as to what the Captain told the crew before they left and whether they fully considered options of staying ashore. The boat was simply ill prepared for the voyage, but we absolutely knew that.

In the end, nothing seems to be taking the full blame away from the skipper making the decision to set to sea and its just getting clearer and clearer that they had survived so many other voyages aboard a crappy ship in bad conditions, that they came to believe they could do so forever.

I'm sure the owner was cutting corners. However, say I cut corners in maintaining my personal boat. I hire a deliver skipper to move her and he knows I cut corners. He is still fully responsible for making the choice to go anyway. If the owner of the Bounty is proven to be an unscrupulous, penny pinching, devious toad, I don't see it changing anything. It just adds them to this pile of turd.


----------



## Classic30

From the stuff that's come out so far there seems to have been quite a few breaches of parts of SOLAS Regulation II/21.4 and especially 21.4.10..

I'm curious: What was their source of emergency power? Did they actually have an emergency generator - or was it just batteries?


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Hartley18 said:


> From the stuff that's come out so far there seems to have been quite a few breaches of parts of SOLAS Regulation II/21.4 and especially 21.4.10..
> 
> I'm curious: What was their source of emergency power? Did they actually have an emergency generator - or was it just batteries?


They had one generator rebuilt and set aside, they were using the second one.

All of them describe when generators quit the "lost power and pumps" so I assume there was no way to run pumps on batteries..


----------



## Classic30

Capt.Mhack said:


> They had one generator rebuilt and set aside, they were using the second one.
> 
> All of them describe when generators quit the "lost power and pumps" so I assume there was no way to run pumps on batteries..


There are specific ABS and SOLAS requirements for emergency power supply including waterproofing (bulkheads, location) and fireproofing.

Not even passenger liners carry two emergency generators, so I assume the generators you are referring to are normal supply.. since I still don't get how they "lost power and pumps" if the emergency power system was designed to meet the regs. Maybe someone can enlighten me?


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Hartley18 said:


> There are specific ABS and SOLAS requirements for emergency power supply including waterproofing (bulkheads, location) and fireproofing.
> 
> Not even passenger liners carry two emergency generators, so I assume the generators you are referring to are normal supply.. since I still don't get how they "lost power and pumps" if the emergency power system was designed to meet the regs. Maybe someone can enlighten me?


They didn't have emergency gens.
They had 2 generators they used for 208V pumps all the time. One at a time.
During the last trip water level submerged both generators and they "lost power and electric pumps"

They had 2 electric pumps working (less than 150 gpm each) and 1 hydraulic pump working periodically pumping about 250 gpm or less.

They lost hydraulic pumps even earlier as engines died first.

They also report that pumps didn't work to full capacity for some reason.

Engineer was assuming he was responsible for pumps but was "not sure", one of the officers was in the engine room ( engineer was not there) trying to start and maintain pumps, at some point as water got to the generator ( 5 feet ) he exited engine room and they were abandoning ship.

P.s one of the engines stopped when the sight glass was broken on one of the tanks. It was reported that engineer blamed Claudine for breaking it. There were also reports she found a fuel leak in one of the tanks.

P.p.s In all the testimony captain was also mysteriously absent during last hours on Bounty, nobody was coordinating abandon ship, nobody could recall who gave orders.


----------



## lancelot9898

This whole inquiry shows the complete incompendence from both an operational and maintenance standpoint such that I even question the ability of the Bounty Organization to even operate the ship as merely a dockside attraction. And to think that this went on year after year...

The way I understand it is that Barksdale was asked a month or so prior to the end of October to come aborad as ship's "engineer' because the prior engineer left. Any testimony from the prior engineer?


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> I agree with this view completely and is essentially the consensus of everyone prior to the hearings even beginning. This has been hard to catch up, being away last week. However, other than some trivia, have we really learned anything we didn't already expect?
> 
> I'm very curious about testimony as to what the Captain told the crew before they left and whether they fully considered options of staying ashore. The boat was simply ill prepared for the voyage, but we absolutely knew that.
> 
> In the end, nothing seems to be taking the full blame away from the skipper making the decision to set to sea and its just getting clearer and clearer that they had survived so many other voyages aboard a crappy ship in bad conditions, that they came to believe they could do so forever.
> 
> I'm sure the owner was cutting corners. However, say I cut corners in maintaining my personal boat. I hire a deliver skipper to move her and he knows I cut corners. He is still fully responsible for making the choice to go anyway. If the owner of the Bounty is proven to be an unscrupulous, penny pinching, devious toad, I don't see it changing anything. It just adds them to this pile of turd.


From one who *FIRST HAND *watched almost all of the testimony it never convinced me or I think anyone else that the Captain was not responsible for his actions and wrong for what he did taking an ill equipped vessel to sea. That has never been a real issue here or really been disputed. Just because we bring up other issues doent mean we beleive pther wise about the Captains responsibilities. Nor are we blinded to seeing other improvemets or issues by our singular vison

It is no suprise since you watched none of the testimony ( you were in the Islands I beleive), and have had a singular purpose on blame here, that your opinion remains the same, but thank you for repeating it, Its like beating a dead horse. Especially when no one argues with what you are saying.



> In the end, nothing seems to be taking the full blame away from the skipper making the decision to set to sea and its just getting clearer and clearer that they had survived so many other voyages aboard a crappy ship in bad conditions, that they came to believe they could do so forever.


I take some issue in this as thats not what I heard at the testimony. Full blame ( your words) ultimately means no one else gets blame at all. I beleive that others will be held liable and pay damages in this ( ie the owner) and if the skipper was fully to blame that would not happen, but we will see what developes in the lawsuit from Chrisitam Fletchers heirs. Very rarely in our world are things quite as black and white as you describe. Other will be brought into the blame circle and when damages are assigned, the blame will be more than Walbridge I am quite certain. ( Before you jump me I am not defending his actions). The issue of "chasing hurricanes" was debunked by testimony.

The crew had the oppertunity according to tesimony to stay on shore. He brough them together, told them where they were going, many had been on the ship with him in weather before and were helping "fix" the boat in the shipyard so they knew the boats condition. The put their trust in Walbridge and each other. Now one testified why he didnt just continue easy when the storm didnt turn into NC and headed up the coats further. No one testified why he didnt seek refuge in NY Hudson, Delaware River or Norfolk.

Other of the things which also became apparent thorugh the direct testimony was the lack of training the crew actually had, and the officers in charge of equipment they did not know how to operate most of it. They doidnt know many basic seamanship concepts...it was astounding to those who watched I think the Rockdawg and myself and we reported that all along.

As Mainesail pointed out and became apparent in testimony the shipyard actually repaired the boat with good materials and planking, but placed it over a rotting frame and said nothing about doing this. As he pointed out it should have remaoined at the dock. And then when out of money should have been destroyed.

Supposedly the shipwright at Boothbay told the Captain, but he couldnt come up with an corroberation even though he met with the Captain 30 times. Took 30 pictures, but never even showed his olwn boss. IMHO watching this testimony there appears to be a CYA with all of them, and the victims being the crew. Interestingly the Manager of the project at Noothbay contradicted most of the shipwrights testimony. The CG Commandet picked up on it. There is something of a disconnect with this shipyard that took money from a organization and let them pour money into a boat which couldnt be salvaged by all accounts now. And then let it sail off without any real concern in terrible condition. Wonder what would have happened had someone made an anonymus call the the CG when they were repairing. I mean even tjhough the CG had no real certification, an alert would have brought things into the light of day.

The crew were just people who wanted to follow the dream of the old sailing ships. Many of you on here appeared to have much more sailing, equipmet experience than any of them had. This may have blinded them to follow along into danger. BTW up until this sailing there was no issue with the plumps not keeping up. BUt imagine the only way you could sail you boat is if you ran pumps to dewater. Somehere it has to cross your mind not to go out in heavy weather where this is a possiblity you could lose the pumps and flounder. Why it didnt cross Walbridge or any of the officers I dont know. Lack of sea experience.

Really all this is redundant with all the previous posts. The question is what do we learn from this and what can be preventable in the future. There really is no fix for the Captain who decides to take a boat in need of deep repairs and head toward a hurricane. How can you prevent that in the future.

What is really difffernt from this and the commercial fishing boats, clam boats in the NE which according to testimony are in as bad if not worse condition than the Bounty which travel out into storms. Essentially the Bounty and they are classified the same as neither carried passangers and both carry paid crew.

They make a movie the Perfect sSorm and glorify the Captain of the Andrea Gail who really did the same thing. Ignored warnings and got caught out in the monster storm of the century with a ship that could never survive it. Far worse sea conditions than Sandy ever was. People have a right to take their ships in disrepair to sea. People have the right to take thieir lack of experience to sea. BTW the testimony talked a little about Sandy and found it to be a large storm, but that many other have had far worse sea conditions.

Can their ever be regulations put on these private ships/ boats? What would they be if there could be? How do you prevent Captains and people from doing stupid things like sailing into a hurricane? or taking a boat out in poor condition? Is the only reason we focus on the Bounty because its the Bounty. The Casta Concordia is a far more juicy story with far more deaths actually.

I am wondering also ( I always look behind things for conspiracies) how much of the hysteria is created by the " true TS" community. It is to their advantage to gain the publicity. It is to their advantage to show the distinctions to their well funded professional operations and the others who are in their mind just pretending to be tall ships. They keep saying they are worried about more regs, but they are already regulated. They dont get a black eye in this because they will show how superior their vessels are inspected

We have had a couple of people come along, Sparkleplenty and other Captains who obviously felt and knew the Bounty was not really up to snuff and dangerous. Anytime in the last 10 years they could have stepped in along the way on this, as the Bounty was part of their organization and brought the master in and told him that his ship was dangerous, but they just took his money. Why didnt they say something? They claim now after the fact they knew. Of course they did.

To me nothing will come out of this other than to demonize the Captain...this is already done and he is dead

He will stand in a long line of Captains who made bad decisions which cost them lives, ships and crew.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Pretty much sums it up:

"Here is what Matt Sanders, Bounty's second mate, testified to Commander Carroll of the Coast Guard concerning the bilge pumps today.

Carroll: "The hydraulic pumps - when did you first use them?"

Sanders: "On the 28th" [October 28th - the day prior to sinking]

Carroll: "Was it used any other time before that in the season?"

Sanders: "Not that I know of."

--
Carroll: "Were the crew taught how to use the hydraulic pumps?"

Sanders: "No, I don't think so."

Carroll: "Were they trained on the gasoline-powered pump?"

Sanders: "No, they weren't."

--

When asked why the portable gasoline pump was not routinely tested, maintained, and trained on, the answers ranged from absurd to worse. No one aboard seemed to have any idea that if you left gasoline in a can for 18 months, it would be a bad thing.

Faunt: "I'd seen it work once when we bought it and put it away and left it alone on Robin's orders."

Carroll: "Why?"

Faunt: "Because it wasn't particularly good and we didn't want to wear it out by using it. And it was gasoline and we were worried about fire!"

--
NTSB Investigator Captain Rob Jones pressed Faunt to explain why they wouldn't want to practice with the ship's portable emergency bilge pump and use it periodically to ensure that it was in working order. Faunt's incredulous response, "But the pump was gasoline, why would we risk using it if we didn't have to?" When he was asked why the hydraulic pumps weren't ever used, he replied, "There was concern about wear, so they were held in reserve."

--
On October 25th, Bounty was preparing to sail into the Atlantic and dodge a hurricane. Three of the five pumps had not been tested or trained in anyone's memory. The ship's diesel engines and generators had no maintenance records and their status was unknown. And on the way to New London from the shipyard, the 66 year-old Faunt, a five-season veteran aboard Bounty, noticed that even the electric bilge pumps weren't working as well as they had been. He had been running those pumps for years and knew how they operated. He brought his concerns to Robin Walbridge.

Faunt: "Robin thought it might have to do with the impellers."

Carroll: "Did he ever check them?"

Faunt: "Not that I know of."
--

Less than four days later, Bounty was sinking. The bilge pumps couldn't keep up with the water, one generator was gone and the other was about to go. Walbridge and Faunt - the ship's default electrician and GMDSS Operator - were attempting distress calls on the HF Radio and the INMARSAT C. They couldn't get them to work.

Carroll: "Did you test them before you left New London?"

Faunt: "No, we didn't.""

http://gcaptain.com/sins-of-omission/


----------



## Capt.Mhack

chef2sail said:


> The issue of "chasing hurricanes" was debunked by testimony.
> 
> The crew had the oppertunity according to tesimony to stay on shore. He brough them together, told them where they were going,


Don't mean to get in to your guys argument but I have to object here.

I watched the testimony and the "chasing hurricanes" was not debunked other than few crew members trying to imply it was a joke, but their testimony seems suspect as with the same straight face they claimed they "didn't know where the hurricane was", "where the captain was" when they talked to him etc etc.

Second, captain gave them less than 2 hours to think and leave, the conversation he had with them was" I've been to worst than Cat I and I and Bounty always made it". Nothing more.

Some crew members said if they knew before hand that captain will take the ship in front of the path of the Hurricane they would think twice.


----------



## rgscpat

Would manual pumps have had any significant dewatering ability in vessel as large and leaky as the Bounty? It would seem hard to work a manual pump against the large head (vertical displacement) to get water from the bilge to deck level, and that a manual bilge pump on a vessel like that would be mainly a placebo.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

rgscpat said:


> Would manual pumps have had any significant dewatering ability in vessel as large and leaky as the Bounty? It would seem hard to work a manual pump against the large head (vertical displacement) to get water from the bilge to deck level, and that a manual bilge pump on a vessel like that would be mainly a placebo.


Thats how it was done for 200 years.. They don't need to get it from bilge to deck, water was almost on the deck already.. Also they were pumping by compartment, NTSB was asking them if there was any strategy to what compartments to pump first.. There wasn't..


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> Don't mean to get in to your guys argument but I have to object here.
> 
> I watched the testimony and the "chasing hurricanes" was not debunked other than few crew members trying to imply it was a joke, but their testimony seems suspect as with the same straight face they claimed they "didn't know where the hurricane was", "where the captain was" when they talked to him etc etc.
> 
> Second, captain gave them less than 2 hours to think and leave, the conversation he had with them was" I've been to worst than Cat I and I and Bounty always made it". Nothing more.
> 
> Some crew members said if they knew before hand that captain will take the ship in front of the path of the Hurricane they would think twice.


The testimony I was talking about I beleive was given by the third mate on the Bountty when he described the previous two hurricanes he had sailed in with Walbridge. Do you recall the tesimony from him? Did you watch this tesimony?


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> Don't mean to get in to your guys argument but I have to object here.
> 
> I watched the testimony and the "chasing hurricanes" was not debunked other than few crew members trying to imply it was a joke, but their testimony seems suspect as with the same straight face they claimed they "didn't know where the hurricane was", "where the captain was" when they talked to him etc etc.
> 
> Second, captain gave them less than 2 hours to think and leave, the conversation he had with them was" I've been to worst than Cat I and I and Bounty always made it". Nothing more.
> 
> Some crew members said if they knew before hand that captain will take the ship in front of the path of the Hurricane they would think twice.


When did you start watching the testimony.

The testimony I was talking about I beleive was given by the third mate on the Bountty when he described the previous two hurricanes he had sailed in with Walbridge. The Pacific one and the one in the Gulf of Mexico, Do you recall listening the tesimony from him? Did you watch this tesimony or did you pick it up later in the game?

If you didnt hear this testimony I will look at my notes and recreate it for you. It clearly explained that the "chasing hurricanes" didnt mean
he looked for them to challenege them as the news media had implied. 
It was described as a sailing technique used going around the backside and behind a low pressure system. A technique used by mainly ocean racers as well as long range cruisers to sail in good winds.

With regards that the Captain gave them two hours to think and leave. 
You imply they had no choice, but the testimony and evidence dont support that at all.

Everyone unless you were a complete ostrich knew days before that Thursday about the hurricane brewing in the gulf. I am sure that mariners were discussing it at the docks up there just as they were her in Maryland
by that point. The third mate had been to a four year maritime college where he indicated that one of the courses was hurrican avoidance, Was he asleep in class? They had more than two hours...the truth is they trusted the Captian and each other and the real truth is that aside from a few members who had been with Walbridge on other heavy weather voyages, none of them had the experience to know what it meant. There was a weather fax on the boat. They had acccess to it. Were they lemmings?

If I were on a delivery and the Captain turned and faced a hurricane while we were at sea, I would ask why and ask about refuge? Or at least why. he also allowed that kind of discussionas he was a teacher by reputation. We dont hear that any of that happened.

They werent forced to sail....they werent duped by the Captain....they didnt feel tricked by the Captain.....none of them even remotedly said anything like that in their testimony and they could have it said that if they felt thats what happened but they didnt say anything like that did they? This despite many openings by the questioners to say that.



> Monday, October 22
> •NOAA National Weather Service issued public advisories throughout the day to inform that Tropical Depression 18 had officially become Tropical Storm Sandy with maximum sustained winds of near 40 miles per hour.
> 
> Tuesday, October 23
> •The NOAA National Weather Service issued advisories indicating that a Tropical Storm watch would be potentially required for portions of South Florida and the Florida Keys beginning that evening.
> 
> Wednesday, October 24
> •FEMA and its federal partners, through FEMA's regional office in Atlanta, Ga., monitored Hurricane Sandy, the eighteenth named storm of the 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season. At 5:00 AM EST, the NOAA National Weather Service issued Tropical Storm watches for the east coast of Florida from Jupiter Inlet south and west to Flamingo, including Florida Bay; and for the Florida Upper Keys from Ocean Reef southward to Craig Key.
> 
> Thursday, October 25
> •FEMA, through its regional offices in Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston, closely monitored Hurricane Sandy located in the eastern Caribbean Sea with maximum sustained winds of 105 miles per hour, and remained in close coordination with state emergency management partners in Florida and the potentially affected southeast, Mid-Atlantic and New England states.
> •FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino held a video teleconference call to discuss the latest developments with the National Weather Service, partner agencies and regional representatives to assess their needs and readiness.
> •American Red Cross encouraged New Yorkers to take simple steps to be prepared. New Yorkers were encouraged to download the free Red Cross Hurricane App for mobile devices to have real time hurricane safety information at their fingertips. The app can be used to receive weather alerts and get information on Red Cross shelters. The app also features a toolkit with a flashlight, strobe light and alarm, and the one-touch "I'm Safe" button lets individuals use social media outlets to tell family and friends they are well.
> •As of 8:00 am, Tropical Storm watches and warnings issued by the NOAA National Weather Service remained in effect in southeast Florida. Tropical Storm warnings were in effect for Ocean Reef to Flagler Beach, and for Lake Okeechobee, Florida; and Tropical Storm watches were in effect for the Florida east coast from north of Flagler Beach to Fernandina Beach; from the Florida Upper Keys from Ocean Reef southward to Craig Key; and Florida Bay


.


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> Pretty much sums it up:
> 
> "Here is what Matt Sanders, Bounty's second mate, testified to Commander Carroll of the Coast Guard concerning the bilge pumps today.
> 
> Carroll: "The hydraulic pumps - when did you first use them?"
> 
> Sanders: "On the 28th" [October 28th - the day prior to sinking]
> 
> Carroll: "Was it used any other time before that in the season?"
> 
> Sanders: "Not that I know of."
> 
> --
> Carroll: "Were the crew taught how to use the hydraulic pumps?"
> 
> Sanders: "No, I don't think so."
> 
> Carroll: "Were they trained on the gasoline-powered pump?"
> 
> Sanders: "No, they weren't."
> 
> --
> 
> When asked why the portable gasoline pump was not routinely tested, maintained, and trained on, the answers ranged from absurd to worse. No one aboard seemed to have any idea that if you left gasoline in a can for 18 months, it would be a bad thing.
> 
> Faunt: "I'd seen it work once when we bought it and put it away and left it alone on Robin's orders."
> 
> Carroll: "Why?"
> 
> Faunt: "Because it wasn't particularly good and we didn't want to wear it out by using it. And it was gasoline and we were worried about fire!"
> 
> --
> NTSB Investigator Captain Rob Jones pressed Faunt to explain why they wouldn't want to practice with the ship's portable emergency bilge pump and use it periodically to ensure that it was in working order. Faunt's incredulous response, "But the pump was gasoline, why would we risk using it if we didn't have to?" When he was asked why the hydraulic pumps weren't ever used, he replied, "There was concern about wear, so they were held in reserve."
> 
> --
> On October 25th, Bounty was preparing to sail into the Atlantic and dodge a hurricane. Three of the five pumps had not been tested or trained in anyone's memory. The ship's diesel engines and generators had no maintenance records and their status was unknown. And on the way to New London from the shipyard, the 66 year-old Faunt, a five-season veteran aboard Bounty, noticed that even the electric bilge pumps weren't working as well as they had been. He had been running those pumps for years and knew how they operated. He brought his concerns to Robin Walbridge.
> 
> Faunt: "Robin thought it might have to do with the impellers."
> 
> Carroll: "Did he ever check them?"
> 
> Faunt: "Not that I know of."
> --
> 
> Less than four days later, Bounty was sinking. The bilge pumps couldn't keep up with the water, one generator was gone and the other was about to go. Walbridge and Faunt - the ship's default electrician and GMDSS Operator - were attempting distress calls on the HF Radio and the INMARSAT C. They couldn't get them to work.
> 
> Carroll: "Did you test them before you left New London?"
> 
> Faunt: "No, we didn't.""
> 
> Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


Do you have transcripts of the hearings?


----------



## chef2sail

Mario Vittone writing about the tesimony of the Bountys Naval Archetect and Surveyor David Wyman

Leads to others possible liability and FULL responsibility issues.



> If his answers were bothering investigators, they were doing a good job of keeping it to themselves. They would only pause, write notes, and press on. But when Bounty's final survey was discussed, the one done days before she sank, that appeared to change. The only evidence of his one-time visit to Bounty was after she went back in the water at Boothbay just before leaving for New London. He hadn't checked any of the ship's systems, he didn't run engines, he didn't run or test generators, he didn't test the bilge system. When asked if he was told of rotten frames and if he inspected the hull, he said, "From the inside."
> 
> Carroll: "What could you see by looking at the inside?"
> 
> Wyman: "I saw what I could see."
> 
> Wyman expressed that this was just an initial walk-through survey and not at all complete. He would continue the survey at a later time, but he hadn't worked out when that would be or where that would be, and he didn't recall if they had discussed continuing the survey with anyone on or associated with Bounty. For the first time, the lead investigator appeared at least a little agitated.
> 
> Carroll: "Why didn't you tell me in Boothbay in December that you didn't feel you completed the survey?"
> 
> Wyman: (pause) "I didn't really think about it at that time."
> 
> Carrol: "A boat sinks at sea, you were the last one to look at the boat and you didn't think about the survey?"
> 
> Wyman: (pause)
> 
> Carroll: "When did you determine that you weren't finished the survey?"
> 
> Wyman: "When I left the ship."
> 
> Carroll: "Wait - did you communicate that to the owner or Captain Walbridge?"
> 
> Wyman: "I don't know that I did."
> 
> If Wyman's cagey answers and poor memory underlined any untruthfulness on his part, what happened next would be even more confusing. There were a lot of questions about Wyman's handwritten notes that he took on the one-day survey visit to Bounty in October of 2012: who had seen them, who did he give copies to, or not, who had seen the document or hadn't. Wyman denied that anyone had seen the document - that everything was verbal (or not) and that he had given the document directly to Carroll. But the lead investigator pressed Wyman about some numbers (apparently not in his hand or Wyman's) written at the bottom of his notes. Jacob Shisha - attorney for the Christian family - clearly smelled something and asked Carroll if he might pose a question to Wyman.
> 
> Shisha: "At any time before coming to this hearing did you speak to the lawyers for the Bounty organization?"
> 
> Wyman: (another pause) "Yes. (pause) A couple of weeks ago&#8230;they called me."
> 
> Carroll squared his shoulders and leaned into his microphone.
> 
> Carroll: "In a Coast Guard investigation where you were subpoenaed as a witness, you were on a conference call with a party in interest?"
> 
> Wyman: (pause) "Yes."


----------



## chef2sail

From gCaoptain about the Boothbay Shipyard which had a judgement of $200,000 ( on a $400,000 job) awarded against them in the repair of the Schooner Shenendoah
a tall ship in 2012. Some of the repairs were similar to Bountys



> Other coverage I have been reading pointed to a Sailtrain Blog post discussing the Judgment entered 3/30/12 against Boothbay Harbor Shipyard for their poor workmanship refastening and replanking the schooner Shenandoah mentioned yet. There is plenty of blame to go around but perhaps the hull was working more than the crew expected because of shoddy workmanship in the yard. I wonder if any of these issues will be raised in the hearings, this kind of workmanship would doom even a well managed vessel.
> 
> from the judgment's findings of fact pg. 3
> In June 2008, soon after being placed back in service, the vessel began to leak a significant amount of water. The leaking was far greater than it had been before the overhaul at Boothbay. Coastwise brought the vessel to Fairhaven Shipyard to investigate and repair the leaking. After certain repairs were made, the vessel was soon relaunched. The leaking continued, though at a tolerable level for the remainder of the summer season.
> In October 2008, the vessel returned to Fairhaven for a rehauling and investigation. Water was seen dripping from bungs on planks below the waterline, and empty fastening holes were discovered beneath removed bungs. The vessel was recaulked and relaunched to make room on the railway and, soon afterward, was rehauled at Fairhaven for further inspection. Boothbay personnel came to inspect the vessel. They acknowledged that Boothbay had performed defective workmanship on the vessel, and Doane Heselton, Vice President of Boothbay, proposed to fix the problems at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard at no cost to Coastwise. pg. 4
> 
> *From October 2008 until June 2009, Fairhaven identified numerous defects in Boothbay's workmanship. It found, among other things, missing bungs, empty fastener holes, improperly installed fasteners, use of an improper sealant, overly wide caulking seams, poorly installed caulking, and too-short futtock overlaps*.


----------



## rgscpat

Capt.Mhack said:


> Thats how it was done for 200 years.. They don't need to get it from bilge to deck, water was almost on the deck already.. Also they were pumping by compartment, NTSB was asking them if there was any strategy to what compartments to pump first.. There wasn't..


The old-fashioned chain pumps used a couple of centuries ago on warships of the line required massive amounts of manpower... several to as many as a couple of dozen sailors turning a pump handle, and several pumps on the larger ships, and shifts of sailors to spell those who became exhausted. Merchantmen and smaller ships might have simpler common pumps suitable for smaller crews, but not have nearly as much pumping capacity.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> .....I am wondering also ( I always look behind things for conspiracies) how much of the hysteria is created by the " true TS" community.......


Chef, I have no intention of getting into an argument with you. But, I feel compelled to point out that you are among the most prolific posters on this subject and often the fodder for the debate you then criticize. Come on man, you like this subject in some way and are among the most likely to repeat yourself.

Personally, I don't think its beating a dead horse to confirm original assumptions as the hearing have begun. If I read an analysis that suggested otherwise, I would have found that valuable. You have continually tried to stifle those critical assumptions by saying you agree with the skippers responsibility. You missed my point. In the 100+ ongoing posts of this hearing, with yours being among the most representative, we are not learning anything significant that changes the initial assessment of this situation. Nevertheless, the incredible analysis of what is proving to be the obvious continues. There is no conspiracy, you and everyone else has a fascination with this matter.

Knock yourself out, I'm not trying to get you to stop. I'm just calling the kettle black, my friend.


----------



## NCC320

Chef,

Not that it changes much, 

Re: Changing course to SW. While most, including the second mate/navigator, seemed not to know why, one person stated that the reason was that when the storm didn't turn as the captain expected, he decided to go SW to get under the protection of the shore below Cape Hatteras, where the winds would be less but favorable for the trip south. This is consistent with how he handled the other two hurricanes. 

Re: Debunking looking to sail into hurricanes, while most claimed never to have heard of it, one person, the AB I believe, said that he had heard words that tended to support that saying. And that he personally was looking forward to gaining experience in hurricane type weather. He aspires to be a captain, but when he was asked, if you were the captain, what would you have done, he said he would have moved up river and stayed at a pier.

I don't recall the exact words, so if you like, correct them since you seem to have pretty well have most of it recorded.


----------



## chef2sail

No argument here... All is good 

I agree I have been a prolific poster on this subject. It interests me. Maybe some others too still. I have been posting again recently to report on what was being said in some of the testimony. Testimony ongoing now. Testimony which I was waiting for if you remember in my previous posts, which I hoped and thought might reveal other issues as well as culpabilites other than the Captains which we had already judged. If you also remember I originally asked not to rush to judgement on the whole issue as it would prevent a complete picture from emerging possibly.

We all know about the Captain and what he did and how he was responsible....and it is your right to keep beating that dead horse of course...I have moved on from that, long long time ago...obviously you still need to keep focusing on him as is your right. We cant do anything about what he did now can we.

My mind is open enough to beleive that there are other factors and maybe possibly ways to prevent a similar occurance. My interest in looking at the other parties and aspects here discussed is mine and maybe some others. When it ceases to interest no one else the thread will die its own death.



> Nevertheless, the incredible analysis of what is proving to be the obvious continues. There is no conspiracy, you and everyone else has a fascination with this matter.


If this bores you feel free to skip it then I dont mean to make it personal abd certainly my intention is not to argue. Hopefully we can do that over Margaritas this summer when I am up in LI or if you come to Annapolis next year for the show or to see you friends here. Maybe I feel I want to waste my own time reflecting on this conjuring up conspracies where there are none, instead of posting about batteries, sewage tanks and snow storms. I obviously need to get out on my boat again

The incredible analysis of the obvious has turned up some new information by the CG at the hearings.

The reputation of the Boothbay Yard for example and its business practices seem less than steller in the Bounty repair as well as the Shenendoha now it appears. They lost a lawsuit with major damages concerning similar repairs it seems. The shipright in charge of the Bounty repair seemed less than qualified as he was contradicted on many points by the yard manager. We have now found that the Bounty surveyor failed to even survey the boat before it left the dock, no one tested the pumps, the repairs except for a cursory walk thorough.

The TS organization was notably absent in its criticism of the Bounty condition and its very underqualified crew, even though they seemed to know something was wrong, but its hush hush and no one came forward until of course the boat goes down. The sailed with her last summer during OP sail 2012 where I saw her for the last time when she was in Baltimore.

There are many loose ends and unanswered questions or speculations still needing to be tied up for this to be over.

How to prevent this from happening again, it doesnt appear you can ever change the human being from making mistakes and having bad judgement sometimes even tragically costing lives.

No amount of regulations will completely prevent the aborrant person driving in the snow and ice in an SUV at 75 mph, the aborrant pilot from flying the plane while intoxicated, or the aborrant Captain of a boat from leaving and sailing directly into/ across a hurricane. Thank god most of the drivers, pilots, and vessel captains are not aborrant.

Since* everyone *new the Bounty was in such deplorable condition maybe their needs to be a system where people could ananomously report any vessel. It appears thats would have saved them as it was ineveitable as Mainesail said for there to be an accident. Then again it was really a private vessel and many boats/ ships are in similar if not worse condition. Its funny when I went on her in Baltimore it was all covered and I didnt seen the gross neglect which obviously lurked beneath the surface.


----------



## weephee

Since this subject has over 100 entries, rather than reading them all, I was wondering if a wooden ship of this size could not be raised and restored if not left too long. Has there been any discussion on this possibility.


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> Chef,
> 
> Not that it changes much,
> 
> Re: Changing course to SW. While most, including the second mate/navigator, seemed not to know why, one person stated that the reason was that when the storm didn't turn as the captain expected, he decided to go SW to get under the protection of the shore below Cape Hatteras, where the winds would be less but favorable for the trip south. This is consistent with how he handled the other two hurricanes.
> 
> Re: Debunking looking to sail into hurricanes, while most claimed never to have heard of it, one person, the AB I believe, said that he had heard words that tended to support that saying. And that he personally was looking forward to gaining experience in hurricane type weather. He aspires to be a captain, but when he was asked, if you were the captain, what would you have done, he said he would have moved up river and stayed at a pier.
> 
> I don't recall the exact words, so if you like, correct them since you seem to have pretty well have most of it recorded.


The situations were different I thnk. The CG Commander asked him about the statement the Captain made" I like to follow hurricanes" . In the other two instances where the third mate testified they followed a hurricane which had already gone by rather than go across the face of Sandy as they did and into the Graveyard of the Atlantic- Hatteras and the Gulf Stream. In the other instance by slowing down they could get away from the sea state and winds so there was a measure of control. Sandy they were into it facing it coming at them.

He described in the last instance in the Gulf the were behind the hurricane which was moving N and then NE and they were following it far back in the SW quadrant when they gained so much speed (11 knots he said) and the hurricane slowed to 4 knots that they started getting into it too much so they slowed the Bounty by heaving too for two days

You are right no one seems to really now why he changed course to SW from E when had they continued they would have been ok. They all seem pretty inept about the navigational aspects and left it up to Walbridge and asked no questions. I find that very odd as they said he was a teacher and never minded explaining thing to them.

This also goes to the total inexperience of the crew. This was striking in all their testimony from the novice teaching the novice how to caulk, to no one knowing how to operate the pumps, to having an engineer with no real experience on marine engines, and the list goes on. The questioners were obviusly stunned in their answers to the most basic questions I observed.


----------



## chef2sail

weephee said:


> Since this subject has over 100 entries, rather than reading them all, I was wondering if a wooden ship of this size could not be raised and restored if not left too long. Has there been any discussion on this possibility.


It went down intact it almnost appears. Thats an interesting question.

What would they restore it to though it was in bad shape and shouldnt have been sailing in the first place. She had been up for sale for a while with no buyers and was financially backrupt essentially and couldnt make enough even as a dockside attraction. These are so expensive to maintain. As Paulo has pointed out the succceessful tall ships are kept afloat by countries governments or really well endowed foundations.


----------



## lancelot9898

While there were so many decisions made by the Captain that were ill advised, the decsion to alter course to SW from E seemed reasonable. The ship was incapable of moving fast enough to clear such a massive storm had Bounty continued on the E heading so consequently remaining in front of that storm would have meant certain diaster. Plus rescue would have been more uncertain the further away from the coast.

Going SW allowed for a following wind and being in the SW quartant allowed for lesser wind speed due to the counterclockwise rotation and the northern heading of the cane. Plus I don't believe the Bounty ever saw hurricane force winds. My 2 cents.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

weephee said:


> Since this subject has over 100 entries, rather than reading them all, I was wondering if a wooden ship of this size could not be raised and restored if not left too long. Has there been any discussion on this possibility.


*It sank in 4426 meters. Thats 14,521 feet.*


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

lancelot9898 said:


> While there were so many decisions made by the Captain that were ill advised, the decsion to alter course to SW from E seemed reasonable. .


Gonig SW put him into the Gulf Stream with a stong NE wind. As they entered the edge of the Gulf Stream they suddenly took on water and sank.

So it was a rediculous, bad, insane, imho criminally negligent course change.


----------



## seanseamour

Every mariner should, at the very very least, read Mario Vittone' coverage of Day 6 of the hearings. His analysis of what went and what was done wrong Will save lives, for all confronted with a dangerous situation as well as for those who may bear and overcome the Hubris of Captain Wallbridge.
The Cost of Waiting - Bounty Hearings - Day 6 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> Pretty much sums it up:
> 
> "Here is what Matt Sanders, Bounty's second mate, testified to Commander Carroll of the Coast Guard concerning the bilge pumps today.
> 
> Carroll: "The hydraulic pumps - when did you first use them?"
> 
> Sanders: "On the 28th" [October 28th - the day prior to sinking]
> 
> Carroll: "Was it used any other time before that in the season?"
> 
> Sanders: "Not that I know of."
> 
> --
> Carroll: "Were the crew taught how to use the hydraulic pumps?"
> 
> Sanders: "No, I don't think so."
> 
> Carroll: "Were they trained on the gasoline-powered pump?"
> 
> Sanders: "No, they weren't."
> 
> --
> 
> When asked why the portable gasoline pump was not routinely tested, maintained, and trained on, the answers ranged from absurd to worse. No one aboard seemed to have any idea that if you left gasoline in a can for 18 months, it would be a bad thing.
> 
> Faunt: "I'd seen it work once when we bought it and put it away and left it alone on Robin's orders."
> 
> Carroll: "Why?"
> 
> Faunt: "Because it wasn't particularly good and we didn't want to wear it out by using it. And it was gasoline and we were worried about fire!"
> 
> --
> NTSB Investigator Captain Rob Jones pressed Faunt to explain why they wouldn't want to practice with the ship's portable emergency bilge pump and use it periodically to ensure that it was in working order. Faunt's incredulous response, "But the pump was gasoline, why would we risk using it if we didn't have to?" When he was asked why the hydraulic pumps weren't ever used, he replied, "There was concern about wear, so they were held in reserve."
> 
> --
> On October 25th, Bounty was preparing to sail into the Atlantic and dodge a hurricane. Three of the five pumps had not been tested or trained in anyone's memory. The ship's diesel engines and generators had no maintenance records and their status was unknown. And on the way to New London from the shipyard, the 66 year-old Faunt, a five-season veteran aboard Bounty, noticed that even the electric bilge pumps weren't working as well as they had been. He had been running those pumps for years and knew how they operated. He brought his concerns to Robin Walbridge.
> 
> Faunt: "Robin thought it might have to do with the impellers."
> 
> Carroll: "Did he ever check them?"
> 
> Faunt: "Not that I know of."
> --
> 
> Less than four days later, Bounty was sinking. The bilge pumps couldn't keep up with the water, one generator was gone and the other was about to go. Walbridge and Faunt - the ship's default electrician and GMDSS Operator - were attempting distress calls on the HF Radio and the INMARSAT C. They couldn't get them to work.
> 
> Carroll: "Did you test them before you left New London?"
> 
> Faunt: "No, we didn't.""
> 
> Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


Jesus, this is even worse than what I thought and I thought pretty bad about all this.

Really unbelievable. 

Of course this is even worse since we know that ship made water...always and that in a storm would make even more.

If so, and everybody especially the Captain knew this, how can be accepted that the Captain had not his crew trained in servicing and working with all pumping systems? I don't understand. They say that they trained a lot of security procedures and did not know how to operate all pump systems in a boat that makes water???? and never trained working with two of the three systems available? This seems negligence to me.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

seanseamour said:


> Every mariner should, at the very very least, read Mario Vittone' coverage of Day 6 of the hearings. His analysis of what went and what was done wrong Will save lives, for all confronted with a dangerous situation as well as for those who may bear and overcome the Hubris of Captain Wallbridge.
> The Cost of Waiting - Bounty Hearings - Day 6 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


Good article by Vittone


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

seanseamour said:


> Every mariner should, at the very very least, read Mario Vittone' coverage of Day 6 of the hearings. His analysis of what went and what was done wrong Will save lives, for all confronted with a dangerous situation as well as for those who may bear and overcome the Hubris of Captain Wallbridge.
> The Cost of Waiting - Bounty Hearings - Day 6 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


Great article!!!



> With compression fractures to his spine, three broken ribs, and a dislocated shoulder, Prokosh looked up to see the ship's rig as it came down on his head. "I got tagged by the main top yard - it came down like a dart," Prokosh told investigators. Now he was underwater too and fighting to breathe - to live.


Its a must read.

Again it shows the changing of the boat to keep it under 'recreational' rules instead of what it should have been.


----------



## Minnewaska

Massive cultural problem across the entirety of the Bounty organization. The CEO sets cultural tone. Even if the shareholders put him up to it, he/she sets it. Structurally, the CEO is the Captain, who all aboard reported to, not the owner.

So, let's keep hearing what was wrong, but same conclusion.

I am interested in a conclusion on what to do about it. Perhaps nothing, as there are bad apples in every bunch and I'm not interested in rules to prevent every exception. However, as I've said before, it wouldn't bother me to see severe restrictions in the mobility of these vessels with anything other than a highly qualified crew, no passengers, no fake paid crew.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> It went down intact it almnost appears. Thats an interesting question.
> 
> What would they restore it to though it was in bad shape and shouldnt have been sailing in the first place. She had been up for sale for a while with no buyers and was financially backrupt essentially and couldnt make enough even as a dockside attraction. These are so expensive to maintain. As Paulo has pointed out the succceessful tall ships are kept afloat by countries governments or really well endowed foundations.


The Pride of Baltimore (Original Pride) would be a ship to raise if you want to raise a sunken ship.






She is still down there and was in excellent condition when she sank. She is a true copy of an original Baltimore Clipper (unlike the "Movie Bounty" which should have been burned at the end of the film, as was the original plan). The Pride is north of Purto Rico in very deep water that should preserve her well. But then again, like the Titanic, she should probably stay where she lies, as she is a tomb to those that went down with her.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> I am interested in a conclusion on what to do about it. Perhaps nothing, as there are bad apples in every bunch and I'm not interested in rules to prevent every exception. However, as I've said before, it wouldn't bother me to see severe restrictions in the mobility of these vessels with anything other than a highly qualified crew, no passengers, no fake paid crew.


I think the USCH has alowed too many boats to rip off their 12 passenger/non inspection certification. Forgotten the actual name for it but was desingned for recreational fishing boats... ya know, the sports fishing type boat shown below. That rule seems to have been extended up to 300 tons!
I know the SuperYachts here are under those rules. 
Under those rule the USCG can inspect but CANNOT do anything but offer advice! Cant stop them going to sea etc.

The Bounty does not look like the boat below!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## casey1999

Maybe I missed it in all the post. This is what the Capt stated he was trying to do:

"We run into stormy seas. We chase hurricanes," Walbridge said. "You try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can and you stay down in the *southeast quadrant* and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it. You want to stay behind it. But you also get a good ride out of the hurricane."

Many posts ago I think it was decided Walbridge was either mis quouted or twisted his words around, either way the thought was he meant the *southwest quadrant* where there would be following winds and seas.

Was this ever brought up in the current hearings?


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> .. However, as I've said before, it wouldn't bother me to see severe restrictions in the mobility of these vessels with anything other than a highly qualified crew, no passengers, no fake paid crew.


No problem if they take passengers or if the train young boys and girls providing they have a permanent professional crew able to take care of the ship in all conditions. That is how it is made here and there is a long waiting line to have a go on those ships. My 11 years old niece is already enrolled on the Navy tall ship "Sagres" for a voyage. We think her turn will come in about 5 years

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

casey1999 said:


> Maybe I missed it in all the post. This is what the Capt stated he was trying to do:
> 
> "We run into stormy seas. We chase hurricanes," Walbridge said. "You try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can and you stay down in the *southeast quadrant* and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it. You want to stay behind it. But you also get a good ride out of the hurricane."
> 
> Many posts ago I think it was decided Walbridge was either mis quouted or twisted his words around, either way the thought was he meant the *southwest quadrant* where there would be following winds and seas.
> 
> Was this ever brought up in the current hearings?


Yes...go back a few posts to where I was reporting what I saw from the people testifying. The 3rd mate kind of debunked it and talked about following two storms after they passed by in the SW area, much like oceanic racers do and followed it at a safe distance as it moved away from them. In one instance they hove to for two days as their forward speed ws 11 knotss and the storm slowed to 4 knotts and they started catching it. Third mate stated tha the captain was not talkimng about catching hrricanes and ridng them for fun, but was talking about when they found themselves behind one what they would do.


----------



## chef2sail

Wonder how this will affect the Windjammer cruises and the ones my daughter did her Outward Bound on 15 years ago. Maine has a few classroom vessels like that. Thats how I originally met Walbridge.

Dave


----------



## jsaronson

We run into stormy seas. We chase hurricanes,” Walbridge said.

His interview was videotaped. He was boasting how he liked to sail into hurricanes!


----------



## chef2sail

Yes he said that and the third mate explained in his testimony what he meant by it as he was with him the two times he did it in 2008, He also said he never headed for an oncomming huirricane until Sandy.

Many of the ocean racers like to follow the backside of the low pressure systems following them as part of their stratagies.


----------



## casey1999

chef2sail said:


> Yes...go back a few posts to where I was reporting what I saw from the people testifying. The 3rd mate kind of debunked it and talked about following two storms after they passed by in the SW area, much like oceanic racers do and followed it at a safe distance as it moved away from them. In one instance they hove to for two days as their forward speed ws 11 knotss and the storm slowed to 4 knotts and they started catching it. Third mate stated tha the captain was not talkimng about catching hrricanes and ridng them for fun, but was talking about when they found themselves behind one what they would do.


So the position to be in is the *southwest *side. So why did captain say the *southeast* side? Was this addressed in the hearings? I think it is important. Was captain having mental issues that did not allow him to think clearly or to act clearly in an emergency situation? Seems there were many mistakes made by the captain. Was there a developing medical problem or was this the normal actions of the captain?


----------



## chef2sail

No one said testified to anything about the Captains mental health that I heard. Supposedly he got his ribs/ back hurt when he was thrown into something when the boat pitched and rolled near the end.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Very good article, thank you for linking to it. I found this part very interesting since the topic comes up on this forum quite a bit:

*According to Svendsen's testimony on day one of the hearings, Walbridge told him that he planned to wait until the water reached the vessel's tween deck to abandon the boat. Perhaps he had that ridiculous old sailor's maxim stuck in his head, "You never step off until you have to step up." It's terrible advice and almost never true.*


----------



## PCP

ShoalFinder said:


> Very good article, thank you for linking to it. I found this part very interesting since the topic comes up on this forum quite a bit:
> 
> *According to Svendsen's testimony on day one of the hearings, Walbridge told him that he planned to wait until the water reached the vessel's tween deck to abandon the boat. Perhaps he had that ridiculous old sailor's maxim stuck in his head, "You never step off until you have to step up." It's terrible advice and almost never true.*


He is talking about ships. when that has been said here, we are talking about boats. That is not the same thing. When in a boat the water that is coming in is more than the one that is pumped out, the boat will sink quickly. On a ship that is inevitable also but it can take many hours.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

chef2sail said:


> Wonder how this will affect the Windjammer cruises and the ones my daughter did her Outward Bound on 15 years ago. Maine has a few classroom vessels like that. Thats how I originally met Walbridge.
> 
> Dave


I would expect it will.. but exactly how is a little difficult to tell, because the distinction between, say, "private yacht" (do what you like) and "ocean going passenger vessel" (regulations up to your eyeballs) is rather large in maritime law.

So long as a ship like the "Bounty" doesn't travel overseas and doesn't carry "paying passengers" there really isn't a lot the authorities can do, but once you start carrying passengers (like Outward Bound do) there are plenty of regs that start to kick in.. although you can be sure there would still be loop-holes for the crafty and unscrupulous at the smaller end of the scale.

Perhaps the lesson is to always check a ship's survey status before sending your kids on-board. If it's all okay, they'll not be hiding that fact.


----------



## TakeFive

Hartley18 said:


> I would expect it will.. but exactly how is a little difficult to tell, because the distinction between, say, "private yacht" (do what you like) and "ocean going passenger vessel" (regulations up to your eyeballs) is rather large in maritime law.
> 
> So long as a ship like the "Bounty" doesn't travel overseas and doesn't carry "paying passengers" there really isn't a lot the authorities can do...


Well if there's such a wide gulf between the two classifications, I think it's a definite possibility that the investigators will recommend new classification between those two.

I think you can expect that after 8 days of investigation something will be done, either stricter enforcement of current regulations or, if that is as impossible as you suggest, then new regulations.


----------



## smurphny

Minnewaska said:


> Massive cultural problem across the entirety of the Bounty organization. The CEO sets cultural tone. Even if the shareholders put him up to it, he/she sets it. Structurally, the CEO is the Captain, who all aboard reported to, not the owner.
> 
> So, let's keep hearing what was wrong, but same conclusion.
> 
> I am interested in a conclusion on what to do about it. Perhaps nothing, as there are bad apples in every bunch and I'm not interested in rules to prevent every exception. However, as I've said before, it wouldn't bother me to see severe restrictions in the mobility of these vessels with anything other than a highly qualified crew, no passengers, no fake paid crew.


The corporate mentality and culture that worships profit at all costs is ok when dealing in electronic gizmos, probably NOT when dealing in the safety of crews.


----------



## davidpm

smurphny said:


> The corporate mentality and culture that worships profit at all costs is ok when dealing in electronic gizmos, probably NOT when dealing in the safety of crews.


In this case it is just as likely if not more likely that the corporate error if any was not one of profit at all cost but one of romantic yearning to keep a beautiful ship alive at any cost.
The lose of life is a high price to pay for either profits or romanticism.

The chances of the owner being able to take any cash out of an enterprise like this is low. If it is self sustaining it is lucky.


----------



## Classic30

TakeFive said:


> Well if there's such a wide gulf between the two classifications, I think it's a definite possibility that the investigators will recommend new classification between those two.
> 
> I think you can expect that after 8 days of investigation something will be done, either stricter enforcement of current regulations or, if that is as impossible as you suggest, then new regulations.


We'll see what happens at the end of all this.. but I do hope for all your sakes that the status quo is maintained with perhaps a bit better policing around the edges.

My fear is that any further cost/compliance obligations on smaller vessels like the "Bounty" will mean more of them end up as penniless dockside attractions and die prematurely and less remain in a truly "seaworthy" condition allowing especially the younger generation to experience Tall Sail on the open ocean.


----------



## chris_gee

There seems some confusion over where one might like to be placed as regards a hurricane other than well away from it.

On basic principles in the Northern hemisphere the wind moves anticlockwise around a low, while the hurricane tends to move to the NW but it can initially move NE.

Assuming the former, then the least dangerous quadrant is the NW ie front left, and the most dangerous front right, because in the former the track speed of the hurricane or storm subtracts from the wind speed, and in the latter case it adds to it.

As far as being just back from the eye to pick up good wind that seems dubious to place oneself there. Apart from anything else the course of the storm is not stable, and the thing has a large diameter. It is also likely to be moving faster than most boats so one would be overtaken with either stronger winds or unfavourable ones.

To be behind it implies one wants to go in the same direction however to get favourable wind one would need to be on SE side and presumably to get there only approach from the east. One could also expect a substantial sea which would have had time to build. One would also have to be a fair way behind it for the wind to have abated like 100 miles plus to get anything much under say 50 knots.

Behind and in the SW sector one could expect head winds and a significant if lesser sea.
That doesn't sound a very viable option if one is heading NW.

Also to get into the SE region behind if not coming from the east one is presumably coming from the west crossing through it. Great.

The other options are one is trying to gain on it. That doesn't seem that great an idea one as the sea state will be high, and two it is unlikely since as I understand it these things move at around 15-20 knots. So you are going faster than that through a heavy sea?

If you are heading south then you might get a bit of a ride for a time behind it but that will abate. Given the uncertainty and conditions one might well opt to wait for calmer conditions.

I am not familiar with his course, but suggest hitching behind a hurricane is bragado, and the logic does not seem well thought out be it SE or SW said or intended.


----------



## seanseamour

If you go back to last summer when Wallbridge was in London glorifying or rather bragging his seamanship and strategy to navigate in eye of a hurricane I could not believe there was no query on how he would get there, as leaving safe harbor in the face of an oncoming hurricane that was to be his demise - Hubris bred infatuation from first mate on down!


----------



## chef2sail

chris_gee said:


> *Assuming the former, then the least dangerous quadrant is the NW ie front left, and the most dangerous front right, because in the former the track speed of the hurricane or storm subtracts from the wind speed, and in the latter case it adds to it.*
> 
> .


Try again

You theory is completely wrong
Why hurricane waves are lopsided
quadrant.wind.speeds
Which part of a hurricane packs the worst punch? - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


----------



## smurphny

This is the best summary I've read:Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Minnewaska

Hartley18 said:


> ......less remain in a truly "seaworthy" condition allowing especially the younger generation to experience Tall Sail on the open ocean.


I will admit that this doesn't do much for me personally, so I'm having a hard time relating. But the romanticism of being in the open ocean on inferior technology is, in part, what seems to have taken Bounty down. Indirectly anyway. That crew seems more romantic than experienced.

It wouldn't bother me one bit to restrict these vessels to within X nm of shore, mandate professional experienced crew for passages and have required thorough inspections if carrying unknown passengers. You, your family and your friends should be able to choose to do whatever you want. But, building a business around the vessel to gain funding and create fake paid crew so they are not considered passengers should stop.

This whole operation is shaping up as a romantic sham.


----------



## chris_gee

“Try again

You theory is completely wrong.”

Well okay that is always possible. It would be more productive if you stated some reasons or basis for your claim.
The implication is that the references you cite do that.

The Lyons article on lopsided waves actually repeats the conventional view that the wind and waves are greatest in the NE sector. He attributes the wave size difference less to the wind difference than the time the waves are exposed to the wind. Fair enough but since the wave speed likely exceeds the track speed waves will continue to be generated on the western side and continue to the south. So that supports my statement 

The second reference as to quadrants actually says the same as I did except the sppeds are given in kilometers per hour. So that supports my statement.

The Sun Sentinel graphic shows a path North. It concerns rainfall more than wind. The writer is not apparently a recognised authority and cites none for a view which is at odds with that generally accepted as to the least dangerous quadrant. Sorry I don’t give any weight to a graphic by a reporter .

If I were wrong then so is Bowditch and Buys Ballot's law.


----------



## smurphny

The so called "navigable" quadrant is supposed to be the best of the worst place to be. However, from accounts of those who have navigated anywhere around hurricanes/tropical storms, the seas become so confused that maintaining control becomes virtually impossible and waves hit from every direction. The best quadrant to be in is the one well inland.


----------



## lancelot9898

There are a couple of more important points that I would like the inquiry to probe and that is the original design and modifications. Looking at the GC video of the rescue shows the Bounty still afloat and not turning turtle. Can some conclusions be drawn from that? Sufficient ballast to keep it upright or insufficient not to bring it to the ocean floor quickly? Was there a catistropic failure or just leakage that the pumps could not control? Can some sort of analysis be done to show the effects of upscaleing the dimensions from the original Bounty?

And finally why not call the previous engineer that Barksdale replaced? 

While I may not have the greatest admiration for Ted Turner, he did get it right when he told his accountants to get rid of the Bounty as it set as a dock side attraction for close to two decades prior to his unknowing purchase.


----------



## lancelot9898

Oh....I forgot one thing...Follow the money!


----------



## Roger Long

lancelot9898 said:


> Looking at the GC video of the rescue shows the Bounty still afloat and not turning turtle. Can some conclusions be drawn from that?


As a naval architect once considered an authority on the stability of large sailing ships, I can say, "Nothing to see here, move along."


----------



## lancelot9898

Kinda like that famous phrase...."What does it matter!"


----------



## ShoalFinder

A hurricane at sea and one that is close to landfall are two very different things.

Once a hurricane begins to make landfall, the western side of the eye will be much less dangerous than the eastern side because the wind is returning from land, is slower, and has much less fetch across the water. A hurricane at sea has no such encumberance. Couple the danger of wind speed with opposing current, and being in the Gulf Stream on the western side of that hurricane was probably the worst place imaginable.

I have been on a ship that was forced to sail through a hurricane. Luckily for my ship, it was a 9800-ton warship, not a rotted wooden barge movie prop. Even still, all hands not on watch were secured in our racks. My ship came through okay, our sister ship did not fare as well and ended up with significant damage. The only damage to my ship was a bomb pallet jack that broke its chains, busted through two doors and careened down the passageway until it slammed into the bulkhead of the aft gun mount, buckling the bulkhead. Being adrift, the jack continued to bounce its way up and down the passageway, stopping only when it would slam into another bulkhead. Thank God nobody was in that passageway. It was no small feat to get it secured again, either. I am amazed nobody was killed during that evolution.

Reading the testimony that has been posted (Thank you, Chef) the situation on the Bounty was even worse than I imagined. From the sounds of it, not only was the ship a disaster waiting to happen, but there was simply almost nobody qualified to be aboard as crew in the best of conditions.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

ShoalFinder said:


> A hurricane at sea and one that is close to landfall are two very different things.
> 
> Once a hurricane begins to make landfall, the western side of the eye will be much less dangerous than the eastern side because the wind is returning from land, is slower, .


You fail to note that the western side of this hurricane was the Gulf Stream.
The ship went into the edge of it and foundered.

Unless you put the Gulf Stream into ALL your equations you can not be including the Bounty.

As for the Dangerous and Navigable zones they relate to the trade wind belt as it dangerous zone the NW Quadrant the wind is increased by the strength of the trade winds. In a Tropical Storm or a hurricane this will increas the wind by 15 knots to 'normal' in the Dangerous Quadrant, and the navigable quadrant will be 15 knots less than 'normal' so a 30 knot difference in wind speed between dangerous and Navigable.

Bounty went from Navigable to Dangerous and into the Gulf Stream,

But remember, there may have been a less factor because its above the trade wind belt.

Lastly, I would think they were far enough offshore to negate any land effect.


----------



## ShoalFinder

I agree with all you said. I think you may have misread what I said, or I was unclear. The Bounty wasn't just bucking the Gulf Stream, they were doing it with hurricane force winds against the Gulf Stream. I don't see how anyone would want to be in that situation.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

ShoalFinder said:


> I don't see how anyone would want to be in that situation.


I think I know. This is only my _opinion_...

There was some prospective buyers in Florida to see the boat on November 9th(?) so they had to leave the 28th to get there.
He believed his own bulltwaddle jokes about chasing hurricanes.
He lied to the crew about it.
He thought he could better predict the hurricane than NOAA so didnt go as far east as he said he would, thinking the hurricane would go due north.
NOAA predicted it would go N then NE then swing wildly NW. They were right, spot on and totally exact.
Capt got scared when H was heading NE and still wouldnt believe NOAA so, as he wasnt east far enough, turned to the SW sealing their doom through his criminal negligence as soon as they hit the Gulf Stream.

A clear, easy, causal chain.

Someone else earlier said...: Follow the money. Well ad ego to that and its spot on.

The lack of maintenance, lies re USCG inspections, certificates etc are an aside, any old boat hitting the Gulf Stream in a hurricane is in peril. My boat would be, yours would be, any 'normal' size boat would be.

Minnewaska in his post uses the word "Romantic" many times. Thats what has deluded the USCG, owners, hero worshiped Captains, crews, maintenance people for years about this boat. To a point it has killed people.

It would be very interesting to hear your, and others, why the Captain wanted to be there. There must have been compelling reasons.


----------



## ShoalFinder

I can't think of any other reason myself. I was giving the captain the benefit of the doubt when this all happened. It wasn't until several days later I read that the Bounty was up for sale and he had to get it back to St. Pete. At that point I felt I knew the answer as well.

I can't speak to what actually happened, but the motivation for what he did points to your scenario, at least in my mind.


As to the storm track, most of them tend to go more North than this one did and then they swing east as they run out of warm water and the jet stream starts pushing on them from the west. Who in their right mind wants to put themselves between a hurricane and a lee shore to prove it would happen that way? I believe the captain was counting on the typical storm track and he turned out to be too clever by half.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

ShoalFinder said:


> As to the storm track, most of them tend to go more North than this one did and then they swing east as they run out of warm water and the jet stream starts pushing on them from the west. Who in their right mind wants to put themselves between a hurricane and a lee shore to prove it would happen that way? I believe the captain was counting on the typical storm track and he turned out to be too clever by half.


I agree. 
The interesting thing about the NOAA prediction was it followed exactly the track they predicted a week out, from before Jamacia. It was interesting to see if follow it, exactly. I was plotting it every day and by the time it went over Cuba it was obvious NOAA had it pegged...
The Capt turned out to be "too clever by half" and we all know what Neptune does then!


----------



## NCC320

As I understand it, the square riggers needed to run with the wind and generally couldn't beat into the wind very well. There have been numerous questions as to why Bounty went from a SE course to SW. A hurricane rotates counterclock wise. So initially, ship would have likely had winds from E or NE since it was ahead of the storm and to the west of the eye track. As the ship moved more east and south, eventually at some point it would be to the east of the eye track. At this point the winds would increasingly come from the SE, then S. So this would mean that ship was increasingly heading directly against the wind, which is an impossible situation for a square rigger. But if the ship could stay to the west of the eye track, the winds would increasingly come from NE, then N, which would be suitable for running before the wind on a SW course. So, unless he were to change to a more northerly course, the captain didn't have much choice except to turn SW. If the pumps had been pumping at their rated capacity, they still might have made it despite that they would have had to contend with the Gulf Stream, and the unique feature of this particular storm, wherein it was reported that the highest winds were in the SW quadrant. Once in this quadrant, the storm would be moving away from them after the eye passed to the east and north in any case.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Today one of the deckhands testified that captain gave 30 minutes to decide if they want to go or not. 
Also he didn't show any weather faxes or anything to describe the size of it, the name or anything else. He just described a system and that they will encounter rough weather.

Also the guy who was at the helm for 4 hours couldn't say what heading he was steering for 4 hours, or who gave him an order to steer that heading.

So what was going on onboard? Who was in charge? Incredible..


----------



## casey1999

NCC320 said:


> As I understand it, the square riggers needed to run with the wind and generally couldn't beat into the wind very well. There have been numerous questions as to why Bounty went from a SE course to SW. A hurricane rotates counterclock wise. So initially, ship would have likely had winds from E or NE since it was ahead of the storm and to the west of the eye track. As the ship moved more east and south, eventually at some point it would be to the east of the eye track. At this point the winds would increasingly come from the SE, then S. So this would mean that ship was increasingly heading directly against the wind, which is an impossible situation for a square rigger. But if the ship could stay to the west of the eye track, the winds would increasingly come from NE, then N, which would be suitable for running before the wind on a SW course. So, unless he were to change to a more northerly course, the captain didn't have much choice except to turn SW. If the pumps had been pumping at their rated capacity, they still might have made it despite that they would have had to contend with the Gulf Stream, and the unique feature of this particular storm, wherein it was reported that the highest winds were in the SW quadrant. Once in this quadrant, the storm would be moving away from them after the eye passed to the east and north in any case.


Agree with you.

That is why it is confusing why the captain said:

"We run into stormy seas. We chase hurricanes," Walbridge said. "You try and get up as close to the eye of it as you can and you stay down in the *southeast quadrant *and when it stops, you stop. You don't want to get in front of it. You want to stay behind it. But you also get a good ride out of the hurricane."

Why does he say *southeast*, he probably could not sail there even if he wanted to. He would have been blown to Europe. Would like the CG to at least clairify with the crew what was really meant.

Also, the Bounty GPS tracker clocked her at somthing like 17 knots when she was in the storm. Would be interesting to know what her real maximum speed was during the storm (cannot imagine she was really going 17 knots.


----------



## ShoalFinder

NCC320 said:


> As I understand it, the square riggers needed to run with the wind and generally couldn't beat into the wind very well. There have been numerous questions as to why Bounty went from a SE course to SW. A hurricane rotates counterclock wise. So initially, ship would have likely had winds from E or NE since it was ahead of the storm and to the west of the eye track. As the ship moved more east and south, eventually at some point it would be to the east of the eye track. At this point the winds would increasingly come from the SE, then S. So this would mean that ship was increasingly heading directly against the wind, which is an impossible situation for a square rigger. But if the ship could stay to the west of the eye track, the winds would increasingly come from NE, then N, which would be suitable for running before the wind on a SW course. So, unless he were to change to a more northerly course, the captain didn't have much choice except to turn SW. If the pumps had been pumping at their rated capacity, they still might have made it despite that they would have had to contend with the Gulf Stream, and the unique feature of this particular storm, wherein it was reported that the highest winds were in the SW quadrant. Once in this quadrant, the storm would be moving away from them after the eye passed to the east and north in any case.


I think your scenario is exactly what the captain was hoping for. But he had to know that to do this he'd be bucking the Gulf Stream, with the wind going against the current. Worst possible scenario.

Had he gone east, as was reported, I agree he'd have been blown toward Europe, which would have been great since he could have used the outer bands to help get to the Azores if the storm didn't turn east and run him down first. So, the success in that option wasn't likely, either. If anything, at least that would have allowed him to run to Nova Scotia. Of all possible storm tracks, the likelihood of being followed to Halifax was slim.

I think he believed the storm was going to turn east, so he went SW to cut around it and thought he'd use the tailwind to sail home. Kind of a "best of the available bad options" thing. Perhaps he thought the benefit of the tail wind would over-ride the negative of the sea state the wind would case in the Gulf Stream. If so, he was obviously wrong.


----------



## rockDAWG

Feb 21 at 3:20 pm.

CG commander said: It took the Helicopter from Elizabeth City to Bounty in 45 min. They had some tail wind too.


----------



## chris_gee

The trade winds are not the factor influencing the speed in any sector. Rather it is the velocity of the path of the storm which adds or subtracts from the wind velocity to give a resultant wind speed.


----------



## rockDAWG

chris_gee said:


> The trade winds are not the factor influencing the speed in any sector. Rather it is the velocity of the path of the storm which adds or subtracts from the wind velocity to give a resultant wind speed.


IT was the CG Chief Commander used the term "tail wind' to describe the relatively fast travel time for their first Helicopter get to the site. I am sure you can educate the CG about the trade winds, velocity of storm and the resultant wind speed etc.


----------



## chef2sail

chris_gee said:


> "Try again
> 
> You theory is completely wrong."
> 
> Well okay that is always possible. It would be more productive if you stated some reasons or basis for your claim.
> The implication is that the references you cite do that.
> 
> The Lyons article on lopsided waves actually repeats the conventional view that the wind and waves are greatest in the NE sector. He attributes the wave size difference less to the wind difference than the time the waves are exposed to the wind. Fair enough but since the wave speed likely exceeds the track speed waves will continue to be generated on the western side and continue to the south. So that supports my statement
> 
> The second reference as to quadrants actually says the same as I did except the sppeds are given in kilometers per hour. So that supports my statement.
> 
> The Sun Sentinel graphic shows a path North. It concerns rainfall more than wind. The writer is not apparently a recognised authority and cites none for a view which is at odds with that generally accepted as to the least dangerous quadrant. Sorry I don't give any weight to a graphic by a reporter .
> 
> If I were wrong then so is Bowditch and Buys Ballot's law.


From NOAA by the way they are not reporters.
hurricanes.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanebook.pdf


> The Right Side of the Storm
> As a general rule of thumb, the hurricane's right
> side (relative to the direction it is travelling) is
> the most dangerous part of the storm because of
> the additive effect of the hurricane wind speed and
> speed of the larger atmospheric flow (the steering
> winds). The increased winds on the right side
> increase the storm surge. Tornadoes are also more
> common here.





> Looking at the figure above, pretend you are
> standing behind the hurricane with your back to the
> steering flow. In this case, the right side is the
> eastern section of the hurricane. (If it were travelling
> east to west, the right side would be the north
> section.) The winds around the hurricane's eye are
> moving in a counterclockwise fashion. At Point A,
> the hurricane winds are nearly in line with the
> steering wind, adding to the strength of the winds. For example, if the steering currents are 30 mph and the average
> hurricane winds are 100 mph, the wind speed would be 130 mph at Point A. On the other hand, the winds at Point B
> are moving opposite those of the steering wind and therefore slow to 70 mph (100 - 30 mph). Incidentally, National
> Huricane Center forecasts take this effect into account in their official wind estimates.


Application of Buys Ballots Law
The general purpose of the law is to assist steering a vessel away from the center and the right, in the Northern Hemisphere, or left, in the Southern Hemisphere, quadrants of hurricanes or any other rotating disturbance at sea.
Other use is to help establish the probability of the existence of a storm and the best course to steer toavoid the worstof it.
BUYS BALLOT


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chris_gee said:


> The trade winds are not the factor influencing the speed in any sector. Rather it is the velocity of the path of the storm which adds or subtracts from the wind velocity to give a resultant wind speed.


OK, Ive checked my references and you're right.



> . Why are hurricane wind speeds always the strongest in the forward right quadrant of the storm?
> 
> In the forward right quadrant of hurricanes, the storm's forward motion adds to the wind speeds, because they are both in the same direction. Thus if the pressure difference in the forward right quadrant favors a southeast wind at 110 knots, and the storm is moving from southeast to northwest at 25 knots, the actual surface winds will be 135 knots.


I learn something new every day. Now I can go get drunk!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

In the northern hemisphere....

http://thenauticalsite.com/nauticalnotes/met/mymet-lesson10-trs.htm


----------



## casey1999

MarkofSeaLife said:


> In the northern hemisphere....
> 
> http://thenauticalsite.com/nauticalnotes/met/mymet-lesson10-trs.htm


Very interesting article. I guess that is what Capt meant using the term "chasing huricanes". Also the last sentence is interesting:

"If in harbour when a tropical storm approaches, it is preferable to put to sea if this can be done in time to avoid the worst of the storm. Riding out a tropical storm, the centre of which passes within 50 miles or so, in a harbour or anchorage, even if some shelter is offered, is an unpleasant and hazardous experience, especially if there are other ships in company. Even if berthed alongside, or if special moorings are used, a ship cannot feel entirely secure. "


----------



## rockDAWG

This afternoon, they called First Mate John Svendsen on the stand again. He said that he has a private discussion with the Captain to take Bounty to Bermuda or other safe port in LIS. The Captain said no. 

Later they asked if you leave the ship, would the Captain take the boat to the sea. He said YES.

I have observed this Young man John for more than a week. He is abright young man and good sailor, well composed. He will be a good captain with a bright future. I wish him the best.


----------



## Classic30

casey1999 said:


> Very interesting article. I guess that is what Capt meant using the term "chasing huricanes". Also the last sentence is interesting:
> 
> "If in harbour when a tropical storm approaches, it is preferable to put to sea if this can be done in time to avoid the worst of the storm. Riding out a tropical storm, the centre of which passes within 50 miles or so, in a harbour or anchorage, even if some shelter is offered, is an unpleasant and hazardous experience, especially if there are other ships in company. Even if berthed alongside, or if special moorings are used, a ship cannot feel entirely secure. "


That's been proven true many times in many situations over many years, but the big assumption in that statement is that the ship in question is seaworthy enough to actually put to sea in a storm in the first place.

Given that a basic requirement for seaworthiness must surely be that the bilge pumps work, it would appear from the outcome that the "Bounty" wasn't...


----------



## Capt.Mhack

rockDAWG said:


> This afternoon, they called First Mate John Svendsen on the stand again. He said that he has a private discussion with the Captain to take Bounty to Bermuda or other safe port in LIS. The Captain said no.
> 
> Later they asked if you leave the ship, would the Captain take the boat to the sea. He said YES.
> 
> I have observed this Young man John for more than a week. He is abright young man and good sailor, well composed. He will be a good captain with a bright future. I wish him the best.


Yes today puts an end to all of this.

First mate today seemed to be more truthful then before, and even trown the Captain under the bus, as on the first day he was saying he doesn't see a problem with sailing in to the hurricane, today he said he told captain many times not to do it and stay in port or go to Bermuda.

I don't think he will make a good captain - he was the 2nd in command and didn't do anything to stop a boat from _sailing directly in to a Cat II going against Gulf stream_ :hothead

Also CG said they were not contacted directly by Bounty, no Mayday was issued. Only the plane picked up a request to evacuate (by some accounts)
CG in charge didn't know they declared an emergency. CG asked them to enable EPIRB not the other way around.

CG had an email from Captain reading "Ship is doing _great_, but we can't evacuate water"

Which confused CG a lot, as they didn't understand how the ship could be great if it is sinking.

Also CG recieved info over VHF from bounty "we are taking 2 feet of water an hour, green water over the bow gets in to bilges" no capacity to pump out.

Winds were 90!! MPH.. Eye of the hurricane..

Waves are reported at 20-40' powerful enough to broach the 120' LOD Bounty replica.

I don't know what you thinking, but I think this story should be one taught to every Captain of what NOT TO DO from start to finish, almost every person and system failed on that ship. Some of them said they didn't know they were sailing in to a hurricane.

Thanks goes to the USCG for showing us how to run air and sea ships and systems in a hurricane!


----------



## Minnewaska

Capt.Mhack said:


> Today one of the deckhands testified that captain gave 30 minutes to decide if they want to go or not........


Did they say what the alternative was? Bus fare home or just take your $hit and git?

Really, this wasn't giving the crew any decision at all, let alone factor in the peer pressure.

What I'm finding very interesting is how the testimony is so closely corroborating the consensus of information that was being posted shortly after the event. For sure, there was some exaggeration, but it didn't seem that hard to identify. The basic overall picture of what happened and why was remarkably correct, given the unofficial nature of the internet. It's like Wikipedia's model, where it was once thought you need an official building full of fact checkers to publish an encyclopedia. This forums analysis of events seems to prove their point. Not 100% accurate, but pretty darn close. Perhaps as close as anything official ever actually gets.


----------



## rockDAWG

Capt.Mhack said:


> I don't think he will make a good captain - he was the 2nd in command and didn't do anything to stop a boat from _sailing directly in to a Cat II going against Gulf stream_ :hothead


I hear what you are saying. However, I am not as critical as you when I look at this young man. What he experienced on the Bounty and thru the hurricane will propel his sailing career. I do not concern about what you have done or not done. He is a smart fellow, he will think and learn from the mistakes committed in Bounty.

What could he do, especially he said that if he walked out, the captain would take the boat out to the sea.

Not surprisingly, he already has captain positions lining up for him which is much better pay than on any of the tall ships.
Of course, YMMV.


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> ....
> 
> First mate today seemed to be more truthful then before, and even trown the Captain under the bus, as on the first day he was saying he doesn't see a problem with sailing in to the hurricane, today he said he told captain many times not to do it and stay in port or go to Bermuda.
> 
> I don't think he will make a good captain - he was the 2nd in command and didn't do anything to stop a boat from _sailing directly in to a Cat II going against Gulf stream_ :hothead
> 
> ...


I think you are being hard on him. If he tried to persuade his Captain to take shelter several times and the Captain didn't accept the suggestion, the only other option to him was to leave the ship. He said that the Captain with or without him would sail the Ship to the pass of an Hurricane so I guess he could fell responsible regarding the crew.

He was one of the few with experience and if they were taking a huge risk, without his help on board the risk would even be bigger. Not an easy choice for him. I don't see that he had much of an option out of try to lead an insurrection against the Captain and his decision and the Captain was very respected, almost revered by all, so little chance to succeed with that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> What I'm finding very interesting is how the testimony is so closely corroborating the consensus of information that was being posted shortly after the event. For sure, there was some exaggeration, but it didn't seem that hard to identify. The basic overall picture of what happened and why was remarkably correct, given the unofficial nature of the internet. It's like Wikipedia's model, where it was once thought you need an official building full of fact checkers to publish an encyclopedia. This forums analysis of events seems to prove their point. Not 100% accurate, but pretty darn close. Perhaps as close as anything official ever actually gets.


Funny I dont see it quite that way completely

Even a blindfolded person will hit a piniada or a dartboard, especially of you stand them in front of it and point them in the correct direction

Maybe we should bring all the future plane crashes to the internet and let the posters tell us why it happend through their speculations

While some of the basic premises were talked about. They were speculative.
Many rushed to judgement immediately/ The fact later they were proven correct on some of their assumptions doesnt mean rushing to judgement is a prudent way to proceed on things. There has to be some kind of balance between opinions and those opinions proven to be facts.

As the thread continued and the* true facts *came out gradually many of the initial opinions and statements modified/ moderated some and some were even disproved. This is a normal and natural progression I have found and to be expected. Those who were castigated by others not to rush to judgement were proven correct also. Its great so many people of so many differing ways of approaching issues have posted as it gives a better overall product.

To me it reflects this imperfect anaolgy. We have a dinner at 5 PM for our club in a marina restaurant 20 miles away. Both PB and sailboaters attending.

The PB group plot their course...a straight run of 1.5 hours and leave at 1PM. 
They fly over and they get there for dinner at 5 having been in their slips in the marina since 4 PM and have had happy hour. Saw very little of the bay, the wind, the conditons, but they got to the destinations

The SB group look at the wind direction and realize they must tack as it dead upwind and leave at 10 PM. They slowly tack their way experiences the sun, wind, waves, birds, have lunch enoy and experience the nature of the whole sailing experience of the trip. They get there at 3. Anchor out raft and have Happy hour and get to dinner at 5.

They both got to dinner at 5. While at the table the SB is talking to the PB and says did you see the Eagles, the crab pots, the winds, the beauty of the sun on the water, the tranquility of the sail over. The PB said nope, but we got here just the same. And yes they did, they both got there.

While we all got to many of the same conclusions at the end, some took a longer direction. If the prize is just the conclusion, well both won and acheived it. One gets there with more experiences and the other just gets there and gets to learn as many of the experiences as the others care to share with them. Both remain happy.

So Minnie is thats your point, I am glad that you are happy that you have been proven correct and you got there right away. I too am happy. Happy that my mind was open to learning that its been journey and that I hopefully didnt prejudge everything ( thats almost impossible), and that I learned along the way.

This thread has been very informative to me, in spite of the various heated opinions/ accusations etc. I have posted more on this thread than others by many times and sometimes have felt I was in a monority. My plodding way of approaching this and mistrust of what I may see initially until I look it through thoroughly reflects the way I deal with issues when I have the time avalable. I have no trouble maing instantaneous opinions or decisions when that is needed.

I have learned more about TS than I ever knew.
More about CG liscences than I ever knew,
More about the people who sail these vessels from the well financed ones to the shoestring budget ones than I ever knew.
More about the mentality and love of the people on these vessels than I ever knew. 
I have watched the testimony and find very little said before in this thread about the boatbuilder and true conditions of the Bounty infrastructure except from Mainesail. For that I am glad to hear that testimoiny
I have watched the testimony and been shocked by the absolute lack of sailing experience of the people on this vessel and wonder how pervaisive that is.
I also have been shocked by the lack of experience on technical equipment of the vessel such as pumps, engines and even caulking and maintainence. People in the thread alluded to it, but to the degree the testimony brought it out is staggering to me

I only hope that this will bring enough noteriety and perhaps liscening to this part of the industry, but do not know how that can be accomplshed. I wished people had spoken out about this vessels condition to the CG ahead of time. The Captain...he did the wrong thing. He had a very suspect vessel and left in the face of this storm and then made compounding decisions which sealed her fate. He ruined his reputataion and caused his and Fletchers death and will be held responsible. Someon needs to look at these old wooden vessels more carefully.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Minnewaska said:


> Did they say what the alternative was? Bus fare home or just take your $hit and git?
> 
> Really, this wasn't giving the crew any decision at all, let alone factor in the peer pressure.
> 
> What I'm finding very interesting is how the testimony is so closely corroborating the consensus of information that was being posted shortly after the event. For sure, there was some exaggeration, but it didn't seem that hard to identify. The basic overall picture of what happened and why was remarkably correct, given the unofficial nature of the internet. It's like Wikipedia's model, where it was once thought you need an official building full of fact checkers to publish an encyclopedia. This forums analysis of events seems to prove their point. Not 100% accurate, but pretty darn close. Perhaps as close as anything official ever actually gets.


This is why they say first impression and gut feel usually are right.
But I couldn't even imagine in my worst nightmare what reality was..

The captain had a one on one with chief mate where CM was urging Capt to stay, go upriver or Bermuda. Capt said that he feels _very strongly_ (made a decision) and told CM to start prep. CM testified he advised Capt to tell the crew of this.

During that meeting that CM called, Captain basically said "there is a weather system", "it might get rough", "you know I and Bounty always made it", "if you don't feel like it you can leave (quit)".. 
He didn't say Sandy, Superstorm or any of the words to specify the size of the "Weather"

Nobody spoke up so captain ordered (on the spot) to start prep to sail.
In 30 mins they were off.

CG noted that this paints Captain as a "dictator" with now team input or discussion allowed.


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> This is why they say first impression and gut feel usually are right.
> But I couldn't even imagine in my worst nightmare what reality was..
> 
> The captain had a one on one with chief mate where CM was urging Capt to stay, go upriver or Bermuda. Capt said that he feels _very strongly_ (made a decision) and told CM to start prep. CM testified he advised Capt to tell the crew of this.
> 
> During that meeting that CM called, Captain basically said "there is a weather system", "it might get rough", "you know I and Bounty always made it", "if you don't feel like it you can leave (quit)"..
> He didn't say Sandy, Superstorm or any of the words to specify the size of the "Weather"
> 
> Nobody spoke up so captain ordered (on the spot) to start prep to sail.
> In 30 mins they were off.
> 
> CG noted that this paints Captain as a "dictator" with now team input or discussion allowed.


Just a question did you watch the testimony? Did you hear this said? 


> CG noted that this paints Captain as a "dictator" with now team input or discussion allowed


I watched the tesimony

BTW


> This is why they say first impression and gut feel usually are right


They also say dont judge a book by its cover

Every glib quote has an equal and opposite glib quote from the alternative universe.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

rockDAWG said:


> I hear what you are saying. However, I am not as critical as you when I look at this young man. What he experienced on the Bounty and thru the hurricane will propel his sailing career. I do not concern about what you have done or not done. He is a smart fellow, he will think and learn from the mistakes committed in Bounty.
> 
> What could he do, especially he said that if he walked out, the captain would take the boat out to the sea.
> 
> Not surprisingly, he already has captain positions lining up for him which is much better pay than on any of the tall ships.
> Of course, YMMV.


Honestly would you sit idly by even if you were a passanger on Bounty and just watched how the ship sailed in to Cat II? I know I wouldn't..

I wish it would turn out like you hope, I hope so too, but IMHO I think he is not cut to be a captain, do we need to wait for him to put 4000 people on a cruise liner in to a storm? And then say "I don't recal why we've changed course?" like he did?

I'm sorry, I don't think he is a good captain.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

PCP said:


> I think you are being hard on him. If he tried to persuade his Captain to take shelter several times and the Captain didn't accept the suggestion, the only other option to him was to leave the ship. He said that the Captain with or without him would sail the Ship to the pass of an Hurricane so I guess he could fell responsible regarding the crew.
> 
> He was one of the few with experience and if they were taking a huge risk, without his help on board the risk would even be bigger. Not an easy choice for him. I don't see that he had much of an option out of try to lead an insurrection against the Captain and his decision and the Captain was very respected, almost revered by all, so little chance to succeed with that.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I would have picked up a SatPhone and called CG.. in what reality a sail in a leaking ship to a center of CatII with inop bilge system is a remotely ok proposition??

He is directly responsible for people's death as second in command, if he stopped their south progress towards the eye of the hurricane people would be still alive.. it's not a walk in a park, it was his job.

CG asked him repeatedly about "Hurricane Avoidance" classes he took..

p.s. Inop bilge system was reported to officers on Thursday before they set sail.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> Did they say what the alternative was? Bus fare home or just take your $hit and git?
> 
> Really, this wasn't giving the crew any decision at all, let alone factor in the peer pressure.


Just a direct question. Had you been The second in command...what would *YOU* have done? Had you been crew?

Not really interested in what they did or thier influences. If *you* were in this situation. What would *you* do knowing the condition of the ship and the hurricane impending?

I have a feeking I know, but I must ask. I also bet we would do the same thing.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

chef2sail said:


> Just a question did you watch the testimony? Did you hear this said?
> 
> I watched the tesimony
> 
> BTW
> 
> They also say dont judge a book by its cover
> 
> Every glib quote has an equal and opposite glib quote from the alternative universe.


Yes I watched every day.

They pinned CM today on why he was describing Captain as being this "every meeting a teaching experience" while in reality, the only fact they have that the most important meeting, collaborated by 13 people, he didn't have the discussion, no questions, no information given.. "take it or leave it" same was done for the course change to West.
CM had no answer for this.. just said if captain was very smart (played chess 5 people at once) but if captain made up his mind that was it..


----------



## Capt.Mhack

My point is - we should be hard on this guy, and we should be hard on ourselfs, don't gamble with the sea, respect it! Be a professional.

I was just doing a yacht delivery on Sunday, it was "Small craft advisory", 10' seas and 40kts winds.. I called my Captain and insisted on not going. We delivered later when conditions allowed. I think watching this hearing helped me improve myself.


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> Not really interested in what they did or thier influences. If *you* were in this situation. What would *you* do knowing the condition of the ship and the hurricane impending?


I know what I would do, I will walk because I am old and have thick skin and I don't care much about peer pressure.

However, these young men and young women are so in love with he boat and the captain. I don't think they knew what is coming. I remember Laura said in her testimony when Bounty sailed from Booth Bay to New London, the pump kicked on every 20 minutes. When sailing to south into Sandy, the pumps were on consistently. The crews did not find it abnormal, becasue the captain said, it is a wooden boat.

I guess Love is blind.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Age and inexperience plays a part, too.

There's a reason you join the military when you are 18. Well, several reasons. You are young, healthy, and your body can actually put up with the strain (the obvious reason) but the second reason is that when you are 40 and given an idiotic directive, you would shake your head and say, "No f'n way. That is a a stupid idea."

As we age we are more prepared to accept consequences rather than rush headlong into things. The difference is we learn to shape our own consequences. If you are 20 and broke when your captain tells you that he is going to sail into a hurricane on a rotten boat and you can quit now if you don't like it- you say, "Man. I need this job. I don't know how else I'll get home. And if I do, they'll know I bailed out and nobody will give me another TS crew gig."

When you are forty, you say, "Captain, I want you to reconsider. I'm happy to crew for you but we need to find a better course or else I simply cannot go. I love this ship, but I will not die for it. It's a great boat and all, but it's a boat. And it's insured."


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> I would have picked up a SatPhone and called CG.. in what reality a sail in a leaking ship to a center of CatII with inop bilge system is a remotely ok proposition??
> 
> He is directly responsible for people's death as second in command, if he stopped their south progress towards the eye of the hurricane people would be still alive.. it's not a walk in a park, it was his job.
> 
> ....


You are my hero. I don't know what I have done but I can tell you that almost nobody in his position would have the guts to do what you say. I participated in a revolution and I was among the ones that actually did act and actually fight to make it happen. After the revolution the ones that wanted to take the more drastic measures against the ones that were previously in power, the ones that were making more noise, were the ones that had not the guts to do nothing to change their rule. Yes, it easy to talk

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

ShoalFinder said:


> ... If you are 20 and broke when your captain tells you that he is going to sail into a hurricane on a rotten boat and you can quit now if you don't like it- you say, "Man. I need this job. I don't know how else I'll get home. And if I do, they'll know I bailed out and nobody will give me another TS crew gig."
> 
> When you are forty, you say, "Captain, I want you to reconsider. I'm happy to crew for you but we need to find a better course or else I simply cannot go. I love this ship, but I will not die for it. It's a great boat and all, but it's a boat. And it's insured."


I guess you are missing a point. Maybe if he was a sailor he could just say: "the hell with it, I am not going to risk my live, I quit."

But he is second in Command, tried to change the Captain judgement about sailing, he knows that he is going to sail with or without him, he knows that the crew revers the Captain and that it will go with him no matter what he does. He knows that he is one of the few with experience and that the chances to make it without him would be a lot smaller and he risks his life to give a better chance to the crew.

As Nolaton had pointed out, if the pumps were working 100%, if they had no problems at all, if they were lucky, as they were before, they may even have gotten away with it... one more time.... and his presence could be determinant to save the crew.

The time to quit would be after contributing to put the ship to safety (it turned out impossible) or immediately after the accident. I don't know if he was pressured not to do it, I don't know how much involved he was with that romantic connection with the Bounty's "family" and crew. It is hard to judge others when the involvement is not a rational one but an emotional one: They all considered Bounty to be their home and they were in love with the Ship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing... 

Emotions included, I seriously doubt *any* of them, captain or crew, would have left the dock if they thought for even a few seconds that they wouldn't make it. This is a sailing ship in a storm, not an amusement park ride.

Was it common knowledge there were doubts about the soundness of the hull (probably irrelevant in the end anyway)? Was it common knowledge the pumps didn't work? No.. I don't think so.

As we say over here, "$hit happens".. but mix in a slice of poor judgement, a dash of over-confidence and a few well-intentioned mistakes and the result is well known to all.


----------



## ShoalFinder

PCP said:


> I guess you are missing a point. Maybe if he was a sailor he could just say: "the hell with it, I am not going to risk my live, I quit."
> 
> But he is second in Command, tried to change the Captain judgement about sailing, he knows that he is going to sail with or without him, he knows that the crew revers the Captain and that it will go with him no matter what he does. He knows that he is one of the few with experience and that the chances to make it without him would be a lot smaller and he risks his life to give a better chance to the crew.


You make a very good point, and that is a very fair criticism of what I said.

As the Chief Mate, perhaps it was the only decision he could make if he thought it was up to him to protect those who went out to sea. However, I don't think he saw it as a suicide mission based on the bits of testimony I have read. However much I praise his loyalty, perhaps his dissent and departure would have had more impact to change the captain's mind.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Hartley18 said:


> Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing...
> 
> Emotions included, I seriously doubt *any* of them, captain or crew, would have left the dock if they thought for even a few seconds that they wouldn't make it. This is a sailing ship in a storm, not an amusement park ride.
> 
> Was it common knowledge there were doubts about the soundness of the hull (probably irrelevant in the end anyway)? Was it common knowledge the pumps didn't work? No.. I don't think so.
> 
> As we say over here, "$hit happens".. but mix in a slice of poor judgement, a dash of over-confidence and a few well-intentioned mistakes and the result is well known to all.


Well based on the testimony some said it was known that Bounty has a bad reputation.

It was known by the officers and the captain the pumps not 1 out of 5 didn't work as expected.

These 2 facts make it a suicide mission.

CM silence to the crew didn't help them understand the risks.

I think CM had every opportunity to dissent, leave or at least call the CG when this was going down.

Technically they were supposed to notify CG on generator and bilge failures.

We can slice it for 100 more pages, their actions are pretty clear now.

I think that's actually the biggest problem that his officers were afraid/unwilling to challenge his reckless plan.

Sent from my iPad


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> Well based on the testimony some said it was known that Bounty has a bad reputation.
> 
> It was known by the officers and the captain the pumps not 1 out of 5 didn't work as expected.
> 
> These 2 facts make it a suicide mission.
> 
> CM silence to the crew didn't help them understand the risks.
> 
> I think CM had every opportunity to dissent, leave or at least call the CG when this was going down.
> 
> Technically they were supposed to notify CG on generator and bilge failures.
> 
> We can slice it for 100 more pages, their actions are pretty clear now.
> 
> I think that's actually the biggest problem that his officers were afraid/unwilling to challenge his reckless plan.
> 
> Sent from my iPad


Good points

Sorry I had to do this to get this blowhard his 5000 ( probably 200 on this thread) post. Cant beleive I have survived that long without either being banned or shout away.:laugher:gunner:hammer


----------



## Classic30

Congratulations, C2F!! 

That and a buck-fifty probably won't get you a cup of coffee even in your part of the world... 



Capt.Mhack said:


> Well based on the testimony some said it was known that Bounty has a bad reputation.
> 
> It was known by the officers and the captain the pumps not 1 out of 5 didn't work as expected.
> 
> These 2 facts make it a suicide mission.
> 
> CM silence to the crew didn't help them understand the risks.
> 
> I think CM had every opportunity to dissent, leave or at least call the CG when this was going down.
> 
> Technically they were supposed to notify CG on generator and bilge failures.
> 
> We can slice it for 100 more pages, their actions are pretty clear now.
> 
> I think that's actually the biggest problem that his officers were afraid/unwilling to challenge his reckless plan.


Well I guess we'll soon know if you're right once the investigation is complete. I'm still not convinced the bilge pump failures were as widely known amongst the officers and crew as you suggest - because if they did, unless the entire crew were a bunch of mindless lemmings, surely we wouldn't be talking about it now.

The absence of so much as a "Pan-Pan" call once the water started rising, has me puzzled though..


----------



## Capt.Mhack

Hartley18 said:


> Congratulations, C2F!!
> 
> That and a buck-fifty probably won't get you a cup of coffee even in your part of the world...
> 
> Well I guess we'll soon know if you're right once the investigation is complete. I'm still not convinced the bilge pump failures were as widely known amongst the officers and crew as you suggest - because if they did, unless the entire crew were a bunch of mindless lemmings, surely we wouldn't be talking about it now.
> 
> The absence of so much as a "Pan-Pan" call once the water started rising, has me puzzled though..


It's not me, I'm basing it on one of the deckhand testimony, CG asked him twice if he was saying he reported above normal water level/ electric pumps not keeping up on Thursday before they set sailed, to the engineer and the officer of his watch.
Both pumps were fitted with PSI gauges and showed about 60-70% less pressure than usual.

Deckhand confirmed that twice.

Captain said he will think about it. CM later testified he followed up with captain and captain told him he thinks the pumps were fine.

Interesting CM testified that Captain himself brought up the rot (!) in the bounty hull when the ship was in the heavy weather, and suggested to CM it will not matter, hull will be ok. CM claims he didn't know about rot util that conversation with the captain.

BTW even Claudine was texting about pumps not working - that has to tell you something as no Pan Pan even, by the CG officer in charge testimony, official Mayday, was not called.

First time CG learned about Bounty problem was from the Tracy Simonin (sp) of Bounty org, not anybody on the ship.

I wish I'm wrong, but the testimony was pretty damning.


----------



## chef2sail

Capt.Mhack said:


> It's not me, I'm basing it on one of the deckhand testimony, CG asked him twice if he was saying he reported above normal water level/ electric pumps not keeping up on Thursday before they set sailed, to the engineer and the officer of his watch.
> 
> Deckhand confirmed that twice.
> 
> Captain said he will think about it. CM later testified he followed up with captain and captain told him he thinks the pumps were fine.
> 
> BTW even Claudine was texting about pumps not working - that has to tell you something as no Pan Pan even, by the CG officer in charge testimony, official Mayday, was not called.
> 
> First time CG learned about Bounty problem was from the Tracy Simonin (sp) of Bounty org, not anybody on the ship.
> 
> I wish I'm wrong, but the testimony was pretty damning.


This is true. Very damning. Had they at least notified the CG early on say off the coast of Jersey they migh have been lifted pumps like in the past or been escorted in a more protected area like the Delaware or Norfolk.

I cant understand continuoing on with the pumps not working correctly or keeping up as they knew even far enough in advance once underway and could have made a break for it.

Dave


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> .......So Minnie is thats your point, I am glad that you are happy that you have been proven correct and you got there right away. ........


While I would love to leave it at that, I never made the point that I was right. I made the point that the consensus was right and reject it being a blind squirrel analogy. There was much news feed, personal observation of the ship, TS community input, etc that lead to the consensus conclusion. You had the right to reject all of it until the official investigation. I am amazed that a community of internet posters really could sort out the wheat from the chafe without one. There was plenty of extreme accusation that was being made at the time, but it was also being debunked by the consensus. Consensus is not defined as unanimous. Consensus was proven correct.

Now for the love of sailing, my friend, try to make your point in under a million words.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Just a direct question. Had you been The second in command...what would *YOU* have done? Had you been crew?
> 
> Not really interested in what they did or thier influences. If *you* were in this situation. What would *you* do knowing the condition of the ship and the hurricane impending?
> 
> I have a feeking I know, but I must ask. I also bet we would do the same thing.


Direct answer then. I've seen the crew, I've seen them speak, I've heard direct reference by many on what it was like to be part of that environment.

I wouldn't have ever accepted the position as SIC on that vessel.

Beyond the scrubby look, which isn't my bag, I will use the infamous "chasing hurricanes" media interview as a perfect example. You pick whichever version you like: He was exaggerating....... then I have zero respect for the skipper of that vessel for being a blowhard and not setting proper seamanship discipline. Or, He was telling the truth........ then no freaking way I'm not packed up by the end of the day. I'm not going to be in the leadership structure.

If I had unwittingly found my way into that SIC position, I would have been looking for the first gangway I could find. An incoming hurricane would have been an excuse from the heavens and I would have suggested the same to the rest of the crew.

Had the SIC done so, one would have to believe others would have followed. Would Christine's message home have simply been something to the effect of a tough passage ahead. She was clearly nervous, but had faith in the leadership decision. Or would the SIC having left the boat changed her mind? Although, I suspect the SIC would have been blackballed from another gig had he bailed. Especially, if Bounty made it.


----------



## chef2sail

Very hard for me. I work as a contractor on Capitol Hill and the government likes everything explained and vetted 6 ways from Sunday.

And to think at one time I was a chef and only used four letter words


----------



## chef2sail

I totally agree with you.

Break out the margaritas


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> An incoming hurricane would have been an excuse from the heavens and I would have suggested the same to the rest of the crew.
> 
> Had the SIC done so, one would have to believe others would have followed.


People often don't understand courage. they think its all about some war time situation, or running some race in the Olympics. But courage is the thing that good, honest people need to stand up for themselves, and others, at times.

He didnt show the courage that he needed to.... He may have been corageous in the storm, but not in allowing the ship to leave port with him onboard.

Yes, the others would have followed him off the boat. If all had then none could have been sacked. But leaving the ship would have meant looking for another 'dream of a lifetime job'.


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> Well based on the testimony some said it was known that Bounty has a bad reputation.
> 
> It was known by the officers and the captain the pumps not 1 out of 5 didn't work as expected.
> 
> These 2 facts make it a suicide mission.
> 
> ...


I would not say a suicide mission.. Nobody there thought that they were going to die, Some thought it was risky but risky means not suicidal and means always that one thinks that there are more changes to succeed than to fail.

You are looking at it from the outside. That boat had a bad reputation among the Tall ship crews. For the Crew of that boat the Captain was a hero, and the Bounty could take anything and "liked Hurricanes".

When we talk about a suicide mission it is implied that the one that is on that mission knows that he is going to die. They thought too much about their boat and their captain. They revere and trust the Captain's decisions and if he says that the Bounty is safer on the sea than in the Port, than it should be true. If the Captain decides to sail an Hurricane, then he knows what he is doing. This is not clearly a suicide mission.

Remember that the Crew is very inexperienced and only the more experienced mate questioned privately the Captain regarding his option. Along this thread several testimony made clear that the crew did not fully know the condition of the boat neither the one of the pumping systems. Remember that they did not even know that a major Hurricane was on the way (as it was made clear before). That is how inexperienced they were.

The only one that should and was aware of the boat condition, including pumping systems and lack of training with them, was the Captain. But I don't believe that even the Captain was on a suicide mission. He had a big ego and thought that he would manage to pull it one more time. I am sure he thought that it was risky but that he would succeed in bringing the boat back to port. He was gambling but thought that the bigger odds were with him.

Off course a Captain does not gamble with the lives of others, that is intrinsically wrong. A captain should not take any considerable risk gambling that he probably will make it if there is a significant possibility of not making it...and that was clearly the case.

As I have saying from the beginning the responsibility for this accident is on the Captain. An additional responsibility can be found if it was proved that the Captain was coerced or convinced by the owner to take this voyage at this particular date for financial motives. That does not diminish Captain's responsibility but will add responsibility to another party. The owner had taken the 5th and I have not seen evidence yet that it was clearly the case. That it does not mean that it had not happen, only that it was not proven yet.

I don't think that will come out of this inquiry and it would be very important to establish liability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## rockDAWG

A few questions and comments in my head:

1. I was surprised that the Committee did not ask the wife of the captain to testify. 
2. Does the Captain have any life insurance?
3. How much insurance does Bounty carry?


----------



## nolatom

I understand from earlier reading that Bounty did not have a Certificate of Inspection from the Coast Guard.

Wasn't aware whether or not the was "in class" with ABS, LR, DNV or whomever? I take it, not? 

Anyone know if the other tall ships are 'classed'? To me, having ABS involved, especially with a unique (wood) vessel with lots of cladding covering the ribs and frames, would give me a much better feeling than a vessel inspected by, uh, no one?


----------



## chef2sail

Its funny I am incredulous that people say the crew didnt know the hurricane was coming. They were getting texts from all their friends and loved ones and everyone on the east coast starting the previous Sunday started watching the storm Oct 24 when it ewas classified as a hurricane and started its trip north. The European model had it pegged from the beginning to come up the coast and them turn west into the land. It took a couple days but the American model agreed. I knew I might be in trouble in Maryland long before the Bounty slipped its lines and started preparing as did olthers in my area in Maryland.

What I agree is that they really didnt understand what that meant, how bad the ship was and placed trust in each other and the Captain. To say they didnt know doesnt seem plausable.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Its funny I am incredulous that people say the crew didnt know the hurricane was coming. They were getting texts from all their friends and loved ones and everyone on the east coast starting the previous Sunday started watching the storm Oct 24 when it ewas classified as a hurricane and started its trip north. ...


Maybe I stated it badly. I was referring what they had said themselves and was published previously in the press. I did not meant to say that when they sailed that they had not been informed about the Hurricane. What I meant to say is that they had not been aware of its importance till some hours before and some not even after that reunion. Barksdale says *"Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having"* .

I remember that because at the time it really looked odd to me that they didn't know that an Hurricane is as intense as you can get. It only shows how unprepared they were as sailors and the trust they deposited on their Captain.

*Edit:*

I have checked out. Braksdale the "engineer" was the one that was not aware of the Hurricane before that reunion with the the Captain:

*quote:
He had also had few conversations with the other crewmembers, which is why he hadn't even heard that a storm was approaching&#8230;*.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=17849018&singlePage=true#.UL3xE-RIl8F

regarding that talk reunion with the captain he says:

quote:

Walbridge had called everyone on deck to tell them about the approaching hurricane before they left Connecticut, saying he would understand if people decided to get off the ship, Barksdale said.

Everyone stayed.

'Naturally I was a little hesitant about that, but [the captain]* explained the situation and it seemed like he had a pretty good strategy*,' Barksdale said. 'We were going to try and *get around the hurricane*. *Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having.' *

http://www.sail-world.com/CruisingA...103934&SRCID=0&ntid=0&tickeruid=0&tickerCID=0

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

From what I understand the Bounty should have notified the CG that they had lost generators, pumps and engines.

Are we (as pleasure boaters) required to notify CG if our engine fails on our sailboat? Should we notify if our bilge pump fails while at sea? I could see if conditions are rough (high winds and seas) where the loss could endager boat and crew it would be wise to issue a Pan Pan to CG and keep them informed, but is this required during benign conditions?


----------



## Capt.Mhack

PCP said:


> I would not say a suicide mission.. Nobody there thought that they were going to die, Some thought it was risky but risky means not suicidal and means always that one thinks that there are more changes to succeed than to fail.
> 
> You are looking at it from the outside. That boat had a bad reputation among the Tall ship crews. For the Crew of that boat the Captain was a hero, and the Bounty could take anything and "liked Hurricanes".
> 
> When we talk about a suicide mission it is implied that the one that is on that mission knows that he is going to die. They thought too much about their boat and their captain. They revere and trust the Captain's decisions and if he says that the Bounty is safer on the sea than in the Port, than it should be true. If the Captain decides to sail an Hurricane, then he knows what he is doing. This is not clearly a suicide mission.


Maybe suicide was not a correct term here, "Self inflicted homicide" perhaps..

Was there a chance to survive a hurricane? Yes it was, that doesn't mean it was a good idea to go. It was a bad idea to go, people actually shocked at the whole premise of the idea.

I would leave the realm of sailing in to hurricanes to the Pirates of the Caribbean films..


----------



## Capt.Mhack

rockDAWG said:


> A few questions and comments in my head:
> 
> 1. I was surprised that the Committee did not ask the wife of the captain to testify.
> 2. Does the Captain have any life insurance?
> 3. How much insurance does Bounty carry?


Good questions..


----------



## Capt.Mhack

nolatom said:


> I understand from earlier reading that Bounty did not have a Certificate of Inspection from the Coast Guard.
> 
> Wasn't aware whether or not the was "in class" with ABS, LR, DNV or whomever? I take it, not?
> 
> Anyone know if the other tall ships are 'classed'? To me, having ABS involved, especially with a unique (wood) vessel with lots of cladding covering the ribs and frames, would give me a much better feeling than a vessel inspected by, uh, no one?


No it was not inspected and registered as a private yacht.
They even subverted the tonnage rules to get (less) 250GT certification to avoid some of the rules.

CG also assumed the crew was "professional", and classified the initial contact as mid risk - they were asked by the panel why they assumed so - they pretty much couldn't believe that the ship will be sailed by amateurs.

Other vessel captains testified it took them 7 years to get certifications..



casey1999 said:


> From what I understand the Bounty should have notified the CG that they had lost generators, pumps and engines.
> 
> Are we (as pleasure boaters) required to notify CG if our engine fails on our sailboat? Should we notify if our bilge pump fails while at sea? I could see if conditions are rough (high winds and seas) where the loss could endager boat and crew it would be wise to issue a Pan Pan to CG and keep them informed, but is this required during benign conditions?


They subverted the system to register as a private yacht.

Technically private yacht is NOT required to report it.

But Coast Guard highly recommends you issue a PAN PAN call, it helps them advise you and prepare for possible rescue.



PCP said:


> Maybe I stated it badly. I was referring what they had said themselves and was published previously in the press. I did not meant to say that when they sailed that they had not been informed about the Hurricane. What I meant to say is that they had not been aware of its importance till some hours before and some not even after that reunion. Barksdale says *"Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having"* .


His testimony is highly suspect.. others testified that the Captain didn't have a plan, he just said I know you were getting texts, there is a weather system, we will go east offshore - and then decide what to do. I and Bounty always made it.

That's it. "Don't worry" talk.

At this point everyone was getting texts from their friends about Sandy.

It was predicted to be 1000 mi Superstorm.


----------



## rockDAWG

I heard this from Commander Mitchell yesterday.


> "Because of the size of the storm, because of how large Sandy was, everybody got out of the way,"
> 
> It isn't uncommon for the Navy to send some of its ships that are in port out to sea before a storm strikes. It does so in order to reduce the risk of major damage to ships and piers during high winds and seas. But unlike the HMS Bounty, the Navy sent its high-tech warships built of steel out of Sandy's path. The wooden Bounty, which had parts of its frame rotting, sailed directly into it.


Coast Guard testifies during Bounty hearing - News-Times: News

Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5
Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## casey1999

rockDAWG said:


> I heard this from Commander Mitchell yesterday.
> 
> Coast Guard testifies during Bounty hearing - News-Times: News
> 
> Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5
> Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News


Navy ships can also run pretty fast, can flat out run any hurricane, unlike the Bounty with a steaming speed of somthing like 5 knots. Plus the navy has extremely good weather data. Bounty seems to ignore the weather.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

casey1999 said:


> Navy ships can also run pretty fast, can flat ourun any hurricane, unlike the Bounty with a steaming speed of somthing like 5 knots. Plus the navy has extremely good weather data. Bounty seems to ignore the weather.


They sail at 11 kts in a hurricane.

Also testified they were getting weather faxes every hour.. seems like they completely ignored them.


----------



## casey1999

Capt.Mhack said:


> They sail at 11 kts in a hurricane.
> 
> Also testified they were getting weather faxes every hour.. seems like they completely ignored them.


Is that what there speed was under sail alone?

In any case, should be: "They sail at 11 kts *into* a hurricane".


----------



## rockDAWG

Just find out that Youtube has all the footage of the Hearing. So if anyone did not have a chance to watch the steaming of the hearing. Here is your opprotnity:

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.0.0.212373.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac.


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by PCP
> Maybe I stated it badly. I was referring what they had said themselves and was published previously in the press. I did not meant to say that when they sailed that they had not been informed about the Hurricane. What I meant to say is that they had not been aware of its importance till some hours before and some not even after that reunion. Barksdale says "Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having" .
> 
> His testimony is highly suspect.. others testified that the Captain didn't have a plan, he just said I know you were getting texts, there is a weather system, we will go east offshore - and then decide what to do. I and Bounty always made it.
> 
> That's it. "Don't worry" talk.
> 
> ...


I guess you did not understood what I have posted and said. The plan that seemed acceptable for the crew was presented by the Captain before the boat sailed away. This plan that was reported months ago by Barksdale was heard and confirmed by sources that did not belong to the Bounty's crew.

I don't think that the crew would be sailing out of of port with an Hurricane coming if the captain did not give them a pretty good idea that he knew what he was doing.

That was what Barksdale reported to the press months ago. This report and what the Captain said it was is intention to do and sailing plan was also reported independently by another credible witness, confirming what Barksdale said.

That has not to do with what he have done after while sailing. In fact he started doing what he had said he was going to do and then changed course. He did not explain to anybody why he was doing so.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> I totally agree with you.
> 
> Break out the margaritas


Every excuse will do!


----------



## casey1999

I have only watched a little of the CG investigation, and read most of the recaps here on SN. 

Most have commented the crew was inexperienced. 

I watched the testimony by the young lady (deck hand with 100 Ton license) and I was pretty impressed by her experience and how she delt calmly with the abandoning of the ship. I would not call her inexperienced. She also seems to be able to deal with mechanical issues quite well.

Did anyone see what her thoughts were on leaving port and trying to skirt Sandy?


----------



## Capt.Mhack

rockDAWG said:


> Just find out that Youtube has all the footage of the Hearing. So if anyone did not have a chance to watch the steaming of the hearing. Here is your opprotnity:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.0.0.212373.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac.


Perfect, now everyone can see for themselves what exactly was said!



PCP said:


> I guess you did not understood what I have posted and said. The plan that seemed acceptable for the crew was presented by the Captain before the boat sailed away. This plan that was reported months ago by Barksdale was heard and confirmed by sources that did not belong to the Bounty's crew.
> 
> I don't think that the crew would be sailing out of of port with an Hurricane coming if the captain did not give them a pretty good idea that he knew what he was doing.
> 
> That was what Barksdale reported to the press months ago. This report and what the Captain said it was is intention to do and sailing plan was also reported independently by another credible witness, confirming what Barksdale said.
> 
> That has not to do with what he have done after while sailing. In fact he started doing what he had said he was going to do and then changed course. He did not explain to anybody why he was doing so.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I don't think we are far apart on this. My point that hr made it seem like he had a plan in reality for some reason he just wanted to go and had no plan. Look at day 6 testimony from CM..



casey1999 said:


> I have only watched a little of the CG investigation, and read most of the recaps here on SN.
> 
> Most have commented the crew was inexperienced.
> 
> I watched the testimony by the young lady (deck hand with 100 Ton license) and I was pretty impressed by her experience and how she delt calmly with the abandoning of the ship. I would not call her inexperienced. She also seems to be able to deal with mechanical issues quite well.
> 
> Did anyone see what her thoughts were on leaving port and trying to skirt Sandy?


She was better than others but couldn't answer or didn't know some basic questions.


----------



## PCP

NCC320 said:


> As I understand it, the square riggers needed to run with the wind and generally couldn't beat into the wind very well. There have been numerous questions as to why Bounty went from a SE course to SW. A hurricane rotates counterclock wise. So initially, ship would have likely had winds from E or NE since it was ahead of the storm and to the west of the eye track. As the ship moved more east and south, eventually at some point it would be to the east of the eye track. At this point the winds would increasingly come from the SE, then S. So this would mean that ship was increasingly heading directly against the wind, which is an impossible situation for a square rigger. But if the ship could stay to the west of the eye track, the winds would increasingly come from NE, then N, which would be suitable for running before the wind on a SW course. So, unless he were to change to a more northerly course, the captain didn't have much choice except to turn SW. If the pumps had been pumping at their rated capacity, they still might have made it despite that they would have had to contend with the Gulf Stream, and the unique feature of this particular storm, wherein it was reported that the highest winds were in the SW quadrant. Once in this quadrant, the storm would be moving away from them after the eye passed to the east and north in any case.


Sometimes I am slow

If you are right about the wind direction and force I guess you nailed one of the things that have been discussed here at length and I only noticed now, I mean why the Captain did not manage to do what he said to the crew he was going to do before sailing.

If you are right he went SE as planned to give space to the hurricane to pass between him and land but soon discovered that the winds ahead of the Hurricane, frontal winds, were this time to strong to permit him to make any decent way. As you say these ships do not point well and the engines had not the power to make it against a strong wind and waves, not to mention that the ship should be pounding heavily.

So he went till where he thought it was possible and then with the ship not doing any significant speed and taking a lot of stress, decided to do the only thing he could, turn the boat to the better sailing position regarding the wind and waves, minimizing the stress on the boat and gaining speed.

That explains why nobody new very well to what course they were steering the ship: They were in survival mode and steering in a way to get the less possible stress on the boat, according with the wind and wave directions, vaguely SW.

Bad luck with the wind and wave direction forced them to those bad waters near that cape and even so they only capsized when the boat was full of water. The captain had put himself in a situation that he had no choice.

As NCC320 says, if the boat was in sound condition, not making so much water, if the pumps were working at their max rating speed, if they did not have lost and engine over an accident, if the crew was trained to serve the pups, if the set up of the pumps was correct, if they had a professional crew, they could have made it and even so it would be a risky situation that should be avoided at any cost by any Captain.

Just to see if NCC320 is right with this possibility: Has anybody any means to determine the overground speed the Bounty was making SE immediately before turning to SW?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## NCC320

PCP said:


> Just to see if NCC320 is right with this possibility: Has anybody any means to determine the overground speed the Bounty was making SE immediately before turning to SW?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Perhaps even more revealing would be a time plot of track with positions of the hurricane and the Bounty, with windspeed and direction at each ship position. Traditionally, these storms most often come ashore on the southeast coast of US (Florida, Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina) and lose much of their force in doing so before continuing north, either on-shore, or off -shore. But this storm was different, both in track and size. Bounty may have not yet reached the point to where it could no longer maintain a SE course before changing to SW...it could have been that the captain realized with additional weather reports that the storm was bigger than anticipated and that the track was holding more northerly at that point before turning west to go ashore. If so, then he may have realized what was going to happen regarding wind direction...i.e. on east side of track the winds would start shifting more to SE, S, and against direction of travel. Also, if ship could not gain sufficient eastward position, then the ship was going to be in the NE quadrant close to the eye, where winds are usually the highest...the most dangerous semicircle and dangerous quadrant. So perhaps better to change early and go for the SW before the situation got increasing worse, and making adjusting sails even more dangerous. Hurricanes are consistent in wind rotation (except for localized tornado action within the storm), and if ship got on the east side of the eye, then they would be increasingly against head winds on southerly course.


----------



## rockDAWG

Day 7 hearing from gCaptain just released.

Here is the short quote from gCaptain. He summarized well.

==================
Svendsen and Walbridge appeared to do all of the hiring of crew for the HMS Bounty Organization. Walbridge had decades at sea. Svendsen had worked tall ships prior to Bounty. The rest of the crew- so far it seems - had an experience base of one:

The third mate, Dan Cleveland (25), came aboard from a career in landscaping. Bounty was his first wooden tall ship.

The Bosun, Laura Groves (28), had experience on smaller boats in the Keys. Bounty was her first wooden tall ship.

Joshua Scornavacchi (25), was on his first wooden tall ship.

Second mate Matt Sanders (37) had worked on a series of ships, including the schooner Margaret Todd, but Bounty was (wait for it) his first wooden tall ship.

Testifying Wednesday morning was Anna Sprague (20); of course it was her first wooden tall ship.

Claudene Christian (42) , was on her first wooden tall ship.

When the new cook, Jessica Black (34), put on her immersion suit to abandon ship on the 29th of October, she had been aboard Bounty - her first wooden tall ship - for a grand total of 45 hours.

Walbridge and Svendsen had hired a crew - including several ships officers - who wouldn't know any better. When they were told that "a ship is safer at sea," and that "all wood boats leak*," they had to believe it. They had learned everything they knew about their jobs from their captain and from each other. *They were "professionally deficient" and didn't even know it.

(* - All wood boats may leak a little, but all wood boats do not require constant bilge pumping.)*

Walbridge often addressed his crew as "Future captains of America." They all speak of Bounty as a great place to learn and as a school where they would learn from the master, Robin Walbridge.

They were "honored to work for him." But there has been a theme in the testimony that "getting better" on Bounty was a substitute for good enough to begin with. The organization didn't seem to care how little you knew about your job - so long as you were willing to get better, everything was just fine. *The sea doesn't see it that way.*

Svendsen questioned Anna Sprague, the youngest Bounty survivor:

Svendsen: "Were you trained well on Bounty?"

Sprague: "Oh yes."

She was twenty years old and on the first boat she had ever known working for the only mariners she had ever worked for. *Honestly, how on earth would she know how well she was trained? *
====================

I hope these young men and women have learned their lesson how foolish and naive they were, and almost paid with their life.

Like I said that before. When you are in love (with Bounty and the Captain), You don't see the obvious. You tend to shunt away all the warning signs including those given by your parents and friends who love you dearly.

I spent most of the days listening to the hearing. Although I still have many questions, I am satisfied and able to find closure in this tragedy.

If I were the Captain and knowing that I had caused the sinking the Bounty, will I be man enough to face the court from the lawsuit and hell the I would have brought into my family? It would be an easy way out if I perish with Bounty. The family will move to a new chapter with the life insurance pay out.

I would imagine that the Captain had plenty time to think about his options.

RIP.


----------



## TakeFive

rockDAWG said:


> ...I hope these young men and women have learned their lesson how foolish and naive they were, and almost paid with their life...


I also hope they learned from this close call. But I don't blame them. You can't expect novices (including myself) to "know what they don't know." They're at the mercy of their mentors. It's the responsibility of the captain and other certified crew to guide them appropriately, and in this case they were failed by their ship's leaders. It seems like many of them were merely apprentices, but the boat was staffed in a way that expected them to perform as if they were fully qualified. The responsibility for that deficiency rests with the captain, for he is the one with experience and training to recognize the appropriate balance of experienced crew and apprentices. It was also the responsibility of the Foundation to provide him with adequate funding to hire people with the right level of qualifications, so IMO the Foundation shares blame with him. And if they lacked that funding, they should should have stayed in one place as the "dockside attraction" stated in their certification.

That being said, I am concerned about how some are using their 20-20 hindsight to point blame. Case in point: All those who point fingers because the hurricane was so "very accurately forecast" (to quote Jan Miles' letter). That's a sure sign of hindsight, since you don't know the forecast was accurate until after the fact. I'm not saying that Walbridge should have ignored the forecast. It was clearly arrogant of him to think he knew better than the forecasters with his apparent belief (based on the track that he steered) that the hurricane would continue out to sea on a northwest path.

I am appalled at Jan Miles' self-serving letter. Aside from feeding our never-ending curiosity and letting off some of his own inner rage, what good comes from an open letter to a dead man?

What I want to know is where were all these experts as Bounty was preparing to head out to sea? A place like New London must have had dozens of knowledgeable captains and crew roaming the docks to prepare their craft for the approaching hurricane. They should have been telling Walbridge that he's out of his mind to go out. They should have been doing everything they could to convince Bounty's novice crew to mutiny. A ship that large can't just sneak out of the harbor unseen. They should have hopped into dinghys and followed Bounty though the harbor, yelling through megaphones what a big mistake they were making.

Tall ship captains are a small community that apparently "talks" (voice, text, and digital) among themselves a lot. If any one of them heard about Walbridge's plan ahead of time and didn't forcefully try to convince him otherwise, then they have blood on their hands too.

What also bugs me is the apparent disconnect between Walbridge's arrogance that we hear about now, vs. the reports that he had a "great reputation" before this accident. Which is it? If this tragedy was foretold by his prior history of chasing hurricanes and getting away with it (including a prior USCG rescue when his bilge pumps failed previously), why weren't his "friends" in the tall ship community expressing their concerns to him about his reckless past history? If everyone knew the new planks were nailed onto a rotted frame, why weren't his "friends" ratting out this dangerous vessel? If the tall ship community knew that this "shoreside attraction" was skirting the rules by disguising unqualified passengers as qualified crew, why weren't they protecting their colleagues by reporting them to the authorities?

It seems now like everyone in that community is piling on with their hindsight about how reckless the captain was. Too bad they didn't do a little more piling on before two people lost their lives.


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> I also hope they learned from this close call. But I don't blame them. You can't expect novices (including myself) to "know what they don't know." They're at the mercy of their mentors. It's the responsibility of the captain and other certified crew to guide them appropriately, and in this case they were failed by their ship's leaders. It seems like many of them were merely apprentices, but the boat was staffed in a way that expected them to perform as if they were fully qualified. The responsibility for that deficiency rests with the captain, for he is the one with experience and training to recognize the appropriate balance of experienced crew and apprentices. It was also the responsibility of the Foundation to provide him with adequate funding to hire people with the right level of qualifications, so IMO the Foundation shares blame with him. And if they lacked that funding, they should should have stayed in one place as the "dockside attraction" stated in their certification.
> 
> That being said, I am concerned about how some are using their 20-20 hindsight to point blame. Case in point: All those who point fingers because the hurricane was so "very accurately forecast" (to quote Jan Miles' letter). That's a sure sign of hindsight, since you don't know the forecast was accurate until after the fact. I'm not saying that Walbridge should have ignored the forecast. It was clearly arrogant of him to think he knew better than the forecasters with his apparent belief (based on the track that he steered) that the hurricane would continue out to sea on a northwest path.
> 
> I am appalled at Jan Miles' self-serving letter. Aside from feeding our never-ending curiosity and letting off some of his own inner rage, what good comes from an open letter to a dead man?
> 
> What I want to know is where were all these experts as Bounty was preparing to head out to sea? A place like New London must have had dozens of knowledgeable captains and crew roaming the docks to prepare their craft for the approaching hurricane. They should have been telling Walbridge that he's out of his mind to go out. They should have been doing everything they could to convince Bounty's novice crew to mutiny. A ship that large can't just sneak out of the harbor unseen. They should have hopped into dinghys and followed Bounty though the harbor, yelling through megaphones what a big mistake they were making.
> 
> Tall ship captains are a small community that apparently "talks" (voice, text, and digital) among themselves a lot. If any one of them heard about Walbridge's plan ahead of time and didn't forcefully try to convince him otherwise, then they have blood on their hands too.
> 
> What also bugs me is the apparent disconnect between Walbridge's arrogance that we hear about now, vs. the reports that he had a "great reputation" before this accident. Which is it? If this tragedy was foretold by his prior history of chasing hurricanes and getting away with it (including a prior USCG rescue when his bilge pumps failed previously), why weren't his "friends" in the tall ship community expressing their concerns to him about his reckless past history? If everyone knew the new planks were nailed onto a rotted frame, why weren't his "friends" ratting out this dangerous vessel? If the tall ship community knew that this "shoreside attraction" was skirting the rules by disguising unqualified passengers as qualified crew, why weren't they protecting their colleagues by reporting them to the authorities?
> 
> It seems now like everyone in that community is piling on with their hindsight about how reckless the captain was. Too bad they didn't do a little more piling on before two people lost their lives.


All things aside as far as the Captain which most of us have determined bears the brunt of this looking at some of the tangential issues like these two. The first is a personal observation, and the second may have bearing on the actual cause of the excessive leaking in the vessel.

I must say I have to agree with you about Captain Jan Miles statement He reminded me of the man who always said greeted you at a party called you his friend, and then when you werent around talked about you in negative terms. If he knew of the deficiecies aboard the Bounty but he turned a blind eye to them, and then complains about them, my question is where were you?. If he knew the "dockside atraction" was unseaworthy" but failed to noitify even others in the TS community, what kind of organization does he belong too. Maybe it was jealousy on his part as the Bounty was clearly the main atttraction at the gatherings and had to play second fiddle to a Captain who when finally dead he could unload on. he surley wasnt his friend. I lost respect for this man and would never sail on any of his boats. He is the ultimate Monday morning quarterback, with an art of turning the spotlighht on himself to issue is letter to the dead Captain. It was a major grandstand stunt.

I am still sorting through the testimony and have great issue with the Boothbay Shipyard taking money from a person and nailing good planks on rotten substructure and pronouncing fit to sail away. The same rotten substructure they had repaired only a few years earlier, At a certain point you cant keep adding omn to a poor steucture, and someone should call a halt or even blow the whistle that its unsafe. Of course that would mean a loss of revenue for Boothbay and that may drive this also. I know their previous reputation from others her was that this place was a fine place. However further research into the Shipyard shows them loosing a civil law case of poor workmanship, repair and materials in the fixing another tall ship during the same time period the Shenendoah. I am still researching, No mention in tesimony of a catastrophic coccurance like someone saw the planking on the hull pull apart or a joint egde come apart will make fixing any responsibility on them next to impossible inless someone broings her up and finds her that way. Harly likely.


----------



## Minnewaska

It's a sensitive topic, so I don't want to debate my views on the Captain with this reply. They are well documented above.

I do understand the TS community's reaction after the fact. Before, it was not their responsibility. Although, it sure may have saved lives if they had taken it on. Now, however, I'm sure they feel they will be held accountable for these reckless actions they would have never undertaken themselves. I think that is exactly what will happen. I understand their indignation.



> What also bugs me is the apparent disconnect between Walbridge's arrogance that we hear about now, vs. the reports that he had a "great reputation" before this accident. Which is it?


These don't seem mutually exclusive at all. The culture he presided over seemed to be very nurturing, but he also seemed to exaggerate his own abilities, which is the definition of arrogant.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

TakeFive said:


> I also hope they learned from this close call.


A "close call"?

A woman DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLOSE CALL?????????????????????????????????????????

DEATH IS A CLOSE CALL??????????????


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> ...
> 
> ... ..
> 
> What I want to know is where were all these experts as Bounty was preparing to head out to sea? A place like New London must have had dozens of knowledgeable captains and crew roaming the docks to prepare their craft for the approaching hurricane. They should have been telling Walbridge that he's out of his mind to go out. They should have been doing everything they could to convince Bounty's novice crew to mutiny. A ship that large can't just sneak out of the harbor unseen. They should have hopped into dinghys and followed Bounty though the harbor, yelling through megaphones what a big mistake they were making.
> 
> Tall ship captains are a small community that apparently "talks" (voice, text, and digital) among themselves a lot. If any one of them heard about Walbridge's plan ahead of time and didn't forcefully try to convince him otherwise, then they have blood on their hands too.
> ....
> It seems now like everyone in that community is piling on with their hindsight about how reckless the captain was. Too bad they didn't do a little more piling on before two people lost their lives.


Captains are very independent and no subject to other authority than their boss or the CG and even so I am sure they intervene the lesser they can. Captains have a huge responsibility and to that responsibility corresponds a huge discretionary power of decision. It is supposed that they are able to exercise it with good judgement. The level of autonomy that their work demands makes that authority necessary.

I am quite sure that Captains respect that independence of judgment among them. Each know their ship, their crew and he is the only one responsible for taking decisions. Intervening with the decisions of other Captains is a thing I don't think they will do. They can think that another Captain is taking wrong decisions, they can even say so, as it was the case with the Captain of the Picton Castle, but they will respect the autonomy of other captain and will give him the benefit of the doubt...at least till the moment it is obvious that the decision was very wrong and had tragic consequences.

The only ones that seem to me had the authority to prevent Walbridge to sail was the CG but even for that they had to have a strong motive. They had not inspected the ship (it was not required due to the Ship classification) and therefore ignored if the ship was sound and with all systems operational and even if the crew was well qualified or not (they had no way of demanding or inspecting that).

Finally, nobody, except the crew know that wallbridge intended to sail the Hurricane and not looking for shelter on one of the nearby Ports.

I don't like also that open letter to a dead man, but that is another story.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

MarkofSeaLife said:


> A "close call"?
> 
> A woman DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> CLOSE CALL?????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> DEATH IS A CLOSE CALL??????????????


Chill out, dude. I was referring to the survivors. You know, the ones that didn't die. It was a close call for them. I think that's pretty obvious.

The two who died did not learn anything.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> ..Finally, nobody, except the crew know that wallbridge intended to sail the Hurricane and not looking for shelter on one of the nearby Ports...


How do you know that? I haven't heard that in the testimony. Please cite your source.


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> How do you know that? I haven't heard that in the testimony. *Please cite your source*.


Jesus, again

The Captain called the crew, said to them what he want to do, give them half an hour to decide and after that they sailed away. How many Tall ship Captains do you think had notice of that before he sailed away?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> Jesus, again
> 
> The Captain called the crew, said to them what he want to do, give them half an hour to decide and after that they sailed away. How many Tall ship Captains do you think had notice of that before he sailed away?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, it's been stated already here - without any disagreement - that "Bounty" was classed as a *private yacht*:



Capt.Mhack said:


> No it was not inspected and registered as a private yacht.
> They even subverted the tonnage rules to get (less) 250GT certification to avoid some of the rules.
> ....
> They subverted the system to register as a private yacht.


Can you *please* stop comparing the decisions of the late captain of the "Bounty" with the captains of "real" (ie. qualified & certified) Tall Ships??.. It simply is not fair to do so.

Thanks.


----------



## Minnewaska

Hartley18 said:


> ...Can you *please* stop comparing the decisions of the late captain of the "Bounty" with the captains of "real" (ie. qualified & certified) Tall Ships??.. It simply is not fair to do so....


You make a very good point on the technical distinction. However, I think the outcome is going to either ignore it or keep it from continuing.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> The Captain called the crew, said to them what he want to do, give them half an hour to decide and after that they sailed away. How many Tall ship Captains do you think had notice of that before he sailed away?


Some of the versions say it was more than a half hour. But it's irrelevant anyway. The reports are saying the the crew were texting and emailing friends and family, so even if it was thirty minutes there was enough time for the message to get out.

And even if no captains heard about it before he left, there may have still been over a day to contact the ship using the various technology options available (VHF, cell phone if close to shore, etc.) to try to talk some sense into the guy. It wasn't a secret that they were out there - the blogs were all atwitter about the fact that he had gone out.

All I'm suggesting is that it's really disingenuous of all the "experts" to have waited until after he died to express their rage at him. Sending an open letter to a dead man is a lot less effective than contacting him while he's still alive. Maybe somebody will think of that next time someone makes an obviously idiotic decision.

Maybe some of this "independence" that you referred to is actually part of a culture problem in the broader community of captains. I don't deny that it's there - but that doesn't mean it should not change. Kicking your old friend when he's down at the bottom of the ocean is not the way to help him.


----------



## PCP

Interesting stuff at GCaptain by Mario Vittone

*"At the start of each day of the hearings, Commander Kevin Carroll does the same thing: he reads a statement. He tells all in attendance, "The purpose of the investigation is to determine the cause of the casualty and the responsibility therefore to the fullest extent possible; and to obtain information for the purpose of preventing or reducing the effects of similar casualties in the future." A worthy purpose, to be sure. ... But then he says something that some may have missed:

"This investigation is also intended to determine whether there is any evidence of any incompetence, misconduct, or willful violation of the law on the part of any licensed officer, pilot, seaman, employee, owner, or agent of the owner of any vessel involved&#8230;"

The hearings are also intended to look for evidence of negligence or incompetence.

"Evidence of any incompetence" of a licensed captain would not come by asking questions of the crew that worked beneath him. They had never been in his position, they didn't know what he knew or what he should have known. They simply believed and admired the man and trusted his decisions. To determine whether or not the trip itself was evidence of incompetence or negligence, Carroll had to find similarly credentialed and experienced captains to testify. He needed to ask them to put themselves in Walbridge's place, and say what they would have done. He needed to speak with the best....

On the phone was Captain Daniel Moreland, arguably the most respected captain in the traditional sailing ship community. Moreland was calling in to testify from Tahiti. His ship, the Picton Castle, is on a six month voyage in the South Pacific. Moreland has taken the barque around the world five times since he's been captain. His personal sailing experience started in the 1970′s. He is without question one of the most competent sailing ship masters in the world. When Carroll asked what his thoughts were when he found out Bounty was at sea from New London, Moreland's response was no surprise:

Moreland: "I couldn't believe it. I still don't."

At the time Sandy was tracking up the Atlantic, the Picton Castle was scheduled to leave home port for the world cruise she was now on. Moreland had cancelled because of the storm days before Bounty had left New London. He went on to discuss the much safer options available to Walbridge if he thought New London was unsafe due to storm surge. "New Bedford - up above the bridge," Moreland offered. New Bedford, 100 miles to the north of New London, has a "hurricane barrier" specifically designed as a hiding place for ships that need to avoid storm surge.

When asked by Carroll if he believed that a ship is "safer at sea," Moreland discussed the difference between a Navy vessel that had the ability to move at 22 knots and be 400 miles from the storm, and a slow-moving historic sailing vessel. "&#8230;and the Navy is paid to take that risk so that they can respond if needed for war&#8230;but between the ship and crew, you always have to go with what is safer for the crew."

Moreland made it clear to investigators that he would not have made the same choice as Walbridge if put in that situation. In fact, he was in the same situation and hadn't. The primary difference between Walbridge's choice to leave and Moreland's to stay, was that Picton Castle was larger, made of steel, rigorously inspected, and prepared for a global voyage. If Moreland wasn't thinking about leaving port in late October - what was Walbridge thinking? Only the HMS Bounty Organization's attorney had the nerve to ask:

Moreland: "I can't imagine what he was thinking."

There were no further questions from the Bounty Organization.

Ralph Mellusi, the attorney for the estate of Claudene Christian, wanted more specific testimony:

Mellusi: "What if the bilge system of your ship wasn't in perfect working order and in fact your crew had told you they were concerned that it wasn't working properly; would you have taken the ship to sea in those conditions?"

Moreland: "That would be unconscionable on a good day."

Investigators interviewed two more captains of tall ships, including the captain of the Pride of Baltimore II , Jan Miles. Captain Miles, also a well-respected captain and a friend of Robin Walbridge, was so dismayed by his decision to sail into Sandy's path that he wrote an open letter to Walbridge calling his decision to sail "reckless in the extreme." He too told Carroll he wouldn't have sailed, and that a ship wasn't safer at sea, adding "I don't know what would have caused her [Bounty] to go." His responses to Mellusi's questions were chilling. Mellusi simply read the most damning passages from Miles' letter and asked the wooden tall ship captain, "Do you still stand by that statement." Without hesitation, Captain Miles answered with only one firm word, "Yes."

The masters had given no quarter to the deceased Walbridge. Leaving New London on October 25th and sailing toward hurricane Sandy was - in itself - negligent. No competent sailing captain would have done it.

But Robin Walbridge had competently sailed Bounty for seventeen years. Why, indeed, would he do something that no other captain would have done? The investigation continues; Commander Carroll has a massive job still ahead of him.

But perhaps Robin Walbridge was suffering from the same thing his crew was - a lack of the right kind of experience. He had faced down storms before and won, he had tangled with hurricanes and made it home, his experience was that if he headed into harm's way, he would get away with it.

He had clearly confused the lack of failure with success, and may have begun to truly believe his own advice. Maybe it was something else, I don't know. Robin Walbridge, the last captain of Bounty, isn't here to ask".

*

Well, nothing that it was not said in this thread long ago, but interesting stuff even so.

....


----------



## Classic30

PCP said:


> Well, nothing that it was not said in this thread long ago, but interesting stuff even so.
> ....


Yes, indeed it is. 

I feel sorry for those captains being dragged into this.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Interesting stuff at GCaptain by Mario Vittone
> 
> *"At the start of each day of the hearings, Commander Kevin Carroll does the same thing: he reads a statement. He tells all in attendance, "The purpose of the investigation is to determine the cause of the casualty and the responsibility therefore to the fullest extent possible; and to obtain information for the purpose of preventing or reducing the effects of similar casualties in the future." A worthy purpose, to be sure.  ... But then he says something that some may have missed:
> 
> "This investigation is also intended to determine whether there is any evidence of any incompetence, misconduct, or willful violation of the law on the part of any licensed officer, pilot, seaman, employee, owner, or agent of the owner of any vessel involved&#8230;"
> 
> The hearings are also intended to look for evidence of negligence or incompetence.
> 
> "Evidence of any incompetence" of a licensed captain would not come by asking questions of the crew that worked beneath him. They had never been in his position, they didn't know what he knew or what he should have known. They simply believed and admired the man and trusted his decisions. To determine whether or not the trip itself was evidence of incompetence or negligence, Carroll had to find similarly credentialed and experienced captains to testify. He needed to ask them to put themselves in Walbridge's place, and say what they would have done. He needed to speak with the best....
> 
> On the phone was Captain Daniel Moreland, arguably the most respected captain in the traditional sailing ship community. Moreland was calling in to testify from Tahiti. His ship, the Picton Castle, is on a six month voyage in the South Pacific. Moreland has taken the barque around the world five times since he's been captain. His personal sailing experience started in the 1970′s. He is without question one of the most competent sailing ship masters in the world. When Carroll asked what his thoughts were when he found out Bounty was at sea from New London, Moreland's response was no surprise:
> 
> Moreland: "I couldn't believe it. I still don't."
> 
> At the time Sandy was tracking up the Atlantic, the Picton Castle was scheduled to leave home port for the world cruise she was now on. Moreland had cancelled because of the storm days before Bounty had left New London. He went on to discuss the much safer options available to Walbridge if he thought New London was unsafe due to storm surge. "New Bedford - up above the bridge," Moreland offered. New Bedford, 100 miles to the north of New London, has a "hurricane barrier" specifically designed as a hiding place for ships that need to avoid storm surge.
> 
> When asked by Carroll if he believed that a ship is "safer at sea," Moreland discussed the difference between a Navy vessel that had the ability to move at 22 knots and be 400 miles from the storm, and a slow-moving historic sailing vessel. "&#8230;and the Navy is paid to take that risk so that they can respond if needed for war&#8230;but between the ship and crew, you always have to go with what is safer for the crew."
> 
> Moreland made it clear to investigators that he would not have made the same choice as Walbridge if put in that situation. In fact, he was in the same situation and hadn't. The primary difference between Walbridge's choice to leave and Moreland's to stay, was that Picton Castle was larger, made of steel, rigorously inspected, and prepared for a global voyage. If Moreland wasn't thinking about leaving port in late October - what was Walbridge thinking? Only the HMS Bounty Organization's attorney had the nerve to ask:
> 
> Moreland: "I can't imagine what he was thinking."
> 
> There were no further questions from the Bounty Organization.
> 
> Ralph Mellusi, the attorney for the estate of Claudene Christian, wanted more specific testimony:
> 
> Mellusi: "What if the bilge system of your ship wasn't in perfect working order and in fact your crew had told you they were concerned that it wasn't working properly; would you have taken the ship to sea in those conditions?"
> 
> Moreland: "That would be unconscionable on a good day."
> 
> Investigators interviewed two more captains of tall ships, including the captain of the Pride of Baltimore II , Jan Miles. Captain Miles, also a well-respected captain and a friend of Robin Walbridge, was so dismayed by his decision to sail into Sandy's path that he wrote an open letter to Walbridge calling his decision to sail "reckless in the extreme." He too told Carroll he wouldn't have sailed, and that a ship wasn't safer at sea, adding "I don't know what would have caused her [Bounty] to go." His responses to Mellusi's questions were chilling. Mellusi simply read the most damning passages from Miles' letter and asked the wooden tall ship captain, "Do you still stand by that statement." Without hesitation, Captain Miles answered with only one firm word, "Yes."
> 
> The masters had given no quarter to the deceased Walbridge. Leaving New London on October 25th and sailing toward hurricane Sandy was - in itself - negligent. No competent sailing captain would have done it.
> 
> But Robin Walbridge had competently sailed Bounty for seventeen years. Why, indeed, would he do something that no other captain would have done? The investigation continues; Commander Carroll has a massive job still ahead of him.
> 
> But perhaps Robin Walbridge was suffering from the same thing his crew was - a lack of the right kind of experience. He had faced down storms before and won, he had tangled with hurricanes and made it home, his experience was that if he headed into harm's way, he would get away with it.
> 
> He had clearly confused the lack of failure with success, and may have begun to truly believe his own advice. Maybe it was something else, I don't know. Robin Walbridge, the last captain of Bounty, isn't here to ask".
> 
> *
> 
> Well, nothing that it was not said in this thread long ago, but interesting stuff even so.
> 
> ....


All supporting Take Fives point about having great hindsight. 20/20 vison on events occuring.

At the time they had their " Oh my god moments and since one proclaimed to even be his "friend" ( Jan Miles) and they didnt even pick up the phone/ VHF/ e mail/SSB to warn or even question their friend. Nope they didnt think to do that at all.

They are just worried about how this affects them and had no other conecrn in this matter than that. Thats OK too. But these guys saints till they F Up too.

Imagine a public letter of indignation and ridicule addressed to a dead man. That indisputably was all for public show. I hope some day since I live in Baltimore to see him as the Pride of Baltimore is often docked at Inner Harbor and there are functions. I will say that to his face. I have already written and sent a letter to him about his public self serving display to bring attention to himself.

Nopne of this exonerates Walbridge in any way.


----------



## davidpm

chef2sail said:


> Imagine a public letter of indignation and ridicule addressed to a dead man. That indisputably was all for public show. I hope some day since I live in Baltimore to see him as the Pride of Baltimore is often docked at Inner Harbor and there are functions. I will say that to his face. I have already written and sent a letter to him about his public self serving display to bring attention to himself.


He may have sent the letter to be self serving, I don't know him. It certainly doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to do.
Different people respond to grief differently however. For example it is a very common emotion to have anger even rage for a loved one who has died. It's not logical but understandable. We feel frustrated, hurt angered by a loss especially if it was the result of an accident that in hind site could have been avoided. We often start doing what if's. What if we had called, what if we had picked up the milk ourself, what if we had insisted they go to the doctor. Of course then we feel guilty for being angry at the person who died.
If this person was a good friend of Robin's it is possible that the letter was the result of grief and maybe even some pangs of conscience that he didn't do anything to stop Robin himself.
In any event he may even regret sending the letter but we all can do things we wish we didn't do in the grip of emotion.


----------



## Classic30

chef2sail said:


> ......
> Imagine a public letter of indignation and ridicule addressed to a dead man. That indisputably was all for public show. I hope some day since I live in Baltimore to see him as the Pride of Baltimore is often docked at Inner Harbor and there are functions. I will say that to his face. I have already written and sent a letter to him about his public self serving display to bring attention to himself.


Like I said already:



Hartley18 said:


> I feel sorry for those captains being dragged into this.


It's a no-win situation that certainly isn't going to help their business prospects other than to attract visitors interested, not in their ship and the sailing experience, but only in asking personal questions about a old collegue of theirs whose ship sank in a storm...


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> All supporting Take Fives point about having great hindsight. 20/20 vison on events occuring.
> 
> ..


Dave, the Picton Castle Captain manifested his disbelief for Bounty's Captain has soon as he knew he had sailed out of port and way before the boat sunk.

He showed disagreement but that does not mean he does not respect Wallbridge autonomy as Captain. It was not his right to tell him what to do even if he knew that he was sailing an Hurricane. Anyway Wallbrige didn't look for advise near any other tall ship Captains regarding his option and when they took knowledge was to late to even for them to try to change his mind.

Regarding the 20/20 insight, he may even have survived with his ship but taking an old XVIII century designed wooden boat in bad shape with an inexperienced crew to really extreme weather was by all counts gambling with the crew lives and regarding that I guess that we could even have a 100/100 certainty, no insight here.

Gambling with the lives of the crew, or in his own words "taking calculated risks" is a wrong thing, a thing a Captain has no right to do. If he had got away with it one more time, it would not make it less wrong.

We heard repeatedly people from the Tall ship community saying that the talk was that the Bounty was in bad shape and that had an inexperienced crew. I guess that other Tall ship Captains would have a better knowledge about that than sailors.

As I have said before, I didn't like that open letter to a dead man even if I agree with the general content, but not with the form. It is even more chocking to me because he claims he was a wallbridge's friend. I dispense that kind of friends

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> ...It was not his right to tell him what to do even if he knew that he was sailing an Hurricane...


I disagree 100%. In this country, he would absolutely have the right to tell him whatever he wants. We do have something called the First Amendment here, and this falls well within that right.



PCP said:


> ...We heard repeatedly people from the Tall ship community saying that the talk was that the Bounty was in bad shape...


If there really was such talk in advance of this accident, and there was no resulting action (such as strong negative peer pressure) among the tall ship community, then there is a case to be made that there is a poor safety culture that pervades the entire tall ship community. It could be argued that they deserve any negative consequences (increased regulations, etc.) that come out of this investigation.

If on the other hand there was such strong peer pressure, and the Bounty leadership refused to listen, then the tall ship community may have done all they could. But where is the evidence that this peer pressure took place? I have not heard about in any of the testimony.


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Dave, the Picton Castle Captain manifested his disbelief for Bounty's Captain has soon as he knew he had sailed out of port and way before the boat sunk.
> 
> He showed disagreement but that does not mean he does not respect Wallbridge autonomy as Captain. It was not his right to tell him what to do even if he knew that he was sailing an Hurricane. Anyway Wallbrige didn't look for advise near any other tall ship Captains regarding his option and when they took knowledge was to late to even for them to try to change his mind.
> 
> Regarding the 20/20 insight, he may even have survived with his ship but taking an old XVIII century designed wooden boat in bad shape with an inexperienced crew to really extreme weather was by all counts gambling with the crew lives and regarding that I guess that we could even have a 100/100 certainty, no insight here.
> 
> Gambling with the lives of the crew, or in his own words "taking calculated risks" is a wrong thing, a thing a Captain has no right to do. If he had got away with it one more time, it would not make it less wrong.
> 
> We heard repeatedly people from the Tall ship community saying that the talk was that the Bounty was in bad shape and that had an inexperienced crew. I guess that other Tall ship Captains would have a better knowledge about that than sailors.
> 
> As I have said before, I didn't like that open letter to a dead man even if I agree with the general content, but not with the form. It is even more chocking to me because he claims he was a wallbridge's friend. I dispense that kind of friends
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I understand how you feel about the letter to the dead captain by Jan Miles and it is the same as mine. And again the issue we are not talking about is whether Walbridge was right or wrong or irrespsonsible that has been determined. Its the Johnny come lately attiitude of the Tall Ship Captains.

So heres the question. Paulo, You have kept you boat in marina/ city for 8 years. You race every Wednesday night, go out and eat with the Salboat captains and get to know them fairly well. You go to marinia, club meetings regularly together and get to see each other quite a bit over the 8 years. Your crews intermingle and know each other too. You spend a lot of time together and one or two become even closer friends who you socialize with a lot. He owns the oldest boat in ther marina, has a rookie crew every year, fixes things with bailing wire and rope because he doesnt have the money to keep his boat up like you do. Everytimne you race he breaks down or breaks something, but he patches it up and makes every race. You have his e mail address and cell phone.

You know he is planning a trip to England. In your mind you are suspect he will not break down along the way even in the best of weather as that has meen his MO, and you arent sure when hes leaving. A huge storm developes over 1000 miles away in England and looks but looks like it might travel to Portugal and brush your marina so you decide to make sure you boat is tied up well, While doing this you find out he has left for England that very night. You are afraid for his life , his crew, and his ship surviving this storm

What would you do?


----------



## PCP

TakeFive said:


> ....
> If there really was such talk in advance of this accident, and there was no resulting action (such as strong negative peer pressure) among the tall ship community, then there is a case to be made t*hat there is a poor safety culture* that pervades the entire tall ship community. It could be argued that they deserve any negative consequences (increased regulations, etc.) that come out of this investigation.
> 
> If on the other hand there was such strong peer pressure, and the Bounty leadership refused to listen, then the tall ship community may have done all they could. But where is the evidence that this peer pressure took place? I have not heard about in any of the testimony.


I agree with that but not specifically in what regards the Tall Ship community. Comparing with Europe and in what regards private yachts America has a poor safety culture, I mean one that is mandatory, enforced and inspected. For what was said in this thread by members of the TSC that poor safety culture is not generalized and it seems that ships and boats like the Bounty are more a exception than a rule.

It is not to the Tall Ship Community that has the power to make the rules regarding safety and mandatory inspections but the Coast Guard. Yes I consider that the Coast Guard is also to blame in all this affair.

Allowing a ship like the Bounty to be classified as a simple Yacht and that way escape mandatory serious inspections and safety requirements is entirely on the Coats Guard. They did not need this accident to have made a recommendation for an alteration of the law. It was obvious that it was unsafe to allow big Tall ships to be considered as yachts.

A sensible regulation in what regards Tall ships should already exist and if it is a sensible, well made one it will be also in the interest of the Tall Ship Community. It can prevent more accidents like the one on the Bounty and contribute to a more generalized safety culture.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> So heres the question. Paulo, You have kept you boat in marina/ city for 8 years. You race every Wednesday night, go out and eat with the Salboat captains and get to know them fairly well. You go to marinia, club meetings regularly together and get to see each other quite a bit over the 8 years. Your crews intermingle and know each other too. You spend a lot of time together and one or two become even closer friends who you socialize with a lot. He owns the oldest boat in ther marina, has a rookie crew every year, fixes things with bailing wire and rope because he doesnt have the money to keep his boat up like you do. Everytimne you race he breaks down or breaks something, but he patches it up and makes every race. You have his e mail address and cell phone.
> 
> You know he is planning a trip to England. In your mind you are suspect he will not break down along the way even in the best of weather as that has meen his MO, and you arent sure when hes leaving. A huge storm developes over 1000 miles away in England and looks but looks like it might travel to Portugal and brush your marina so you decide to make sure you boat is tied up well, While doing this you find out he has left for England that very night. You are afraid for his life , his crew, and his ship surviving this storm
> 
> What would you do?


Well, in fact something similar had happened to me. Long ago a very good sailor that was circumnavigating solo without engine on a small 30ft boat stayed in Peniche for some weeks and we socialized a lot. He left on the winter to Madeira and I was not sure it was the right thing to do. A big storm come in and I called to Madeira Port Captaincy to tell them I was afraid regarding my friend. They say they would be watching and in the same day through Peniche Port Captaincy I received this message: "Thanks Paulo, fantastic voyage. I arrived yesterday"

Today with Eperb technology and knowing he had an Epirb and a Satellite phone, I would not have to warn nobody. I would just call to be sure he had made it in safety.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Well, in fact something similar had happened to me. Long ago a very good sailor that was circumnavigating solo without engine on a small 30ft boat stayed in Peniche for some weeks and we socialized a lot. He left on the winter to Madeira and I was not sure it was the right thing to do. A big storm come in and I called to Madeira Port Captaincy to tell them I was afraid regarding my friend. They say they would be watching and in the same day through Peniche Port Captaincy I received this message: "Thanks Paulo, fantastic voyage. I arrived yesterday"
> 
> Today with Eperby technology and knowing he had an Epirb and a Satellite phone, I would not have to warn nobody. I would just call to be sure he had made it in safety.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Somehow I knew you wouldnt be the fellow to just sit idly by and would have concern enough to check on him or alert someone. These Captains just sat and did nothing...nothing at all. No call, no e mail, no ssb message to him even warning him like a good friend might do, whether he listened to them or not. No attempt. No attempt to even tell him the updated hurricane had decided to hit NE or NY or NJ. No attempt at anything. And they were his friends and collegues. With friends like that...who needs em.

But they surely made certain they got in the press by drawing attention to their pontificated opinions the next day.



> Different people respond to grief differently however- DavidPM


As far as Jan Miles letter being one of his grief, read it over,,,hard to beleive that theory. And a public letter? Not buying it.


----------



## TakeFive

PCP said:


> I agree with that but not specifically in what regards the Tall Ship community. Comparing with Europe and in what regards private yachts America has a poor safety culture, I mean one that is mandatory, enforced and inspected....It is not to the Tall Ship Community that has the power to make the rules regarding safety and mandatory inspections but the Coast Guard. Yes I consider that the Coast Guard is also to blame in all this affair....


Maybe it's a language translation issue, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "culture" as we yankees have used it. It is totally separate from regulation. A safety culture is a set of attitudes and practices that go beyond the mandatory regulations. Indeed, various groups (like the Tall Ship community) will often argue that increased regulation is not needed because their "culture" provides adequate self-policing. Just wait until there are some increased regulations proposed - I guarantee that you'll hear these arguments starting to be made.



PCP said:


> ...Allowing a ship like the Bounty to be classified as a simple Yacht and that way escape mandatory serious inspections and safety requirements is entirely on the Coats Guard. They did not need this accident to have made a recommendation for an alteration of the law. It was obvious that it was unsafe to allow big Tall ships to be considered as yachts...


I think the blame is shared with the Tall Ship Community. If what you've said is true and it was known that the ship was in bad shape, they had lots of ways to apply strong peer pressure. It seems like most Associations that sponsor races and other competitions have minimum safety rules that must be followed, including design criteria that ensure seaworthiness. What about the Tall Ships Challenge? If everybody knew what bad shape this boat was in, and that they were skirting the rules, why was Bounty admitted by the event organizers?

Hell, they even promoted the boat as accepting "students and groups of all ages." 

Now try to tell me that the Tall Ship community isn't complicit in this disaster. This it not all the Coast Guard's fault.


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> Maybe it's a language translation issue, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "culture" as we yankees have used it. It is totally separate from regulation. A safety culture is a set of attitudes and practices that go beyond the mandatory regulations. Indeed, various groups (like the Tall Ship community) will often argue that increased regulation is not needed because their "culture" provides adequate self-policing. Just wait until there are some increased regulations proposed - I guarantee that you'll hear theses argument starting to be made.
> 
> I think the blame is shared with the Tall Ship Community. If what you've said is true and it was known that the ship was in bad shape, they had lots of ways to apply strong peer pressure. It seems like most Associations that sponsor races and other competitions have minimum safety rules that must be followed, including design criteria that ensure seaworthiness. What a ( "]Tall Ships Challenge[/URL]? If everybody knew what bad shape this boat was in, and that they were skirting the rules, why was Bounty admitted by the event organizers?
> 
> Hell, they even promoted the boat as accepting "students and groups of all ages."
> 
> Now try to tell me that the Tall Ship community isn't complicit in this disaster. This it not all the Coast Guard's fault.


Wow, So the TS sponsored and included the Bounty as a participant inalong with the Captains of the vessels Pitcarin Castle and Pride of Baltimore in 2009,2010,2011,and 2012. The knew the Bounty had substandard maintainence and safety and they still allowed them to participate. Hell they even promoted them in their literature.

They in fact promoted in their own literture that they had some kind of safty inspection


> Safety at sea is critical and *each participating sailing vessel has been inspected and certified for its intended use* either by a national maritime authority (the Coast Guard in the US) or by an internationally-endorsed society. *At the beginning of the season, the safety equipment on each vessel is double-checked by the TALL SHIPS CHALLENGE® Race Committee and any discrepancies are remedied prior to the first race*.


http://www.sailtraining.org/tallships/index.php

How now can the Captains of these vessels claim they knew all along that the BOUnty was suspect when in fact the were part of the organization which helped validated them certified to participate in the TS Challenege.

Had someone from the TS organization raised an alarm back in 2009,2010, 2011 or 2012 about the vessels seaworthiness dont you think the CG would have had a look at it even though private vessels are not required to be liscenced. Why the TS were not silent but actually complicit in fooing the people the Bounty was seaworthy.

Jan Miles Letter on Facebook damning the on month dead Captain
https://www.facebook.com/notes/jan-...ss-approach-of-sailing-vessel/174315806048123

Another ancillary part of the saga to add to the Boothbay Shipyard in the conclusions
Dave


----------



## Minnewaska

While some input from the TS community was in poor taste, I do not assign responsibility to them. I'm not even sure they falsely advertised Bounty, as it was inspected, just not to commercial standards for carrying paying passengers.

Wasn't the Coast Guard actually aboard Bounty many times for inspections? There is a link above to dozens of them. They may have been limited in nature, but obviously the hulk passed the rules as they were (and are unlikely to remain). Who was the TSC going to tip off? I'm also not buying that peer pressure would have made a bit of difference either. This was an independently owned vessel, registered as a private yacht. It had to be pretty clear to the professional community that this operation was always trying to skirt the rules and there seemed to be no official violation after years of USCG involvement. It may have been a perfectly safe dockside attraction or fair weather Bay cruiser, how could they know that level of detail. This was simply a dereliction of duty to take this hulk on a passage beyond its capability and the TS community, along with everyone else, was unaware of that decision until it was too late.

I'm not defending the poor taste of the open letter, but none of this disaster should be at the TSC doorstep either. What I find most interesting is that I'm not aware that all the actions of the TS community are even in evidence, or ever will be, and those most insistent on official investigation evidence have been willing to overlook that requirement in this case. Do we know that no member of the TSC ever confronted the skipper or the owner?


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> While some input from the TS community was in poor taste, I do not assign responsibility to them. I'm not even sure they falsely advertised Bounty, as it was inspected, just not to commercial standards for carrying paying passengers.
> 
> Wasn't the Coast Guard actually aboard Bounty many times for inspections? There is a link above to dozens of them. They may have been limited in nature, but obviously the hulk passed the rules as they were (and are unlikely to remain). Who was the TSC going to tip off? I'm also not buying that peer pressure would have made a bit of difference either. This was an independently owned vessel, registered as a private yacht. It had to be pretty clear to the professional community that this operation was always trying to skirt the rules and there seemed to be no official violation after years of USCG involvement. It may have been a perfectly safe dockside attraction or fair weather Bay cruiser, how could they know that level of detail. This was simply a dereliction of duty to take this hulk on a passage beyond its capability and the TS community, along with everyone else, was unaware of that decision until it was too late.
> 
> I'm not defending the poor taste of the open letter, but none of this disaster should be at the TSC doorstep either. What I find most interesting is that I'm not aware that all the actions of the TS community are even in evidence, or ever will be, and those most insistent on official investigation evidence have been willing to overlook that requirement in this case. Do we know that no member of the TSC ever confronted the skipper or the owner?


Not assigning blame to the TR community for the captain leaving at all.

Just pointing out that they sanctimoniously condemened the ship while they looked the other way at other times. They are the ones themselves who kdsy they new the crew were virtual amateurs. the ship was not maintained well and would not let friends sail; on that ship. And they didnt even tell their "friend" he might me making a mistake when under way.

I am quite sure if they had confronted the skipper or owner they would be trumpeting that all over given their nature for the overly dramatic.

Maybe they do need more regulations.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> .....And they didnt even tell their "friend" he might me making a mistake when under way.
> 
> I am quite sure if they had confronted the skipper or owner they would be trumpeting that all over given their nature for the overly dramatic.....


That is a conclusion drawn without evidence or complete investigation. Not to mention, you are condemning an entire industry over comments from a few and the advertising of a single event. A true professional, which you would prefer they emulate, would not be trumpeting their previous input to the Bounty organization. Its entirely possible it did happen.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> Not assigning blame to the TR community for the captain leaving at all.
> 
> Just pointing out that they sanctimoniously condemened the ship while they looked the other way at other times. They are the ones themselves who kdsy they new the crew were virtual amateurs. the ship was not maintained well and would not let friends sail; on that ship. And they didnt even tell their "friend" he might me making a mistake when under way.
> 
> I am quite sure if they had confronted the skipper or owner they would be trumpeting that all over given their nature for the overly dramatic.
> 
> Maybe they do need more regulations.


Yes, I am sure they need more regulations and regarding auto regulation I guess they will also going to improve on that. Nobody like to be regulated and the racing Classes and Offshore racing bodies (ORC) that regulated the safety needs for offshore races only had done that after massive accidents (Fastnet disaster and others) and public pressure. That was a question of survival for them. They would not be allowed to go on if the things remain as they were so they choose to auto-regulate themselves in what regards safety.

I guess that is going to happen now the same regarding TSC. Inside strong safety mandatory and inspected regulations are only possible to be accepted by the associates if they have not any other choice, or at least a better choice. Everybody loves freedom and that has a cost that may be too high for some.


----------



## NCC320

Unfortunately, whenever a bad event happens, or even things not necessarily bad happen but different from what was expected, the response is always new laws and regulations. There were some fatal automobile accidents over the week end, therefore, with the same reasoning, we need new laws, maybe a 1 year detailed course in driving before people are allowed on the road. A couple of wackos (out of 300,000,000+) kill a bunch of people, and we rush to band/regulate extensively the type of gun they used, never mind that more people were killed annually by hammers than this type of weapon. Last week, a doctor and his staff were killed when their private business jet crashed, so let's make rules that forbid medical personnel from flying....it's too risky and we can't afford to lose their skills, especially with Obamacare coming. Soon, we'll have enough laws that everyone becomes a criminal, even if they have no intent. Nobody knows, or can comply with, all the regulations that already exist.

As for other TS captains interferring with the Bounty's captain, would Chef and others like their neighbors and contemporaries interferring in how they live their lives? How about a neighbor reporting you to the IRS, or Child Services, or to police when they think you may have been drinking excessively simply because you had a party, to which they were not present, that went on for hours? Not because the neighbor knew of some infraction, he just thought there might be, or things were being done different from how he would do them. I've read where people had these exact things happen already. Now, we are going to report boats that we think are unsafe, or report captains that we think are making the wrong call?

In the grand scheme of things, not many people get killed on tall ships. New laws and regulations each time two people die in an accident that really was a result of a single person in charge making a bad decision?


----------



## ShoalFinder

^ Fantastic post. I agree completely.

What happened on the Bounty didn't happen because they weren't regulated. It happened because nobody in the Bounty organization was willing to use basic logic because they didn't like the logical conclusion they would have come to: The ship was not seaworthy.

The ship could not afford repairs- Bounty's decision: Don't do them! 

The ship was not in good material condition to sail- Bounty's decision: Go anyway! 

There is a super storm heading our way- Bounty's decision: Let's go for it! 

The chief engineer is totally unqualified- Bounty's decision: He works cheap. You're hired! 

The ship inevitably gets in trouble in a hurricane- Bounty's decision: Don't call anyone! We can make it!


You simply cannot regulate madness out of existance. Regulations (laws) do not prevent mishaps. They allow for punishment after the fact.

Will more regulation come? That's up to someone besides me. We will see in time. But what regulation would have prevented the sheer stupidity that led to the Bounty tragedy? They ignored basic logic in every instance and the outcome was inevitable. The Bounty was going to sink, sooner or later.


----------



## PCP

ShoalFinder said:


> ..
> What happened on the Bounty didn't happen because they weren't regulated. It happened because nobody in the Bounty organization was willing to use basic logic because they didn't like the logical conclusion they would have come to: The ship was not seaworthy. ...
> 
> ...


I don't get your logic. If the lack of proper laws did not allow a ship to be considered as a yacht and that way escape proper mandatory inspections, that boat would be limited to be a dock attraction and that accident would never happen.

Regulations exist for not letting to the discrimination of individuals what is safe or not. Obviously the Bounty organization considered the boat seaworthy to sail near an hurricane, otherwise they would not set sail.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive

ShoalFinder said:


> ^ Fantastic post. I agree completely.
> 
> What happened on the Bounty didn't happen because they weren't regulated. It happened because nobody in the Bounty organization was willing to use basic logic because they didn't like the logical conclusion they would have come to: The ship was not seaworthy.
> 
> The ship could not afford repairs- Bounty's decision: Don't do them!
> 
> The ship was not in good material condition to sail- Bounty's decision: Go anyway!
> 
> There is a super storm heading our way- Bounty's decision: Let's go for it!
> 
> The chief engineer is totally unqualified- Bounty's decision: He works cheap. You're hired!
> 
> The ship inevitably gets in trouble in a hurricane- Bounty's decision: Don't call anyone! We can make it!
> 
> You simply cannot regulate madness out of existance. Regulations (laws) do not prevent mishaps. They allow for punishment after the fact.
> 
> Will more regulation come? That's up to someone besides me. We will see in time. But what regulation would have prevented the sheer stupidity that led to the Bounty tragedy? They ignored basic logic in every instance and the outcome was inevitable. The Bounty was going to sink, sooner or later.


All good points. But Bounty's deficiencies (and "dockside attraction" status) were apparently well known among the Tall Ship community. Neverteless, the Tall Ship Challenge allowed Bounty to participate AND EVEN HELPED THEM PROMOTE RIDES FOR "students and groups of all ages," in apparent violation of the limitations of their "dockside attraction" certification.

I accept your argument that regulation may not prevent these sorts of accidents. But organizations like Tall Ships America (who run the dozens of events that make up the Tall Ship Challenge Series) are in a position to influence the safety culture in a way that proactively prevents these accidents. And they clearly failed in this case.


----------



## ShoalFinder

TakeFive said:


> All good points. But Bounty's deficiencies (and "dockside attraction" status) were apparently well known among the Tall Ship community. Neverteless, the Tall Ship Challenge allowed Bounty to participate AND EVEN HELPED THEM PROMOTE RIDES FOR "students and groups of all ages," in apparent violation of the limitations of their "dockside attraction" certification.
> 
> I accept your argument that regulation may not prevent these sorts of accidents. But organizations like Tall Ships America (who run the dozens of events that make up the Tall Ship Challenge Series) are in a position to influence the safety culture in a way that proactively prevents these accidents. And they clearly failed in this case.


All great points. Points which indicate that the TS community is not doing a good job of policing themselves. Will that lead to more regulation? It may. Does the TS community need someone to step in and tell them what to do? Not if they are the subject matter experts they are supposed to be. That is a damning indictment of the TS community as a bunch of pretenders.

Therefore, for anyone who would put their children on a tall ship, CAVEAT EMPTOR.


----------



## ShoalFinder

PCP said:


> I don't get your logic. If the lack of proper laws did not allow a ship to be considered as a yacht and that way escape proper mandatory inspections, that boat would be limited to be a dock attraction and that accident would never happen.
> 
> Regulations exist for not letting to the discrimination of individuals what is safe or not. Obviously the Bounty organization considered the boat seaworthy to sail near an hurricane, otherwise they would not set sail.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


The logic is simple. Captains are licensed in an effort to prevent unqualified people from making disastrous, stupid decisions.

Who tested the pumps? Who was in charge of the criminally negligent state of the engine room? Who was in charge of training on the ship's systems? The Engineer is in charge of these things and the captain is ULTIMATELY in charge of these things. Both men failed miserably.

In one regard, I will completely agree that regulations need to be addressed: the whole idea behind the Bounty being classified as a private yacht instead of a commercial enterprise. Would that change anything, though? We all hope that it would, but the reality is that the material condition of many commercial vessels is equally atrocious.


----------



## lancelot9898

Actually NCC320, I agree with you for the most part about over regulations. Throughout my professional life I've been involved with regulation and safety in the nuclear industry and for the most part it was very much needed. And even in the auto industry there were many improvement in safety at the bequest of Nader in the 60's. Even here recently the battery problems with the Boeing airliner was a good thing to ground that plane until a fix is found. Actually identifying the problem and fixing it is harder than it appears due to many factors. Some of which are political in nature, financial, egos and bureacrats. The louder voice gets heard over the more reasoned technical one. A couple of years ago we had our dock on the Cheaspeake replaced and after undergoing much red tape and having to make a modification to the stairway from the dock down to the small beach area, we were finally in compliance. However a couple of months later a storm wiped out that entire staircase and my neighbor and I had to retreive it and this time we repaired it ourselves by through bolting it to the pilings which should have been done from day one. My point being that the regulations did not cover the more important aspect of keeping that staircase intact, but rather looked at the cosmetics.

It is difficult getting a truely objective look at accidents and their causes, but it can be done. I was taken aback when the yard manager testified that the Captain told him that the Bounty was leaking water at the rate of 30000 gallons/hr. He couldn't believe it, but when he brought the Bounty out of the water back in 2006, he believed him. I still think that must be a wrong quote and maybe I heard it wrong.(Decimal in the wrong place?) However, no additional testimony that I'm aware of was received of how the repairs made back then actually lessened the water intake and by how much!!! 

Yes we are over regulated and that makes us feel good, but safety should be the goal over a feel good approach.


----------



## aa3jy

I've been reading some of the early testimony about the condition of the vessel and the repairs made..found it interesting that the caulking material that was used was a Home Depot product DAP (non marine)being applied by non-skilled (students) persons in seams instead of the traditional way...


----------



## PCP

ShoalFinder said:


> The logic is simple. Captains are licensed in an effort to prevent unqualified people from making disastrous, stupid decisions.
> 
> Who tested the pumps? Who was in charge of the criminally negligent state of the engine room? Who was in charge of training on the ship's systems? The Engineer is in charge of these things and the captain is ULTIMATELY in charge of these things. Both men failed miserably.
> 
> ...


Safety regulations work like a kind of a double safety system when it is also demanded that someone qualified is in charge of something, in this case a ship. It prevents that one, even if legally qualified, can have particular ideas that go against the norm in what regards safety. In this case that a qualified Captain could find that the Bounty was a seaworthy ship to sail in very bad weather.

This double safe system is common in many professions whose work can put other lives in danger. For instance on a building project and Engineer is needed to calculate the structure and is accountable regarding his work (like a Captain) but he has to follow several rules and norms that specify the margins of security he has to follow, specially in what regards seismic efforts. It is like that here and I believe everywhere.

If you trust that only a qualified man in charge is enough in what regards security, not having any mandatory and normalized rules about security, you risk that he has some very particular notion about security, that can be deadly to others. That was the case with the Bounty and that is why ruling is necessary to establish a minimum required safety level no matter the professional qualification of who is in charge.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> The only ones that seem to me had the authority to prevent Walbridge to sail was the CG but even for that they had to have a strong motive. They had not inspected the ship (it was not required due to the Ship classification) and therefore ignored if the ship was sound and with all systems operational and even if the crew was well qualified or not (they had no way of demanding or inspecting that).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


My understanding is the CG could deem a ship (and or crew) "Manifestly Unsafe". (Seeing Bounty was the only ship in the Atlantic sailing *into* the path of a Hurricane, I would think CG would easily consider this voyage manifestly unsafe no matter what they knew or did not know about the ship.) Once this is done, the captain or comanding officer of the ship would be required to comply with any order given by the CG, including not leaving port, return to port, or abandon ship. This control measure was implemented during the "Perfect Storm" of 1991 towards the SV:

The Perfect Storm, 20 years later « Coast Guard Compass

Good video:
http://westsail.org/satori

The Perfect Storm, 20 years laterPosted by LT Stephanie Young, Saturday, October 29, 2011

Coast Guard Cutter Tamaroa's rescue boat is sent to help the sailing vessel Satori. Satori, with three people aboard, needed help after being caught in a storm that raked New England over Halloween weekend 1991. U.S. Coast Guard photo.

Written by Petty Officer 1st Class Judy L. Silverstein, 7th Coast Guard District Public Affairs

Two decades after the massive and now-infamous No Name Halloween Storm pounded the northeast; the former operations officer of Coast Guard Cutter Tamaroa continues to ponder the life-changing event.

"It still gives me pause," said Kristopher Furtney, who retired in 2001 as a lieutenant commander following two decades of service.

Furtney, 53, meticulously described details of the late-October weather system immortalized by the film, The Perfect Storm. A ferocious nor'easter, it was also dubbed "the storm of the century" because three massive weather systems collided, resulting in treacherous conditions at sea.

Calm before the storm

Originally built for the United States Navy during World War II as a seagoing tug, the USS Zuni became the Tamaroa in 1946, when transferred to the Coast Guard. Although a reliable vessel, the single-screw cutter met its match Halloween weekend of 1991.

The dramatic events of Halloween weekend 1991 began to unfold after the crew returned from a 48-hour mid-patrol break in its homeport, Newcastle, N.H. When they pulled their 205-foot tug into Provincetown, Mass., the blowing wind alerted them of an impending storm. What they couldn't know is that the sun would rise and set five more times before they headed back into port.

"I remember looking at the blustery conditions and the darkening sky, hearing the constant crackling of the radio and saying, 'It isn't a matter of if we get called, but when,'" Furtney said.

Those words would prove prophetic.

Search for Satori

The sailing vessel Satori is tossed by a wave about 75 miles south of Nantucket Island. U.S. Coast Guard photo.
Like countless Coast Guardsmen before them, the crew of Tamaroa, tied down anything that might come loose topside and below deck. While at anchor, the winds and seas were gradually building offshore. At 10:00 p.m. taps was piped. Yet just 10 minutes later, the crew heard reveille, when they should have been drifting off to sleep. Heading out into the stormy night, they began searching for Satori, a sailing vessel in distress 75 miles off Nantucket Island.

With Block Island to their east and Montauk Point to the west, seas began to build on the ship's stern as they made best speed to Satori, still 80 nautical miles away. With a helicopter and a Falcon jet on scene, the Tamaroa arrived at approximately noon. The crew of Satori had survived a disastrous night where they had lost all their sails and pitch-pulled.

"The captain of the Tamaroa determined it was a manifestly unsafe voyage, and the 1st District commander agreed," said Furtney.

Rescuing the crew proved challenging in high winds and rough seas. A boat launched from Tamaroa sustained damage to one of its lifting eyes. Still able to control the boat, the crew was able to pass foul weather gear to the sailors, in preparation for their hoist to safety by a helicopter. Yet the small boat sustained further damage to two pontoons. Reluctantly, three seasoned crewmembers were hoisted to safety, as it would have been nearly impossible to receiver the small boat.

"From a search and rescue point of view, we had reduced our crew and lost one of our rigid hull inflatable boats," said Furtney. "I was thinking, 'I'm glad they're safe, let's get out of this weather,'" he said.

But their work was far from over.

Rescue in 60-knot winds

Another search and rescue case developed in the vicinity of Bermuda and an Air National Guard crew was dispatched. Heading north and making less than three miles an hour into the heavy winds and sea, the crew of Tamaroa ate a simple supper of scrambled eggs, sweetened juice, toast and medication to combat the seasickness that had set in.

At 10:00 p.m., taps was once again piped throughout the ship. Yet five minutes later, Furtney heard a command to change frequencies for an Air National Guard helicopter in distress. His adrenaline racing, he heard the co-pilot say, "We've lost number one, 40 pounds of fuel remaining, preparing to ditch."

Furtney raced to brief the captain, and reveille was piped to awaken the crew once again. They learned the helicopter ditched approximately 30 nautical miles south of the Tamaroa.

"As the ship came about, all hands experienced the fury of 60-knot winds and 30-foot seas," said Furtney.

Coast Guard rescue swimmer Petty Officer David Moore prepares three Coast Guardsmen from Tamaroa to be hoisted into a helicopter following the Satori rescue. U.S. Coast Guard photo.
After nearly three hours, Tamaroa arrived on scene in the dead of night. With the assistance of aircraft from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, they located two sets of strobes about two miles apart.

"If not for those strobe lights, the aircraft and the Tamaroa would have never seen those survivors in the water," said Furtney.

Trying multiple approaches over the next two and a half hours, they settled on using large cargo nets to pick up the survivors. During the rescue, the ship was put beam to the sea and the crew experienced 52-degree rolls for more than an hour.

"Visibility was severely impaired and water was blowing off the top of the high seas," recalled Furtney.

At the height of the rescue, seas were greater than 40 feet and winds exceeded 80 knots. Pressing on, they were fueled by adrenaline and an intense desire to help. Although Tamaroa's crew successfully rescued four Air National Guardsmen, there was one man still missing.

Furtney discussed the exhaustive search to locate the highly-decorated pararescueman, Rick Smith and recalled the emotional rollercoaster that came from numerous unconfirmed sightings in the water over the next 48 hours.

At the height of the rescue, the crew of Tamaroa had been working with little or no sleep. Many were ordered to get some rest.

"Adrenaline can only take you so far," said Furtney.

Remembering two decades later

Two decades later, Furtney reflected on teamwork, leadership, the importance of evaluating risk and being prepared.

"One should expect the unexpected and constantly reevaluate the long-term impact of decisions upon your crew," he said. "It's also critical to remember each person plays a vital role, and that you must rely upon one another."

Retired Lt. Cmdr. Kristopher Furtney was the operations officer of Coast Guard Cutter Tamaroa during the life-changing rescue of an Air National Guard crew and sailing vessel Satori. Photo courtesy of Kristopher Furtney.
The "Perfect Storm" provided an opportunity for the Coast Guard to perform well under horrific conditions. Furtney credits the work during the storm to collective critical thinking skills, the Coast Guard's rich tradition of rescues under challenging conditions and solid teamwork.

"Making tough decisions and calculated risks on land can be challenging at times," he said. "Factoring in fatigue and diminished control in rough weather at sea is a different game altogether."

Giving his crew high marks for endurance and resilience, Furtney said the rescue was memorable but bittersweet.

"We were glad to have rescued four, but wished we could have rescued all five crewmembers during the Perfect Storm, and I still have strong emotions about that," he said. "But having this opportunity to serve the public and help save a human life is why I joined the Coast Guard in the first place."


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> Unfortunately, whenever a bad event happens, or even things not necessarily bad happen but different from what was expected, the response is always new laws and regulations. There were some fatal automobile accidents over the week end, therefore, with the same reasoning, we need new laws, maybe a 1 year detailed course in driving before people are allowed on the road. A couple of wackos (out of 300,000,000+) kill a bunch of people, and we rush to band/regulate extensively the type of gun they used, never mind that more people were killed annually by hammers than this type of weapon. Last week, a doctor and his staff were killed when their private business jet crashed, so let's make rules that forbid medical personnel from flying....it's too risky and we can't afford to lose their skills, especially with Obamacare coming. Soon, we'll have enough laws that everyone becomes a criminal, even if they have no intent. Nobody knows, or can comply with, all the regulations that already exist.
> 
> As for other TS captains interferring with the Bounty's captain, would Chef and others like their neighbors and contemporaries interferring in how they live their lives? How about a neighbor reporting you to the IRS, or Child Services, or to police when they think you may have been drinking excessively simply because you had a party, to which they were not present, that went on for hours? Not because the neighbor knew of some infraction, he just thought there might be, or things were being done different from how he would do them. I've read where people had these exact things happen already. Now, we are going to report boats that we think are unsafe, or report captains that we think are making the wrong call?
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, not many people get killed on tall ships. New laws and regulations each time two people die in an accident that really was a result of a single person in charge making a bad decision?


What the heck does this have to do with Obamacare...you need to interject your own personal political agenda into this.



> How about a neighbor reporting you to the IRS, or Child Services, or to police when they think you may have been drinking excessively simply because you had a party, to which they were not present, that went on for hours? Not because the neighbor knew of some infraction, he just thought there might be, or things were being done different from how he would do them


.

So if you saw someone drinking excessively at a party and you knew they got into a car and they were driving you would do nothing right? Please answer this.

I never said they had an obligation to say anything to the Captain, no had to.

It wasnt me, It was Jan Miles who wrote the Dear Robin letter in poor taste a month after he went to his death. If he needed a catharsis why didnt he write it and just send it to his wife. Why did he publish it on Facebook where all the world can see. What was that purpose? What did he stand to gain from that? If I screwed up caused someone to die would I expect any friend of mine to publically do what he did? Why did he do it that way?

What I am saying here is that their protestations lack sincerity when it came down to it as they stood idly by all along. And some of the statements showed 20/20 hinsight as Take Five said as they were not beforehand yet they had knowledge of the Bounty comnditions forehand. Maine sail aptly pointed out he could see this at the dock and that the boat should never have really ever left the dock let alone go into a hurricane.

By thier own admissions they knew the boat was suspect maintainence wise and their crew was incredibly ameteurish in experience. They were all part of the same TSC which supoosedly by their website inspected their ships carefully before promoting them in their voyages ( did you read what they said in their website). So had can they now say they now the Bounty was always in bad repair and had ameteurs when they said the opposite in their literature.

So i ask the same question again that I asked Paulo to you.

You have kept you boat in marina/ city for 8 years. You race every Wednesday night, go out and eat with the Salboat captains and get to know them fairly well. You go to marinia, club meetings regularly together and get to see each other quite a bit over the 8 years. Your crews intermingle and know each other too. You spend a lot of time together and one or two become even closer friends who you socialize with a lot. He owns the oldest boat in ther marina, has a rookie crew every year, fixes things with bailing wire and rope because he doesnt have the money to keep his boat up like you do. Everytimne you race he breaks down or breaks something, but he patches it up and makes every race. You have his e mail address and cell phone.

You know he is planning a trip from NC where you are to Maine. In your mind you are suspect he will not break down along the way even in the best of weather as that has been his MO, and you arent sure when hes leaving. A huge storm developes over 1000 miles away in middle of the Atlantic and looks but looks like it might travel to either the coastal US or the Gulf and could brush your marina, so you decide to make sure you boat is tied up well,

While doing this you find out he has left for Maine the night before. You are afraid for his life , his crew, and his ship surviving this storm

Will *you* do anything?


----------



## hillenme

hms bounty hearings | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

I assume this link has already been posted (or a link with similiar detail about the hearings in Portsmouth), but I just ran across it today and found it to be a very interesting, so thought I'd share if anyones looking for fresh updates on the hearings.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> My understanding is the CG could deem a ship (and or crew) "Manifestly Unsafe". (Seeing Bounty was the only ship in the Atlantic sailing *into* the path of a Hurricane, I would think CG would easily consider this voyage manifestly unsafe no matter what they knew or did not know about the ship.) Once this is done, the captain or comanding officer of the ship would be required to comply with any order given by the CG, including not leaving port, return to port, or abandon ship. This control measure was implemented during the "Perfect Storm" of 1991 towards the SV:
> ....


Yes I guess so but for that they had to know Wallbridge intentions. When he leave port did they know that he was not taking shelter in one of the ports along the way? Did they know that he was not going strait East putting space between the ship and the Hurricane? Did they know that he was riding the Hurricane? I doubt about this last hypothesis but if so, yes, the CG should have prevented the ship to sail out of Port.

On the case you mention (Westsail) a mayday was deployed by the crew (without the agreement of the Captain if I recall correctly), and only after that the boat and the voyage where considered unsafe.

On this case, even if they had systems out of order and were making water they didn't even send a Pane Pane to the CG. When they released a mayday the boat was already lost and when the CG arrived to the scene the boat had already capsized and they were on the water.

I don't know if the CG had enough information to justify preventing them out of Port, but clearly this and the Westsail situation are different case scenarios.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Yes I guess so but for that they had to know Wallbridge intentions. When he leave port did they know that he was not taking shelter in one of the ports along the way? Did they know that he was not going strait East putting space between the ship and the Hurricane? Did they know that he was riding the Hurricane? I doubt about this last hypothesis but if so, yes, the CG should have prevented the ship to sail out of Port.
> 
> On the case you mention (Westsail) a mayday was deployed by the crew (without the agreement of the Captain if I recall correctly), and only after that the boat and the voyage where considered unsafe.
> 
> On this case, even if they had systems out of order and were making water they didn't even send a Pane Pane to the CG. When they released a mayday the boat was already lost and when the CG arrived to the scene the boat had already capsized and they were on the water.
> 
> I don't know if the CG had enough information to justify preventing them out of Port, but clearly this and the Westsail situation are different case scenarios.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


If the Bounty had filed a float plan with the coast guard stating there plan was "to chase hurricane Sandy" I am fairly certain the CG would declare their voyage "manifestly unsafe" and ordered the boat not to sail into the hurricane. The reason the CG can do this is that they do not wish to be in a situation where they need to risk their lives and equipment to rescue someone that should not be where they are to begin with.

The CG does not need an issued Pan Pan or Mayday from a vessel. They can declare any voyage "manifestly unsafe" even before you leave the dock.

Of interest the SV Satori was found on Assateague Island (Maryland) a few days later (after CG rescue). Satori was fine with no storm damage, was towed off beach and continues to sail to this day.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

PCP said:


> I don't get your logic. If the lack of proper laws did not allow a ship to be considered as a yacht and that way escape proper mandatory inspections, that boat would be limited to be a dock attraction and that accident would never happen.
> 
> Regulations exist for not letting to the discrimination of individuals what is safe or not. Obviously the Bounty organization considered the boat seaworthy to sail near an hurricane, otherwise they would not set sail.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


You see you can have all regulations you wan't but you can't get rid of stupidity just look at the Costa Concordia.. it was not a private yacht he still managed to sink it..

I think that's the point we are trying to make.

There is a licensing and training of a Captain specifically to avoid such a tradgedy from occuring.

As to TS community, I'm not happy how they behave, but again Captain probably talked Bounty up and was constantly saying it is in a "great shape", TS is not going to go there and unscrew the planks to inspect..


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> If the Bounty had filed a float plan with the coast guard stating there plan was "to chase hurricane Sandy" I am fairly certain the CG would declare their voyage "manifestly unsafe" and ordered the boat not to sail into the hurricane. The reason the CG can do this is that they do not wish to be in a situation where they need to risk their lives and equipment to rescue someone that should not be where they are to begin with.
> 
> The CG does not need an issued Pan Pan or Mayday from a vessel. They can declare any voyage "manifestly unsafe" even before you leave the dock.
> 
> ....


Yes, of course, my point is that I believe CG did not know that they were going to sail an Hurricane and therefore had no valid reason to say that their voyage was manifestly unsafe.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Capt.Mhack said:


> There is a licensing and training of a Captain specifically to avoid such a tradgedy from occuring.
> ....


Sure and a training engineer to design structures and nuclear engineers to run nuclear plants but besides that they still have norms and safety requirements, safety procedures, safety margins that they are obliged to respect, even if they don't agree with them. Rules to insure minimum safety requirements no matter the competence (or incompetence) of the one in charge.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ShoalFinder

I think we may discover upon closer inspection that Bounty ran afoul of countless laws and regulations already. Which additional regulation would have prevented the Captain from sailing a rotten dockside attraction into a hurricane?

Perhaps we should wait for the results of the hearing to determine what else may be necessary? I believe there are many people involved for whom that is their goal at present. Of course, those people may at any time request the results from the SailNet Board Of Inquiry, but probably not.


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> What the heck does this have to do with Obamacare....
> 
> ----_Skip Obamacare if you like......only, just yesterday I read where Florida is proclaiming a shortage of doctors because of anticipated increased medical care demands....maybe it was wrong or right....just saying we couldn't afford to lose medical skils in business plane crashes, and if so, does that justify making rules preventing doctors from flying? i.e. we are drowning in regulations and rules now, do we really need more?_-------
> 
> So if you saw someone drinking excessively at a party and you knew they got into a car and they were driving you would do nothing right? Please answer this.
> 
> ----_Go back a read what I said....the person reporting what he believes is a problem wasn't there....he doesn't know, he is just making an assumption, like the guy who thinks someone might be cheating on taxes, but doesn't know, and still reports it to the IRS. IRS follows up, giving the tax payer lots of stress only to find out that nothing is wrong. Is that ok? _----------
> 
> So i ask the same question again that I asked Paulo to you.
> 
> You have kept you boat in marina/ city for 8 years. You race every Wednesday night, go out and eat with the Salboat captains and get to know them fairly well. You go to marinia, club meetings regularly together and get to see each other quite a bit over the 8 years. Your crews intermingle and know each other too. You spend a lot of time together and one or two become even closer friends who you socialize with a lot. He owns the oldest boat in ther marina, has a rookie crew every year, fixes things with bailing wire and rope because he doesnt have the money to keep his boat up like you do. Everytimne you race he breaks down or breaks something, but he patches it up and makes every race. You have his e mail address and cell phone.
> 
> You know he is planning a trip from NC where you are to Maine. In your mind you are suspect he will not break down along the way even in the best of weather as that has been his MO, and you arent sure when hes leaving. A huge storm developes over 1000 miles away in middle of the Atlantic and looks but looks like it might travel to either the coastal US or the Gulf and could brush your marina, so you decide to make sure you boat is tied up well,
> 
> While doing this you find out he has left for Maine the night before. You are afraid for his life , his crew, and his ship surviving this storm
> 
> Will *you* do anything?
> 
> ---_So lets continue the story. I call and prevail on this guy to return after he has already departed. On the way back, he goes aground on Cape Lookout shoals, the boat is lost, and some of his crew drowns, but the captain survive. Coast Guard convenes a hearing, with lawyers for everyone there. Captain and surviving crew testifies that all was well until I called. They report that I insisted that the boat seek safety in port and they had come about to return to port. But at this time, they ran into poorer sailing conditions and subsequently lost control and were swept onto the shoals. So Coast Guard then asks if I am licensed captain, do I have experience in sailing such a vessel in this type of storm, asks why I interferred. And in the end, the hearing finds that I was instrumental in the loss in that I prevailed and pressured the captain, against his better judgement and who defered to someone he thought was more knowledgeable, to attemt the unsuccessful return. Guess who the lawyers are going to sue?_---------


My point is that we don't solve every new problem with more and more rules and regulations. Sure, a certain level is needed. But after a time, we get so many that we can't do anything. A recent case was a fire out west. Because of regulations, the fire responders could not do anything because one set of rules instructed them to fight the fire, another set said they couldn't, and while they tried to get authories to resolve the issue, the fire destroyed the property.

And that we should take care in injecting ourselves into other's affairs, where we have no business and where we likely don't understand all of the things that are in motion.


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> My point is that we don't solve every new problem with more and more rules and regulations. Sure, a certain level is needed. But after a time, we get so many that we can't do anything. A recent case was a fire out west. Because of regulations, the fire responders could not do anything because one set of rules instructed them to fight the fire, another set said they couldn't, and while they tried to get authories to resolve the issue, the fire destroyed the property.





> ---So lets continue the story. I call and prevail on this guy to change course after he has already departed. On the way back, he goes aground on Cape Lookout shoals, the boat is lost, and some of his crew drowns, but the captain survive. Coast Guard convenes a hearing, with lawyers for everyone there. Captain and surviving crew testifies that all was well until I called. They report that I insisted that the boat seek safety in port and they had come about to return to port. But at this time, they ran into poorer sailing conditions and subsequently lost control and were swept onto the shoals. So Coast Guard then asks if I am licensed captain, do I have experience in sailing such a vessel in this type of storm, asks why I interferred. And in the end, the hearing finds that I was instrumental in the loss in that I prevailed and pressured the captain, against his better judgement and who defered to someone he thought was more knowledgeable, to attemt the unsuccessful return. Guess who the lawyers are going to sue?


I got it so your answer is you are not going to care about your friend or call the police about the guy getting in the car drunk because you don't want to get sued or involved. You'd rather rail on about health care, the IRS and lawyers and regulations.

Me I will call the police so the drunk doesn't kill people even if gets get made at me.

Me I willcall my friend and ask him if he knows they are saying the storm has changed did he see that and that I am worried about he and his crew as all other boats and AIS signatures are heading or port. I would at least try and convince him as he is my friend. You will worry about being sued so you just watch him perish in silence. Or maybe one month letter write a public diatribe to him on Facebook.
Ig


----------



## PCP

ShoalFinder said:


> I think we may discover upon closer inspection that Bounty ran afoul of countless laws and regulations already. Which additional regulation would have prevented the Captain from sailing a rotten dockside attraction into a hurricane?
> 
> ...


Of course, yes. If the boat had not a possibility to be considered as a yacht (according to the existent law) the Ship would not pass more serious inspections by the CG and and would be grounded or limited to be docked to the same quay as a dock attraction.

Evidently that if the boat had not a licence to sail, the Captain would not be able to sail a dockside attraction into a hurricane.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

How many ships carry the designation of Tall Ship in the United States? We can leave the rest of the world out of it for now, as the USCG would have no jurisidiction. How many of those skippers/owners have weighed in at all on the Bounty?

I have a feeling that some are damning the entire TSC for the actions of about three, really one. Not fair. Further, it is in testimony that the crew had 30 minutes notice to depart. Who in the TCS was supposed to make the call to Bounty to talk them out of it? No one knew.

The updated rules are not as likely to change those that apply to the professional Tall Ships now. They are more likely to close the loophole that allowed Bounty to do the Private Yacht, fake paid crew nonsense.


----------



## Capt.Mhack

PCP said:


> Sure and a training engineer to design structures and nuclear engineers to run nuclear plants but besides that they still have norms and safety requirements, safety procedures, safety margins that they are obliged to respect, even if they don't agree with them. Rules to insure minimum safety requirements no matter the competence (or incompetence) of the one in charge.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Valid point, but the engineer doesn't have to stay inside of the nuclear power plant all the time.. I think if that was a requirement Chernobyl engineers might have designed few thing differently..

I'm afraid of creating new regulations to the point that it will be cost prohibitive to run any Tall Ships..


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> How many ships carry the designation of Tall Ship in the United States? We can leave the rest of the world out of it for now, as the USCG would have no jurisidiction. How many of those skippers/owners have weighed in at all on the Bounty?
> 
> I have a feeling that some are damning the entire TSC for the actions of about three, really one. Not fair. Further, it is in testimony that the crew had 30 minutes notice to depart. Who in the TCS was supposed to make the call to Bounty to talk them out of it? No one knew.
> 
> The updated rules are not as likely to change those that apply to the professional Tall Ships now. They are more likely to close the loophole that allowed Bounty to do the Private Yacht, fake paid crew nonsense.


Right the crew woke up out of a fourth year slumber like Rip van Winkle knew nothing about the hurricane forming and were suddenly forced to make a decision. Even the e mail from Christianson shows she was thinking about it.

The TSC seemed to know and feel the Bounty was less than. Less than in terms of maintainence, training and experience. Testimony by the thread where when posted a member If one of the other tall hips say they would NEVER recommend they sail as part of the crew of te Bounty. No one is to blame inevitably but the Captain. But when the two TS Captains start sitting in judgement and one writes a public open letter on Facebook one moth later slamming the dead captain, one has to wonder why thy didn't try and slow down the Bounty ever leaving the dock again. He is the one I have the biggest lack of respect for, Jan Miles. I do hope I get to see him in person this year in Baltimore. I don't at all feel sorry for any closer inspections of the TS from this point forward, or if they an find a way from preventing a dockside attraction from escaping and ducking the rules.


----------



## Classic30

chef2sail said:


> I got it so your answer is you are not going to care about your friend or call the police about the guy getting in the car drunk because you don't want to get sued or involved. You'd rather rail on about health care, the IRS and lawyers and regulations.
> 
> Me I will call the police so the drunk doesn't kill people even if gets get made at me.
> 
> Me I willcall my friend and ask him if he knows they are saying the storm has changed did he see that and that I am worried about he and his crew as all other boats and AIS signatures are heading or port. I would at least try and convince him as he is my friend. You will worry about being sued so you just watch him perish in silence. Or maybe one month letter write a public diatribe to him on Facebook.
> Ig


There's a world of difference between (a) calling someone, as a friend, and suggesting to them, as a friend, that they change course and (b) calling someone, as a person of authority, and _ordering_ them to change course - and I suspect you'll find (even in the US) your laws would take that into account also.

If you're calling them as a friend, they are presuamably free to listen to your advice and either accept it or ignore it. Either way, you have no control over the outcome nor could, I suspect, you be held liable for the outcome. OTOH, if you were a member of the Coastguard and you told them to turn around and they sank doing so you could reasonably expect to be interviewed at least..


----------



## TakeFive

Sorry guys, I am still trying to figure out how it is acceptable for Tall Ships America to be OPENLY RECRUITING "students and groups of all ages" for the following:

Program Type...
For Paying Trainees: Overnight Passages,
For Paying Trainees: Day Sails,
Passenger Trade: Overnight Passages,
Passenger Trade: Day Sails

It sure seems to me like they may have been openly assisting the Bounty Foundation in operating in violation of their dockside attraction limitations:



> The ship carries 18 full-time paid crewmembers working side by side with our sail trainees and passengers. When docked in port, the Bounty is open for dockside tours, private functions and educational programs. She offers day sails for individuals and groups, sail passages, and corporate sail training and is available for private functions, film production, commercials and documentaries. Strongly dedicated to the educational development of today's youth, Bounty works closely with universities and other non-profit organizations to provide leadership learning and youth education-at-sea programs.


----------



## Minnewaska

chef2sail said:


> Right the crew woke up out of a fourth year slumber like Rip van Winkle knew nothing about the hurricane forming and were suddenly forced to make a decision. Even the e mail from Christianson shows she was thinking about it.


Oh boy. Not only sarcastic, but you missed the point. I didn't say no one knew they hurricane was coming. I said no one in the TSC knew they were planning to sail toward it in time to talk them out of it.



> The TSC seemed to know and feel the Bounty was less than. Less than in terms of maintainence, training and experience. Testimony by the thread where when posted a member If one of the other tall hips say they would NEVER recommend they sail as part of the crew of te Bounty. No one is to blame inevitably but the Captain. But when the two TS Captains start sitting in judgement and one writes a public open letter on Facebook one moth later slamming the dead captain, one has to wonder why thy didn't try and slow down the Bounty ever leaving the dock again. He is the one I have the biggest lack of respect for, Jan Miles. I do hope I get to see him in person this year in Baltimore. I don't at all feel sorry for any closer inspections of the TS from this point forward, or if they an find a way from preventing a dockside attraction from escaping and ducking the rules.


Again, you are damning the entire TSC because you have a bone to pick with one skipper, maybe two, out of how many?

I also didn't say that no one was to blame, but the Captain. You seem, on the other hand, to be proactively looking for another to add to the pile. I haven't seen evidence of anyone's fault, but the Captain's at this point. I am interested to hear more about the owner. It may or may not have made a difference, if the TSC pressure Bounty. In fact, other than two anecdotes, it is very possible other in the TSC did just that. I thought we weren't drawing conclusions until investigated?

The TSC is going to end up with tighter regulation. So be it. Fine by me if they never leave the dock again, although, I'm not proposing it.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> Sorry guys, I am still trying to figure out how it is acceptable for Tall Ships America to be OPENLY RECRUITING "students and groups of all ages" for the following:
> 
> Program Type...
> For Paying Trainees: Overnight Passages,
> For Paying Trainees: Day Sails,
> Passenger Trade: Overnight Passages,
> Passenger Trade: Day Sails
> 
> It sure seems to me like they may have been openly assisting the Bounty Foundation in operating in violation of their dockside attraction limitations:


Seems pretty slippery to me and these rules should be changed. What I'm trying to understand is whether they were clearly in violation of the rules at the time. Loophole? Gray area? If so, these need to change.

The USCG had been aboard dozens of time for documented, albeit limited, inspections. They had to be fully aware of what was going on. I'm not trying to throw them under the bus, but it seems more like a loophole was being used or the USCG would have had a problem before the TSC.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ... But when the two TS Captains start sitting in judgement and one writes a public open letter on Facebook one moth later slamming the dead captain, one has to wonder why thy didn't try and slow down the Bounty ever leaving the dock again....


To be fair, let me tell you that the Captain of Picton Castle showed incredibility at the moment someone had said to him that the Bounty has out of port, long before the boat sank. But that is not your main point and I guess you have a good question even if the answer is evident for one that had worked on a strong corporatist profession that grants to an individual a great dose of freedom.

That happens with teachers where each teacher is a kind of king in his own classroom, specially in what concerns public schools. There are among them obviously teachers that are unsuited to teach and that are with its unsuitability provoking involuntary prejudice on students.

During 35 years of activity as a teacher I have found many teachers that had serious authority/relationship problems and were unsuitable to teach and I only knew of two cases of teachers that have been retired from given classes and in those two cases we are not talking about authority problems but acute psychologically problems, a soft word to say that their head really did not work in a normal way and even so it took a particularly strong school direction to take the measure: They have been done classes in that state for 10 years or more.

You would say why have not the other teachers acted? Well maybe for the same reason the other Tall Ship Captains did not acted even if I am sure that many would consider Wallbridge a bit irresponsible and too adventurous to be a captain of a Tall Ship. When you have a profession where a great autonomy is granted to you you will have a strong inhibition to interfere with the realm of authority of pairs and if you do that without a very very strong reason you would be strongly criticized by all others. If a pair can question the authority, competence and judgement of another pair, than they could question your own. That's why this kind of professions are so closed and so corporate.

It would be needed a really strong case to have Captains questioning openly and clearly one of them. For instance, if Wallbridge had survived that disaster I am sure he would be put in question by them, as it is now, but it is needed a strong evident case to provoke a reaction against one of the pairs in a strong corporatist profession. It is like that and it has nothing to do with particular individuals.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## NCC320

chef2sail said:


> I got it so your answer is you are not going to care about your friend or call the police about the guy getting in the car drunk because you don't want to get sued or involved. You'd rather rail on about health care, the IRS and lawyers and regulations.
> 
> Me I will call the police so the drunk doesn't kill people even if gets get made at me.
> 
> Me I willcall my friend and ask him if he knows they are saying the storm has changed did he see that and that I am worried about he and his crew as all other boats and AIS signatures are heading or port. I would at least try and convince him as he is my friend. You will worry about being sued so you just watch him perish in silence. Or maybe one month letter write a public diatribe to him on Facebook.
> Ig


Chef,

When you comment, at least make the comments on what was actually said. 
And who is railing......could it be you? As to the friend who sailed, in actuality any suggestions to him would have likely have been discussed when he advised of the trip. And a follow up persuasion after departure that caused the friend to take an action that led to disaster might possibly have legal consequences. A discussion wherein there was simply informing of new developments in the storm is different as long as there was no attempt to get the friend to take action in accordance with the caller's insistance.

My guess is that the horse is not yet dead, so maybe we should keep beating him to make sure.


----------



## chef2sail

NCC320 said:


> Chef,
> 
> My guess is that the horse is not yet dead, so maybe we should keep beating him to make sure.


\

The only horse thats dead is the Captains responsibilty in this. Thats apparent so if you are satisfied feel free to pass on the thread. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent a person from having poor judgement that I know off

Obviously there are other horses (issues) in play here, and thats why they had an investigation. Its apparent to me that the shipyard has had some issues to address as well as the TSC who looked the other way.

None of these absolve Walbridge, your only horse in the race so you can move along now. Seems like horses arent the only ones who wear blinders.


----------



## TakeFive

chef2sail said:


> ...Seems like horses arent the only ones who wear blinders.


Touche! :clobber

Did someone open a window? It's getting cold in here! :laugher


----------



## casey1999

If you think about it, the real problem with Bounty was 

1. It leaked a lot of water (much more than normal even for a large wooded ship). and

2. The ship did not have adequate pump systems to deal with the water, and the pump systems they had were not maintained.

If the above two problems did not exist, I am 99% sure the ship and all crew would be with us today- no matter what there experience or inexperience or mistakes the Captain made. There are many ships that sail and survive storms equal to what Bounty hit and they are sailing with crews even less experienced than Bounty had. You must have the right tool for the job or no matter how good you are you will fail.

Now if I remember, the CG had assisted Bounty many years prior duing a storm off Florida (tried to pull the story from internet but could not find). The CG assisted by giving Bounty gas powered dewatering pumps.

Also, it was well know the Bounty was always leaking somthing like 30,000 gallons of water a day. 30,000 gallons of water is enough to fill a residental swimming pool- better have some serious pumps ( and back up upon back ups) to deal with that. So now you have a ship that will sink if any of your dewatering pumps fail- something is wrong with this picture. The floatation of your boat should not be dependent solely on a mechanical/electrical system.


----------



## chef2sail

casey1999 said:


> If you think about it, the real problem with Bounty was
> 
> 1. It leaked a lot of water (much more than normal even for a large wooded ship). and
> 
> 2. The ship did not have adequate pump systems to deal with the water, and the pump systems they had were not maintained.
> 
> If the above two problems did not exist, I am 99% sure the ship and all crew would be with us today- no matter what there experience or inexperience or mistakes the Captain made. There are many ships that sail and survive storms equal to what Bounty hit and they are sailing with crews even less experienced than Bounty had. You must have the right tool for the job or no matter how good you are you will fail.
> 
> Now if I remember, the CG had assisted Bounty many years prior duing a storm off Florida (tried to pull the story from internet but could not find). The CG assisted by giving Bounty gas powered dewatering pumps.
> 
> Also, it was well know the Bounty was always leaking somthing like 30,000 gallons of water a day. 30,000 gallons of water is enough to fill a residental swimming poor- better have some serious pumps ( and back up upon back ups) to deal with that. So now you have a ship that will sink if any of your dewatering pumps fail- something is wrong with this picture. The floatation of your boat should not be dependent solely on a mechanical/electrical system.


Good point

Imagine running your boat this way.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> ...If the above two problems did not exist, I am 99% sure the ship and all crew would be with us today- no matter what there experience or inexperience or mistakes the Captain made. There are many ships that sail and survive storms equal to what Bounty hit and they are sailing with crews even less experienced than Bounty had...


Be careful here, you're treading on dangerous territory. You're almost suggesting that the root cause is the vessel's condition, and not the Captain's decision to sail into the hurricane.

Granted, the Captain was ultimately responsible for both, but suggesting that the hurricane would have been survivable goes against 191 pages of the best Internet wisdom that no money can buy. :laugher

Incidentally, it also pretty much agrees with what I suggested four months ago here and here and here.


----------



## casey1999

TakeFive said:


> Be careful here, you're treading on dangerous territory. You're almost suggesting that the root cause is the vessel's condition, and not the Captain's decision to sail into the hurricane.
> 
> Granted, the Captain was ultimately responsible for both, but suggesting that the hurricane would have been survivable goes against 191 pages of the best Internet wisdom that no money can buy. :laugher
> 
> Incidentally, it also pretty much agrees with what I suggested four months ago here and here and here.


Here is another thought, during that "rescue" of Bounty off Florida a few years ago, the CG should have considered the ship "manefestly unsafe" and forced it to dock and not to sail until the leakage was reduced to a "normal" wooden ship level.


----------



## Minnewaska

Saying that the hull leaks killed the crew of Bounty is like saying the knife killed the stabbing victim. It was the device, not the cause.


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Saying that the hull leaks killed the crew of Bounty is like saying the knife killed the stabbing victim. It was the device, not the cause.


I am not saying the captain was correct in his actions to sail the ship into hurricane sandy.

What I am saying is the ship was a disaster waiting to happen for many many years. It seemed many people and organizations seemed to be in love with the Bounty and as we know, love is blind.


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> I am not saying the captain was correct in his actions to sail the ship into hurricane sandy.
> 
> What I am saying is the ship was a disaster waiting to happen for many many years. It seemed many people and organizations seemed to be in love with the Bounty and as we know, love is blind.


I agree.


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> Saying that the hull leaks killed the crew of Bounty is like saying the knife killed the stabbing victim. It was the device, not the cause.


That's really stretching it.

People drowned because the ship sank. The ship sank because the hull leaked. It was a significant cause and/or contributing factor. To say otherwise is to deny reality.

As I suggested four months ago, with the condition that boat was in, a similar result might have happened in an ordinary Noreaster. Sandy was huge, but not particularly violent as hurricanes go.

It will be interesting to see what the USCG says about this in their final report. I think we all can agree that they have not attempted to sweep anything under the rug, as was speculated several months ago.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> Here is another thought, during that "rescue" of Bounty off Florida a few years ago, the CG should have considered the ship "manefestly unsafe" and forced it to dock and not to sail until the leakage was reduced to a "normal" wooden ship level.


After that the boat was rebuilt, or almost.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

What would a "normal" leakage rate for a ship like Bounty that was in "good" condition? What about while sailing in a storm similar to the conditions of sandy?


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> After that the boat was rebuilt, or almost.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


From all the information I have seen, the ship always leaked somthing like 30,000 gallons a day, even after a rebuild.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> What would a "normal" leakage rate for a ship like Bounty that was in "good" condition? What about while sailing in a storm similar to the conditions of sandy?


I can only report to ancient wooden boats. I would say that even in a storm only an old boat required constant pumping and at that time they had only hand pumps with a much smaller output. when the pups have to be continuously running the boat needed urgent repair and they went for it on a beach on the first opportunity. They carried tools, materials, carpenters and hand help to do the job.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> From all the information I have seen, the ship always leaked somthing like 30,000 gallons a day, even after a rebuild.


That cannot be true. That is more than 6000 L for each hour. The boat was almost completely rebuilt and nobody would accept the delivery of a ship on that condition.

What I have heard was that the boat even at dock, presently had to run the pumps every hour. They didn't say how much minutes each our but the way it was said it could not be for the bigger part of an hour and if you go to the rated output of the electric pumps you can get a grossly estimate of the leakage.

That is odd that would not be asked directly on the inquiries, I mean on the dock how much time they run the pumps for each hour. That would give a correct idea of the permanent leaking of the Ship.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> That cannot be true. That is more than 6000 L for each hour. The boat was almost completely rebuilt and nobody would accept the delivery of a ship on that condition.
> 
> What I have heard was that the boat even at dock, presently had to run the pumps every hour. They didn't say how much minutes each our but the way it was said it could not be for the bigger part of an hour and if you go to the rated output of the electric pumps you can get a grossly estimate of the leakage.
> 
> That is odd that would not be asked directly on the inquiries, I mean on the dock how much time they run the pumps for each hour. That would give a correct idea of the permanent leaking of the Ship.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


30,000 gallons per day is 21 gallons per minute (about 80 liters per minute). I understand they needed to pump this amount while sitting at the dock and the ship generators ran at all times in order to pump the water.

Yea, kind of crazy, but have you never done somthing crazy while drunk and with a beautiful woman?


----------



## casey1999

From:
Decision to sail in storm in question | The Chronicle Herald

Decision to sail in storm in questionFebruary 14, 2013 - 2:30pm By BEVERLEY WARE South Shore Bureau UPDATED 9:15 p.m. Thursday

PORTSMOUTH, Va. - The manager of the Maine shipyard that worked on the Bounty just weeks before it sank last October said he never would have set sail in it with a hurricane on the way.

"I wouldn't intentionally take a vessel into a storm if I could avoid it," Joe Jackomovicz, who is now retired, said in an interview Thursday afternoon.

"It's one thing if you're out at sea and get caught. It's another thing when you're in a perfectly safe harbour. I couldn't imagine that.

"If that boat had sailed in reasonable seas, if I could use that word, the boat would be in St. Petersburg (Fla.) now."

Jackomovicz, who was manager of the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard, testified Thursday at the U.S. Coast Guard hearing into the sinking of the tall ship off Cape Hatteras, N.C., last Oct. 29.

He said the Bounty underwent about $3 million worth of work at the Maine shipyard since 2001, and though it was in good shape when it left Boothbay after a month-long refit last fall, it was still, in essence, a 50-year-old boat.

"If you still have a lot of the original structure in there, you still have an old boat."

For example, the keel was hogging, or sagging, about 20 centimetres but he said that did not pose a safety risk.

*Jackomovicz told the hearing he first worked on the ship in 2001 and was "flabbergasted" then by how much water the vessel was taking on.*
*"That boat was leaking water like a sieve," he said in the separate interview.*
When the ship's new owner, Robert Hansen of New York, saw it, "his mouth just dropped," Jackomovicz said.

*Jackomovicz testified at the hearing that Capt. Robin Walbridge had told him the Bounty was taking on 114,000 litres of water an hour.*
*"I thought he must be nuts or something," but Jackomovicz said it proved to be the case.*
When the shipyard hauled the Bounty out of the harbour, "the amount of water coming out of the boat was unbelievable. The bottom was totally wormy" from spending a couple of winters in Florida.

But he said Hansen agreed to spend the money to do the work that needed to be done, and the shipyard replaced all of the planking below the waterline with white oak. Jackomovicz said the framing was in good shape, so at least 90 per cent of it was left untouched.

The next refit began in May 2006 and lasted about a year. The yard added 25 to 30 tonnes of lead in the keel for ballast and replaced the hull planking above the waterline with Douglas fir.

Jackomovicz said he presented Hansen with two options for different grades of fir and the owner selected the wood that was $30,000 cheaper.

"There were no defects in the wood we used," Jackomovicz said.

*When the Bounty came in again for work last September, Jackomovicz said he was shocked by the state of the wood above the waterline they had replaced just five years earlier.*
*He said one of his employees told him: "We found something that surprised the dickens out of us. That wood's decaying."*
Walbridge was also surprised, he said.

*"He was concerned about the decay, as I was. That's something you never expected."*
While the shipyard's project manager has told the hearing he was so worried about the rotting wood that he warned Walbridge to avoid bad weather, Jackomovicz said the wood wasn't that bad and it was OK to leave further work on it until the next scheduled work period in a year.

"I'm basing my judgment on 40 years' experience, he's basing his judgment on probably five or six years' experience," Jackomovicz said of the project manager.

Jackomovicz said in the interview with The Chronicle Herald that the "decay up there (above the waterline) had no relation to the water coming in the boat."

He said it was getting into the Bounty from below, and he suspects it was through the seams.

He told the hearing that the Bounty has "a lot of structural strength. ... The vessel was built so massive that it could take quite a bit of decay, degradation of the structure," before it posed a problem.

Using the more expensive wood for planking wouldn't have made a difference, he said.

*Jackomovicz said he spoke with Walbridge about two days before the Bounty left the shipyard last October and asked him how he thought the vessel was doing.*
*"He said great, it's tight, the vessel's tight," Jackomovicz said, but he took that with "a grain of salt."*
"*In my mind it was probably still leaking, but in (Walbridge's) experience with how the vessel was leaking in the past, a little bit of leaking in the boat was nothing to him."*Jackomovicz said when he looked at photographs of the sinking Bounty, he was shocked it was still in one piece, which speaks to its structural integrity.

"I thought, my God, that boat's still floating and intact. That was surprising to me," he said in the interview.

"That tells me the fasteners were holding the boat together."

He conceded, though, that the fasteners in the bottom of the ship could have given way, which could account for why there was so much water in the hull.

Jackomovicz said the galvanized fasteners were 50 years old and at that age can develop a halo of rust around the core, weakening them.

The hearing continues Friday.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> That's really stretching it.
> 
> People drowned because the ship sank. The ship sank because the hull leaked. It was a significant cause and/or contributing factor. To say otherwise is to deny reality.
> 
> As I suggested four months ago, with the condition that boat was in, a similar result might have happened in an ordinary Noreaster. Sandy was huge, but not particularly violent as hurricanes go.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what the USCG says about this in their final report. I think we all can agree that they have not attempted to sweep anything under the rug, as was speculated several months ago.


I don't think the analogy was a stretch at all. The problem was how the boat was used. The fact that it left the dock for any passage should have been questionable, but it didn't leave on its own and the knife didn't stab anyone on its own.

Yes, the fact that it leaked was a contributing factor for sure. Just like the fact that the knife was sharp or maybe left on the counter. Neither would have done any harm if left where they were.

The boat was in disrepair..... This was well known by her decision makers.

The TSC knew the operation was sketchy.... They are not responsible, IMO, any more than anyone is for their neighbor's actions. One open letter in poor taste, doesn't convict the entire TSC.

I'm very interested to hear more about the owner. There could be another culpable party there. Seems we know little about them and what they knew or were doing at this point, which I find odd.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> I don't think the analogy was a stretch at all. The problem was how the boat was used. The fact that it left the dock for any passage should have been questionable, but it didn't leave on its own and the knife didn't stab anyone on its own.
> 
> Yes, the fact that it leaked was a contributing factor for sure. Just like the fact that the knife was sharp or maybe left on the counter. Neither would have done any harm if left where they were.
> 
> The boat was in disrepair..... This was well known by her decision makers.
> 
> The TSC knew the operation was sketchy.... They are not responsible, IMO, any more than anyone is for their neighbor's actions. One open letter in poor taste, doesn't convict the entire TSC.
> 
> I'm very interested to hear more about the owner. There could be another culpable party there. Seems we know little about them and what they knew or were doing at this point, which I find odd.


I have said for a while the owner is hiding and there may have been major pressure from there. Every one has absolved the crew first mate because they felt "pressure" from the Captain. Most here said Svenson could speak out against the captain for fear of never sailing again. Wonder how that will play if it comes out Walbridge was told that by Hansen if he didn't meet the deadline for funding from the group in St Petersburg. Right Now he as plead the fifth as opposed to saying he was never in contact with Walbridge. Who is the only other person who could accuse the owner of ordering Walbridge to leave? Probably the dead Captain. Would Walbridge receive a pass like Svenson has if tat was ever found out ( probably never will) . It sure would be the only other explanation for why Walbridge left incredulously in face of all weather and maintainence issues.

No one blames the TSC for the sinking. However they may have contributed to the continued facade the ship was safe by their Own promotional literature where they said it was inspected by them and tey had a great safety program.

And again I call into question the Boothbay Shipyard. Conflicting testimony as Casey points out. Conflict testimony on weather Bounty was even able to head to sea at all. Incredible destruction in work done by them only 6 years before which should ever have been that bad. At the same times major lawsuit lost by the Boothbay Shipyard for the tall ship Shenendoah for similar work same time period . Something is wrong here. No records says one, boxes of records was another. Pictures taken to cover one employees ass never shown to his boss, only the CG when Bounty sunk. Employee looked like he didn't want to be blamed should something happen to Bounty when he said he warned they shouldn't leave the dock and his boss and company said she was ok til next years refit and maintainence and took the 3 million dollar refit check. Further investigation a the dock may have turned up issues similar to Shenendoah had it stayed around . Very very suspicious.

Yes it wasn't the knife that killed but maybe a few people had their hand on the knife other than the only one who can't speak....the dead captain. This doesn't exonerate him. He should never have left. However in the knife analogy , there may be coconspirators and enablers.

Stay tuned. Lawsuits will be filed. Can't claim the fifth there. Shipyard records will all come out as it becomes every man for himself, except Robin Walbridge he is dead. Maybe Claudia will file suit against Boothbay and Bounty LLC and Hansen.


----------



## Minnewaska

If the owner put a gun to the Captain's head, the owner is equally at fault. It takes nothing away from the Captain's fault.

The First Mate would have saved lives if he decided to leave. Others would have followed. 

Have we seen evidence, or even an accusation, that the shipyard didn't do what they were paid to do. Were they paid to change out all the underlying rotten beams or just the outside? Perhaps they should have refused to do the work, if it wasn't going to be done thoroughly, but that is debatable.


----------



## TakeFive

chef2sail said:


> Stay tuned. Lawsuits will be filed. Can't claim the fifth there. ..


Of course he can take the 5th. It's a universal Constitutional right in the US. Only way to force him to talk is for everyone (state, local, county) to grant immunity. They usually only do that if they have "bigger fish to fry" so they need the testimony - like they did in Watergate.


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Have we seen evidence, or even an accusation, that the shipyard didn't do what they were paid to do. Were they paid to change out all the underlying rotten beams or just the outside? Perhaps they should have refused to do the work, if it wasn't going to be done thoroughly, but that is debatable.


Many auto repair shops, after finding somthing wrong with you car, will have you sign a release if you decide not to have them do the repair work. This will release them of fault if the failure to repair the item leads to an accident. If the boat yard did not have a similar release signed- could open them up to lawsuits.


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> 4
> Have we seen evidence, or even an accusation, that the shipyard didn't do what they were paid to do. Were they paid to change out all the underlying rotten beams or just the outside? Perhaps they should have refused to do the work, if it wasn't going to be done thoroughly, but that is debatable.


It will be comming. In a lawsuit against Boothbay. Its only been 4 onths since the sinking and 1 week since the CG hearing. The lawyers for Walbridge, Christianson and Bounty LLC are sharpening their knives on this particular issue,.

The 40 year employee,Jakomovicz of the Shipyard testified he told Walbridge that she was ok and would be fine until the following years refit. He would be the expert. This contradicted the Shipwrights, Kowokowski alleged warnings to Walbridge as well as the secret photographs he took. Jakomivicz would have known and been a part of the two previous Bounty refits and maintainence as well as the Shenedhoah. Kolowkowski would not have even worked at Boothbay when that happened.

Essentially by him saying the frame/ previous work was rotting and suspect he was bringing attention to the previous work under the Boothbay Shipyard and Jakomovic into question as to why it rotted out in 5 years a lot less time thean it should have lasted. These are quality and build issues sounding eeirily similar to Shenendoah issues.

So you have contractors side your house and put a new roof on it. During the fix the workers discover that a leak occured and some of previous work and discover some of the frame is rotten. Some of this was worked on them 5-6 years previously and should have held up better. They verbally tell you that and tell you its not sound. No record of discussion or anything written. The workers however take pictures. You continue with the work, because their boss, the foreman comes buy and says it can wait another year. it will be fine the workers are overplaying it , but be sure and come back to us to fix it.

2 Weeks later a hurricane come through and the house crumbles. The new material is looking ok, but it looks like some of where it was held by the frame came apart and let the storm winds get inside and blow it apart.

Extent of Bounty's decay questioned | WAVY.com | Portsmouth, Va.



> PORTSMOUTH, Va. (WAVY) - On the third day of the U.S. Coast Guard's hearings into the sinking of the HMS Bounty in October, experts contemplated how seaworthy the Bounty really was.
> 
> Todd Kosakowski, the project manager who raised concerns about rotting timbers in the hull of the Bounty told investigators he was worried about the vessel's safety.
> 
> "I believe that they could have had an impact on what could have happened with the vessel," Kosakowski said.
> 
> Project manager Joe Jakomovicz, who has 40 years of experience, said Kosakowski's analysis is incorrect because Kosawkowski has "five or six years of experience."
> 
> Kosakowski worked with the Bounty when it visited Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in 2006 for repairs. He said the decay in the hull of the Bounty was not the worst he has ever seen.
> 
> His younger colleague believes the structural integrity of the hull was in question and has second thoughts about the decision of the Bounty's owners to set sail without a certificate of inspection.
> 
> "With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been a call to the local Coast Guard," Kosakowski said.


I know I keep including this, but feel I have to so it stays in perspective and no ones thinks I am defending him.. None of this has anything to do with exonerating or dismissing Captain albridges responsibilies for leaving in the face of a hurricane.


----------



## chef2sail

TakeFive said:


> Of course he can take the 5th. It's a universal Constitutional right in the US. Only way to force him to talk is for everyone (state, local, county) to grant immunity. They usually only do that if they have "bigger fish to fry" so they need the testimony - like they did in Watergate.


Sorry I mistated it. I know you cant be compelled testify against yourself. Thats when you are accused of something.

I meant and was referring to the probable suit of Bounty LLC against Boothbay Shipyard for misrepresenting tgheoir connstruction and poor workmanship. I didnt state it very well sorry.


----------



## LinekinBayCD

In general


----------



## Classic30

chef2sail said:


> Essentially by him saying the frame/ previous work was rotting and suspect he was bringing attention to the previous work under the Boothbay Shipyard and Jakomovic into question as to why it rotted out in 5 years a lot less time thean it should have lasted. These are quality and build issues sounding eeirily similar to Shenendoah issues.
> 
> So you have contractors side your house and put a new roof on it. During the fix the workers discover that a leak occured and some of previous work and discover some of the frame is rotten. Some of this was worked on them 5-6 years previously and should have held up better. They verbally tell you that and tell you its not sound. No record of discussion or anything written. The workers however take pictures. You continue with the work, because their boss, the foreman comes buy and says it can wait another year. it will be fine the workers are overplaying it , but be sure and come back to us to fix it.


Hang on there a sec.. stick to the facts:



casey1999 said:


> From:
> Decision to sail in storm in question | The Chronicle Herald
> ...
> But he said Hansen agreed to spend the money to do the work that needed to be done, and the shipyard replaced all of the planking below the waterline with white oak. Jackomovicz said *the framing was in good shape*, so at least 90 per cent of it was left untouched.
> ....
> Jackomovicz said in the interview with The Chronicle Herald that the "decay up there (above the waterline) had no relation to the water coming in the boat."
> 
> He said it was getting into the Bounty from below, and he suspects it was through the seams.
> 
> He told the hearing that the Bounty has "a lot of structural strength. ... The vessel was built so massive that it could take quite a bit of decay, degradation of the structure," before it posed a problem.
> 
> Using the more expensive wood for planking wouldn't have made a difference, he said.


To my mind he makes a good point. The many, many, pictures out there of the Bounty "sinking" show the decks awash but the vessel otherwise completely intact. If the frames or fasteners were in any way rotten or otherwise "faulty", having tons of water sloshing around inside the hull would have split the ship apart. This simply did not happen.

As someone who spends a lot of time around wooden boats and pretty-much only sails on wooden boats, I happen to agree with those who say the planking seams were the problem. If the above-water planks (not the frames!) were decaying, it's fairly likely that in rough weather like that the seams could open up and caulking could actually fall out - especially if it turns out that it was not installed properly.

With no working bilge pumps, the end result is simply a matter of time...


----------



## GeorgeB

We do not have copies of the Boothbay yard contract in front of us so it is pure speculation on what they are liable for in a workmanship defect type suit. You need to read the SOW to understand who was responsible for what. Back in my salad days I crewed on a 50’ wooden schooner out of MYC. A lawyer owned the boat and even with his deep pockets, we couldn’t afford to contract out all the work. The yard did some, we did the rest, and things we couldn’t afford were deferred to future years. That schooner liked to crack ribs so depending upon the severity, they were either replaced, sistered, or deferred. Unlike the roofing illustration, I am doubtful that there was a “5 year no leaks” warranty. Expressed or implied. In fact, Walbridge’s “tight” comment would indicate that he accepted the work. Further complicating matters was how Walbridge was directing some of the critical parts of the work himself, namely having his (unskilled) crew doing the caulking and buying the latex caulk from home depot instead of the proper marine grade for underwater use. If this was a sample of how Walbridge supervised yard work, I am sure the work performed five years previously was no better. While I imagine that Boothbay will get sued (anyone with “deep pockets” is going to get served), I don’t think anyone is going to collect based on any workmanship defects. Poor maintenance over the previous five years probably had more to do with the rot than improper fitting or fastening the hull planks.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> .
> 
> ....Jackomovicz said he spoke with Walbridge about two days before the Bounty left the shipyard last October and asked him how he thought the vessel was doing.[/B]
> *"He said great, it's tight, the vessel's tight," Jackomovicz said, but he took that with "a grain of salt."
> "In my mind it was probably still leaking, but in (Walbridge's) experience with how the vessel was leaking in the past, a little bit of leaking in the boat was nothing to him."...*


*

So, it seams to me that the boat leaked a bit....probably... Jackomovicz is not sure and you say the boat leaked 21 gallons per minute? Where do you have got that information?

Regards

Paulo*


----------



## chef2sail

We have a reputable sailNet poster ( MaineSail ) who reported that the innards and the ship was not in very good shape by his own observation. Maybe he will chime in.


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> So, it seams to me that the boat leaked a bit....probably... Jackomovicz is not sure and you say the boat leaked 21 gallons per minute? Where do you have got that information?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


From as far back as I can go the Bounty had a huge problem with hull leakage. The 30,000 gallon per day (21 gpm) is a figure I saw in an article that was refering to the ship maybe 4 years back.

When ship recently taken in for dry dock, she was leaking at 114000 l per hour which is about the 21 gpm. Back some years ago the CG put pumps on Bounty off Florida to dewater after the Bounty's pumps had failed. Even the lost crew memeber Claudine noted the crew were always fiddling with the generators (to keep the electric pumps running). Seems trying to win a war against 30,000 gph was a constant battle on Bounty, one in which sooner or later you are bound to loose.

I have not seen figures as to the leakage rate when she pulled out of the shipyard on the way to meeting Sandy, but as others have posted, she would normally leak at a high rate (even if the plank and caulking were good) due to the fact the wood had not had a chance to swell.

Jackomovicz testified at the hearing that Capt. Robin Walbridge had told him the Bounty was taking on *114,000 litres of water an hour*.
"I thought he must be nuts or something," but Jackomovicz said it proved to be the case.
When the shipyard hauled the Bounty out of the harbour, "the amount of water coming out of the boat was unbelievable. The bottom was totally wormy" from spending a couple of winters in Florida.


----------



## casey1999

Was trying to find more on historical Bounty leakage rates. Found this of G Captain site forum, interesting:

"It's interesting that an (PSC?) inspector in Europe required them to purchase that extra gas-powered pump. That means they identified the two major weakness, watertight integrity and inadequate de-watering systems.

Port State Control in Europe is very good. They know what to look for. (If it was in fact a PSC inspection.) If they had been subjected to another PSC inspection in Europe and the pump was found in poor condition likely would have gotten nailed hard. The failure or inability to fix previous problems is seen as a problem in and of itself."

This must be refering to the last trip bounty made to Europe. 
More information:
http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=159


----------



## Classic30

casey1999 said:


> Jackomovicz testified at the hearing that Capt. Robin Walbridge had told him the Bounty was taking on *114,000 litres of water an hour*.
> "I thought he must be nuts or something," but Jackomovicz said it proved to be the case.
> When the shipyard hauled the Bounty out of the harbour, "the amount of water coming out of the boat was unbelievable. The bottom was totally wormy" from spending a couple of winters in Florida.


Righto.. so if the bottom was "totally wormy", all they needed to do was replace the bottom planking and the problem would be 100% fixed. ..and your previous post indicated they did that, with quality timber, and Wallbridge said it was "tight"....so we still don't know what the leak rate was when they headed out to meet Sandy other than that it must have been far less than 114,000 litres/hour.

As I posted earlier, it's largely irrelevant anyways. It's entirely plausible the ship could have been tight as a drum before leaving and still have the caulking fall out and the ship sink after the few few hours in a sea like that - if it wasn't installed properly in the first place.


----------



## casey1999

Hartley18 said:


> Righto.. so if the bottom was "totally wormy", all they needed to do was replaced the bottom planking and the problem would be 100% fixed. ..and your previous post indicated they did that, and Wallbridge said it was "tight"....so we still don't know what the leak rate was when they headed out to meet Sandy other than that it must have been far less than 114,000 litres/hour.
> 
> As I posted earlier, it's largely irrelevant anyways. It's entirely plausible the ship could have been tight as a drum before leaving and still have the caulking fall out and the ship sink after the few few hours in a sea like that.


We only know it was somthing less than 114,000 lph. The ship should have pumping logs that would indicate what the leakage was over her history- those would be interesting.

"Jackomovicz said he spoke with Walbridge about two days before the Bounty left the shipyard last October and asked him how he thought the vessel was doing.
"*He said great, it's tight, the vessel's tight," Jackomovicz said, but he took that with "a grain of salt."
"In my mind it was probably still leaking, but in (Walbridge's) experience with how the vessel was leaking in the past, a little bit of leaking in the boat was nothing to him*."Jackomovicz said when he looked at photographs of the sinking Bounty, he was shocked it was still in one piece, which speaks to its structural integrity.


----------



## Classic30

casey1999 said:


> We only know it was somthing less than 114,000 lph. The ship should have pumping logs that would indicate what the leakage was over her history- those would be interesting.
> 
> "Jackomovicz said he spoke with Walbridge about two days before the Bounty left the shipyard last October and asked him how he thought the vessel was doing.
> "*He said great, it's tight, the vessel's tight," Jackomovicz said, but he took that with "a grain of salt."
> "In my mind it was probably still leaking, but in (Walbridge's) experience with how the vessel was leaking in the past, a little bit of leaking in the boat was nothing to him*."Jackomovicz said when he looked at photographs of the sinking Bounty, he was shocked it was still in one piece, which speaks to its structural integrity.


I agree that it should have pumping logs.. and probably doesn't ..but that still tells us nothing. Very few caulked timber vessels of any size, large or small, do not experience "a little bit of leaking" at various times before and after leaving port.

I'd suggest it might be more productive to focus on the faulty (or otherwise) workmanship - like *exactly who did the caulking, how and what with *- and/or bilge pumps rather than the end result.


----------



## lancelot9898

There's several numbers being thrown about here and I just wanted to verify what I heard concerning the leakage. Listen to the video on Day 3 of testimony at the 1 hour 49 minute mark. 30,000 gp....hour not per day! Still that's hard to believe. Maybe he meant to say per day?


----------



## smurphny

Any wood boat that gets beat around a bit will open up. That's a given. A boat that is "tight" after being caulked is no indication of the hull's integrity, only that it does not leak much immediately. Rotted, oil-soaked, worm-eaten wood will not hold caulking for long. If the garboard is moving a lot because the whole hull is "soft", it will open up first, letting in a lot of water. Keels, made of oak are the first thing to get eaten by Toredo Worms. It just sounds like there was not enough pump capacity for the amount of leakage. Perhaps if they had a team of 50 sailors to man manual pumps around the clock, they may have avoided sinking but with a small crew, once the pumps went out, they were done.


----------



## casey1999

Hartley18 said:


> Hang on there a sec.. stick to the facts:
> 
> To my mind he makes a good point. The many, many, pictures out there of the Bounty "sinking" show the decks awash but the vessel otherwise completely intact. If the frames or fasteners were in any way rotten or otherwise "faulty", having tons of water sloshing around inside the hull would have split the ship apart. This simply did not happen.
> 
> With no working bilge pumps, the end result is simply a matter of time...


I just did some rough calcs and they way I figure Bounty with just the floataion of the wood alone could float well over 100,000 lbs. I think they had 80,000 lbs lead and then engines, pump, and other equipment would add quite a bit more, but with some trapped air pockets it would be normal for the ship to float for quite a while before she sank, even if her hull was split open below water.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Something I haven't heard mentioned, apologies if I missed it: Who comes out of the yard expecting the pumps not to be clogged, or to clog almost instantly thereafter? If any work at all was one in the engine room then you can expect trash, rags, butts, dirt, paint chips, stripped wire insulation, metal drillings, etc to be all over the place. All that crap will end up at the low point, where the bilge pump suction line will surely eat it.

In my experience, the first few days out of the yard can be the worst. That's the whole point of a shakedown cruise before you head off into the wild blue yonder. Even if the yard does everything right, there's just no way to dial things in until they are running under operational conditions. You always have to make adjustments, tweaks, and sometimes discover real, very serious, problems. 

Of course, I have no idea what was worked on. All of these problems could have simply not been addressed at all and weren't part of the repair package.


----------



## smurphny

casey1999 said:


> I just did some rough calcs and they way I figure Bounty with just the floataion of the wood alone could float well over 100,000 lbs. I think they had 80,000 lbs lead and then engines, pump, and other equipment would add quite a bit more, but with some trapped air pockets it would be normal for the ship to float for quite a while before she sank, even if her hull was split open below water.


I was surprised that they lost track of her so quickly because she was certainly floating in those last photos. It might be helpful if the CG tried to place transponders on hazards like this whenever possible. Maybe they had no opportunity to do so but the pictures seemed to be in fairly benign conditions. I would not like to run into that at night.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cdn0.virgin.com/uploads/images/story/bounty_fe-17214-530x330.jpg


----------



## chef2sail

smurphny said:


> I was surprised that they lost track of her so quickly because she was certainly floating in those last photos. It might be helpful if the CG tried to place transponders on hazards like this whenever possible. Maybe they had no opportunity to do so but the pictures seemed to be in fairly benign conditions. I would not like to run into that at night.
> https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cdn0.virgin.com/uploads/images/story/bounty_fe-17214-530x330.jpg


She sank in 12,000 ft


----------



## smurphny

Thanks Chef. I didn't know anyone had actually confirmed that she went down.


----------



## jameswilson29

Damning article in the Richmond Times Dispatch on this sorry tragedy, apparently due to superstition:
Did superstition and the lure of a new role drive the Bounty to the bottom of the sea? - Richmond Times-Dispatch: News, Crime And Politics For The Richmond Metro Area


----------



## Minnewaska

I knew it. She went down because there were bananas and red-heads aboard.


----------



## Roger Long

jameswilson29 said:


> Damning article ...


C__p article. The scale of the storm was well enough known days before for Dan Moreland in Nova Scotia to delay his departure. Nothing new here for anyone who followed the events.

The crew didn't know much about the storm as they were busy with the ship according to testimony. If there was any rush on Wallbridge's part, it was because he knew that, as soon as he mentioned the storm, the crew would start finding out more details about it and have time to think about their individual decisions. If he had that meeting on Thursday, and waited till Friday to leave, he probably would not have had the crew to take the vessel to sea. That is what is damning. No superstition here, just criminal negligent hubris.


----------



## PCP

What is suggested is that Wallbridge was superstitious regarding Friday and that could have influenced his choice of weather and information limiting the days he could sail off. He was running in a tight schedule and needed to sail away to not miss commitments.

It is said that he never had set sail on Friday, following a long tradition regarding bad luck. Of course, if that is true or not and if it had played a part on this accident, it is impossible to know:

* quote:"Why did a captain with decades of experience choose to rush to sea shorthanded and with a largely inexperienced crew at dusk on Oct. 25, after a long day of sailing and tours, as the powerful storm churned northward and gained strength?

A possible answer to "Why?" barely got mentioned during the proceedings...

Only Doug Faunt, 65, a quick-witted, veteran sailor who testified wearing a T-shirt carrying the date of the Bounty's demise, offered a glimpse into the simple question of "Why?": Walbridge's obeisance to an ancient superstition.
Walbridge, 63, never left port on Fridays, Faunt told..: The old superstition, spawned by the discomfort of setting sail on the day of Christ's crucifixion - Good Friday - could have played a fatal role for the Bounty...

Long bypassed by modern sailors as an illogical remnant of the past, the superstition apparently was part of Walbridge's makeup, part of the way of life aboard an 18th-century square-rigger. No matter that this Bounty was a Hollywood creation built in 1960....

The Thursday evening departure was a crucial factor, though. By Friday, the ship was far at sea with Sandy building to a huge presence. The Bounty pressed on, and by Saturday, it was clear the ship could not sail around the massive storm to the east. Instead, Walbridge ordered a desperate course adjustment that took the ship on a southwest tack, trying to reach the shelter of Cape Hatteras.

Had Walbridge waited until Friday to sail or waited until Saturday, assuming he was adamant about not setting sail on Friday, the power, breadth and imminent danger of the storm would have been far more obvious.

...So Bounty set sail Thursday evening..."
*

Also some light is shed about why he wanted to arrive to St. Petersburg, Fla, on a schedule:

quote*"Walbridge was doing more than avoiding a Friday send-off....
Bounty's possible salvation lay in coming under the control of a nonprofit organization that could provide tax advantages and use the ship for fundraising by taking on paying passengers and other commercial enterprises. But it needed costly upgrading to meet Coast Guard standards to take on that new mission, and it needed to find an organization that wanted the aging ship....

The ship was scheduled to spend the winter at port in Galveston, Texas, but before that, it would spend a few days at the St. Petersburg, Fla., pier where it had been a familiar sight for years. The pier was about to be renovated, and Walbridge wanted a last visit there before heading to Texas.

As Bounty set sail from New London, plans were coming together, also, for using the ship as the focal point of a nonprofit based in Birmingham, Ala., dedicated to raising funds for and awareness of people with Down syndrome.
The Ashley DeRamus Foundation, along with Walbridge, was planning to give individuals with Down syndrome the chance to crew on a tall ship. It would be an educational opportunity for them to learn to sail and to develop independence, self-esteem and responsibility.

The foundation and Walbridge arranged to stage a special celebration in Tampa, Fla., once the ship arrived from New England. Families of Down syndrome adults and children planned to meet the ship; several individuals with Down syndrome would make the final leg of the trip to Galveston as volunteer crew members along with DeRamus.

It was all going to be filmed, narrated and become part of the foundation's marketing pitch.

Christian was buoyant. "Claudene had been told by the captain that she would be part of the winter crew, and she was just totally excited about that," Kannegiesser said. "She was going to be part of the public relations and marketing effort that would bring closer together the foundation and the Bounty."...

The day for the Tampa celebration was set Nov. 9. The trip from New London to Tampa by way of Key West is about 1,600 nautical miles. If the Bounty averaged 5 knots, it would take 13.3 full days of sailing to reach the Tampa-St. Petersburg area.

That meant that if the Bounty got in a full day of sailing on Friday, Oct. 26, and nonstop sailing night and day for the next 12.3 days, it would reach Tampa Bay about midnight Nov. 6. Had the Bounty waited for Sandy to pass, gone far enough east to avoid it, or not set sail until Saturday, reaching Tampa on time would have been virtually impossible.

So the rushed start the night of Oct. 25 was crucial: It avoided having to set sail on superstitious Friday; it gave the Bounty a sliver of a chance of avoiding Sandy and a cushion of a day or so. But there could be no breakdown, no prolonged stopover, no significant change in course.

....
"We don't want there to be any impression that Nov. 9 was a fixed date that couldn't be changed," Kannegiesser said. "It was clear that if there was a problem, we could accommodate that."

What was clear from the hearings in Portsmouth, though, was that Walbridge, if anything, was a man of his word, someone who could be counted on to make good on a plan. He ruled the ship, where it went and when. Was meeting the Florida timetable something he saw as a sign of dependability, as crucial to the vessel's future of gaining a new owner?"
*

Did superstition and the lure of a new role drive the Bounty to the bottom of the sea? - Richmond Times-Dispatch: News, Crime And Politics For The Richmond Metro Area

All this makes a twisted kind of sense. Not logical, but logic seems not to be strong on that ship and crew. it also explains why Claudine, even with doubts gambled to make the voyage. What was at stake to her was not only the voyage but a kind of permanent job in a thing that he really loved.

It seemed he had not had much luck in his live on the past and end up in not having luck in is end, being one of the two that died.

....


----------

