# Ocean baby rescue underway off Mexico



## flyingwelshman

_A U.S. Navy warship reached a crippled sailboat hundreds of kilometres off the Mexican coast and was preparing Sunday to complete the rescue of a sick one-year-old girl._

"...the sailboat, which does not have steering or communication abilities" - this can't be right. According to the article the sailboat takes on water when the engine runs, so "It's now slowly moving using only the sails." Doesn't mention any issue with the rudder etc. I guess that must be another example of journalistic accuracy in action.

I hope all goes well with the transfer, and with the family's voyage.


----------



## TerryBradley

If it didn't have communication capabilities, how'd they radio the Navy that they had a sick child and needed help? Fox showed several (four) rescue divers jumping from the rear of a C130 and said that they administered medication to the child. Never mentioned a problem with the weather or the boat. (I'm assuming that this is the same story you are referring to after all how many one year olds need emergency attention while sailing on a boat in any given day?) The bigger question in Fox news's mind was: Should they be allowed to sail with an infant on board and/or should they be required to pay the cost of providing the emergency services? HMMM. I'll get my popcorn and THEN let the discourse begin!


----------



## dixiedawg

The reportage here sounds just like when it's a firearm story: minimum BS content of 75%. Clueless reporters spewing sensational, headline-grabbing soundbites for the clueless audience to be thrilled and appalled by. 

The ethics question is worthy of debate; it would just be nice if the media would do their job half as well as the Navy does theirs.


----------



## christian.hess

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude


----------



## PaulinVictoria

A sailing boat moving only using its sails? How is that even possible?


----------



## ericb760

TerryBradley said:


> If it didn't have communication capabilities, how'd they radio the Navy that they had a sick child and needed help? Fox showed several (four) rescue divers jumping from the rear of a C130 and said that they administered medication to the child. Never mentioned a problem with the weather or the boat. (I'm assuming that this is the same story you are referring to after all how many one year olds need emergency attention while sailing on a boat in any given day?) The bigger question in Fox news's mind was: *Should they be allowed to sail with an infant on board and/or should they be required to pay the cost of providing the emergency services?* HMMM. I'll get my popcorn and THEN let the discourse begin!


Children have been sailing as long as humans have been sailing and by all accounts, this family was well prepared, and, the impression is that the child became ill after some time at sea. I don't see how blame can be placed on the parents.


----------



## MedSailor

Wow, the comments that people are leaving on their blog are horrific! Apparently the fat folks munching cheetoes on their couches watching the news have strong opinions about sailing with kids. Child abuse? Demanding that CPS take their kids away from them permanently.... 

I'm just going to stop talking now, before the pressure builds and the gasket blows.... 

Medsailor


----------



## manatee

PaulinVictoria said:


> A sailing boat moving only using its sails? How is that even possible?


It's a pirated Bob Perry design and therefore chock full of PFM*.










Union 36 Boat Review - Practical Sailor Article



> In a blog by the late Terry Bingham, a Union 36 owner, Perry is quoted as saying that "the yard went on to continue building the boat, but they marketed it under whatever name the individual broker wanted, so that's why you find the same boat with so many names ... Hans Christian 36, Mariner Polaris 36, Union 36, EO 36-all the same boat. The Mao Ta 36 is a variation on the same hull but built by a different yard. [The Union 36] is a very good boat and in every way very similar to most of my early double-enders. It's a bastard child of mine, and I will continue to feel like the father."


*PFM: Pure F'g Magic


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

But the usa has free speech.


----------



## ericb760

The family has, apparently, been transferred to the awaiting Navy ship and are enroute back to San Diego, having abandoned their boat.

Stranded Family With Sick Baby Boards Navy Rescue Ship | NBC 7 San Diego


----------



## MedSailor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> But the usa has free speech.


Yes! But I don't have to like what people say, and I can say what I want back, which is part of the deal.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE free speech, but at the same time I don't like the comments people were leaving on that blog. I think they should have the right to say what they have, but as decent human beings, I don't think they should have exercised their right in the way they did. Pretty crass to judge them so harshly while they are in the middle of a family health crisis.

Medsailor


----------



## azguy

I know it's been done, but seriously, I do not think children of that age should be involved in "around the world" trips...


----------



## ravinracin

Children have be on the sea since humans have been on the sea. Me thinks they are probably much safer there than on the congested highways of this country. You put your children in a car for anything but for what is essential, what kind of a parent are you?


----------



## Wonderinlost

To assist in possible private salvage operation of S/V Rebel Heart amongst the sailing community there has been a fund drive set up if anyone cares to chip in or pass it along.

https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/djWq3

I know If I gotten into some serous crap out there it would be a little nice to see that part of the community does care. To one and their own about opinions.


----------



## Fstbttms

According to this post from a few minutes ago on Cruiser's Forum, the boat was scuttled:

*Charlotte from Rebel Heart contacted her sister, Sariah and stated that RH was scuttled by the Navy due to a leak on the boat which made it a navigational hazard. Family are all fine including Lyra. Steaming toward San Diego.*

Forum Member's boat and daughter in trouble off of Mexico - Page 34 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## gamayun

This breaks my heart in so many ways. They'll recover. The child seems stable and will be fine, too. But we're certainly not going to see the criticism die for a while. That's unfortunate. It is human nature to second guess a situation that's gone bad and requires a rescue. God forbid any of us should find ourselves in something similar. Until we have more to go on, it sounds like this family did everything right that they could; so let's let them heal and give them an opportunity to defend themselves before ripping them apart on something that 99.9% of the public (maybe even 99% of the sailing crowd) will never have the cojones to do. Ever.


----------



## Wonderinlost

Tis a bummer to happen.....


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

I, for one, can't condone taking a child that young off-shore. When little kids get sick things can go south really fast. Being more than a quick car ride from medical help when you have such a young child is just not very smart. Sure kids have gone to sea, and even been born at sea, since humans fist started sailing. But guess what? Many of them also died. In "the old days", say more than a hundred years ago or so, even the best medical care couldn't do much for a really sick kid; being on a boat or on dry land probably didn't make that much difference. But things are different today. The tragedy that almost happened in this case was entirely preventable.

I'm not saying little kids, maybe even infants, shouldn't be taken on sailing trips. But off-shore? No way.


----------



## Dog8It

Puddin'_Tain said:


> I, for one, can't condone taking a child that young off-shore. When little kids get sick things can go south really fast. Being more than a quick car ride from medical help when you have such a young child is just not very smart. Sure kids have gone to sea, and even been born at sea, since humans fist started sailing. But guess what? Many of them also died. In "the old days", say more than a hundred years ago or so, even the best medical care couldn't do much for a really sick kid; being on a boat or on dry land probably didn't make that much difference. But things are different today. The tragedy that almost happened in this case was entirely preventable.
> 
> I'm not saying little kids, maybe even infants, shouldn't be taken on sailing trips. But off-shore? No way.


If one was to follow this analogy, then no one living in remote areas (say half of Alaska) should even have kids. If this happened on land, it would not even make the front page news. Facts and reality check do not appear to be the forte of most news organizations today.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well - this is going to sting a bit in hindsight:

From CF thread "Arrested for bad seamanship":
Arrested for bad seamanship - Cruisers & Sailing Forums



rebel heart said:


> How long until someone here defends him with an argument such as:
> 
> Quote:
> Hey guys, stop attacking him! He's out there doing it!


----------



## mitchbrown

Here's what I have to say to all the people who will be criticizing. Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone. have you ever put a kid in a car without proper seat belt then you are an irresponsible parent. have you ever let a kid under 18 light the fire works then you are an irresponsible parent. and on and on. Everyone has done things that could have ended up in damage being done or someone being hurt. As far as I'm concerned the criticizers are laughable.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

Dog8It said:


> If one was to follow this analogy, then no one living in remote areas (say half of Alaska) should even have kids. If this happened on land, it would not even make the front page news. Facts and reality check do not appear to be the forte of most news organizations today.


Very few places in the Northern Hemisphere, even most of Alaska, are so remote that emergency medical care is more than 12 (or, at most, 24) hours away; a boat well off-shore being one huge exception. Perhaps you either don't have kids, or if you do you (and they) are lucky enough that you haven't seen just how fast an infant/toddler can develop a life-threatening illness. Believe me, witnessing such is no fun; even with and ER just a short car ride away. I can't imagine waiting days for help to arrive while I watched any small child, particularly my own child, getting closer to death with every passing moment.

If any of you think that such a risk is worth not having to postpone the adventure for a few years, fine. But how can an infant or toddler make an informed decision about such risks?


----------



## MedSailor

As someone who is a medical provider, and has spent half his medical career so far in Emergency Medicine or Urgent Medicine, I take issue with the premise that a healthy one year old child must be kept near a medical facility at all times because a life threatening illness may develop at any time. 

Now if you're in your 7th or 8th decade of life and have already had 2 heart attacks, then yes, by all means, do the tax payer a favor and live across the street from Mass General. Regular, healthy, immunized one year olds? They're not all dropping like flies and being saved by the ambulances (I used to run one of those too) all the time. 

Yes, kids go from well to sick quicker than adults, but usually they go right back to well faster than grown ups. My 2 year old had a fever of 103.5 a couple weeks ago and very quickly looked really bad. An hour later, he looked great. A LOT of what we do in urgent care is pat worried parents on the head, observe the kid for an hour or to, and let them go home having done pretty much nothing at all. Croup, for example, can be REALLY scary to watch, but usually the kids get through it without aggressive intervention. 

It appears this poor 1 year old tyke got salmonella. That's perhaps more of a hazard out at sea, but it's a hazard that potentially exists in every kitchen and McDonald's as well. From what the news is saying, the kid was "in stable condition" as soon as the frogs got there. It's entirely plausible that the kid maybe would have been fine without medical care. We may never know. Even if the kid was saved by the medical team, it's lightning strike odds that it happened when they were as far as they could possibly be from help. Wouldn't have made news at all if they were in Cabo and wandered down to the local doctor's office and got some Cipro. In fact, the kid was probably only going to be away from potential medical help for a few weeks total during an entire circumnavigation. 

Healthy kids just don't need to be kept near a hospital at all times unless there is a known underlying illness.

MedSailor


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

MedSailor said:


> As someone who is a medical provider, and has spent half his medical career so far in Emergency Medicine or Urgent Medicine, I take issue with the premise that a healthy one year old child must be kept near a medical facility at all times because a life threatening illness may develop at any time....


A someone who watched an otherwise healthy 4-year-old go from having a run-of-the-mill cold to pneumonia, complete with 106˚ fever, overnight I can tell you that I would never take a little kid off-shore, NEVER.



MedSailor said:


> ...Now if you're in your 7th or 8th decade of life and have already had 2 heart attacks, then yes, by all means, do the tax payer a favor and live across the street from Mass General. ...


If a septuagenarian wants to attempt re-creating Robin Knox-Johnson's Golden Globe Race I would say, "more power to you!" (particularly if that septuagenarian were Sir Robin himself). Any adult making such a decision is fine with me. But that isn't the case here, is it? Risking a little kid's life by taking them off-shore sailing, simply because you can wait a few years, is kinda like not vaccinating them against measles or mumps. If an adults want to make informed decisions that risks their own lives, fine. But this thread involves making such a decision that risks the life of a little kid. Not the same thing at all.


----------



## ravinracin

I am really sick of hearing others here and on Rebel Heart's blog criticizing the parents right to take their child off shore. Such strong, close-minded, uniformed zealots ranting and attacking these very loving parents is despicable! This is like mob mentality. Most have no idea what cruising, sailing or even sailboats are like and most have no idea of just how many kids are out there with their parents. All this talk about " call CPS, make them pay", is such holier than thou crap that is just sickens me. I know people like you. Let us hope your foul, nasty ranting's come back and bite you. Leave these people alone!


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> A someone who watched an otherwise healthy 4-year-old go from having a run-of-the-mill cold to pneumonia, complete with 106˚ fever, overnight I can tell you that I would never take a little kid off-shore, NEVER.


Taking all the emotive, anecdotal chest beating out of this for a moment...

As someone who has cruised with a baby (coastal), and who intends of going cruising offshore with a small child I have to admit that what happened to Eric and Charlotte is one of our biggest fears.

Puddin' is partly right that yes there is a risk involved in cruising with children in so much as you are taking them out of the reach of medical help.

We believe it is a small, manageable risk, like all risk factors in sailing, it is one we have considered from all angles and we mitigate the risk as best we can and to a point where we consider that it is acceptable risk.

Being a parent is all about balancing risks and making hard decisions. When someone has raised the perfect child, making only right decisions and has perfected the formula of life please let me know.

Meanwhile we will be cruising with our kids, as safely we can.


----------



## Beccara

MedSailor said:


> Healthy kids just don't need to be kept near a hospital at all times unless there is a known underlying illness.


Hi MedSailor,

I've been following the whole story quite closing and I've noticed something about the timings that makes the hair on my neck stand on ends.

Charlotte has a blog post on March 11 about her and Lyra testing positive for Salmonella, At the end of the post she mentions the following:

"Cora: la princesa (as she calls herself) is currently taking three types of antibiotics, and a cough suppressant, to battle a bacterial upper respiratory infection.

Lyra: my little engineer (as I call her) is currently taking three types of antibiotics and a steroid, to battle bronchitis and a bacterial upper respiratory infection."

With both kids on 3 sets of AB's, Lyra fighting Salmonella/Bronchitis 9 days later they set sail, Without knowing the exact AB's they were on I can only guess but in my experience it would be 7-10days of AB's then follow up.

Clearly Lyra wasn't over whatever she had on land or was compromised by something new, I was wondering what your thoughts are as a medical professional given the closeness of the illness to the start of the passage. I would be uneasy sailing off that soon given bronchitis + high humidity is not a good place to be


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Beccara said:


> With both kids on 3 sets of AB's, Lyra fighting Salmonella/Bronchitis 9 days later they set sail, Without knowing the exact AB's they were on I can only guess but in my experience it would be 7-10days of AB's then follow up.


I get the feeling that recurrence of salmonella can be caused by immunodeficiency. Perhaps the seasickness brought it back on?

Anyway, if both kids are on 3 antibiotics each a life at sea would have been far healthier!

In my 5 years at sea I have had a slight cold once.

I have never been more healthy in my life.

At a cruiser gathering, BBQ, Or bar you never hear a cough, splutter or see an inhaler sucked.

A doctor relying on cruisers would go broke qucktime!

Instead of telling people not to go sailing with kids I say get the hell out of the filthy city and give your kids the chance to grow up healthy!!!

Take them sailing and you will find you can chuck the antibiotics overboard when their useby date expires.

Mark


----------



## chall03

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Instead of telling people not to go sailing with kids I say get the hell out of the filthy city and give your kids the chance to grow up healthy!!!
> 
> Take them sailing and you will find you can chuck the antibiotics overboard when their useby date expires.
> 
> Mark


Ummm careful Mark, then every anchorage will be full of boats with screaming little rugrats like ours destroying all your sundowner peacefulness


----------



## remetau

Puddin'_Tain said:


> A someone who watched an otherwise healthy 4-year-old go from having a run-of-the-mill cold to pneumonia, complete with 106˚ fever, overnight I can tell you that I would never take a little kid off-shore, NEVER.


And that is your choice, but you shouldn't bash others for making their choices.

They were close to 1000 miles in to their run of just over 3000 so they were 1/3 of the way there. This would have been the longest part of their journey, but most places they were to visit have medical care. It's not they were going 25,000 miles straight through.


----------



## krisscross

Having raised 3 kids in a very natural way (as few doctor's visits as possible), I see nothing wrong with taking kids for long offshore trips. Most of the time kids get sick from other people. I hope this family keeps their dreams alive despite all the negativity and criticism.


----------



## Bob142

Would somebody please wrap the fear mongers of the world in bubble wrap and put a bike helmet on them...Thank you...


----------



## smackdaddy

ravinracin said:


> I am really sick of hearing others here and on Rebel Heart's blog criticizing the parents right to take their child off shore. Such strong, close-minded, uniformed zealots ranting and attacking these very loving parents is despicable! This is like mob mentality. Most have no idea what cruising, sailing or even sailboats are like and most have no idea of just how many kids are out there with their parents. All this talk about " call CPS, make them pay", is such holier than thou crap that is just sickens me. I know people like you. Let us hope your foul, nasty ranting's come back and bite you. Leave these people alone!


They should have waited until the kids were older to do a hop this big. The Carib would have been a great place for them to explore for a few years. They made a mistake. It happens.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

Hold on folks. I never said anything about sicking the authorities (e.g., Child Protective Services) on the parents. I didn't even say that I would flat-out condemn them. I simply said that I can't *condone* their choice to take their kids off-shore, nor would I nominate them for parents of the year. This may surprise some people, but the world isn't just black and white. There are plenty of shades of gray to just about every situation.

Personally, I sure as hell wouldn't risk my kids' lives the way these parents did. Coastal cruising, fine. But I would wait until the kids are a few years older before I ventured off-shore. I'm funny that way; I make my kid wear a seatbelt in the car, I make her wear a helmet while on her bike, I make sure her vaccinations are up to date, I don't let her pet the coyotes that roam our neighborhood, and (gasp!!) I make her wear a PFD when we're on the boat.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

smackdaddy said:


> They should have waited until the kids were older to do a hop this big. The Carib would have been a great place for them to explore for a few years. They made a mistake. It happens.


What he said.


----------



## sausagebarn

My wife and I were reflecting on when our kids were these ages....it really sucked. It was wonderful and magical and stuff but when I look back it was pretty sucky. And I am sure it would be nice to spend the time at anchorages and nice little beaches but I can not imaging changing a poopy diaper at 0300 in a blow. Yes, I am sure some people could hang with that and for those they should go for it. But I am just imagining baby poop all over the cushions....


----------



## smackdaddy

sausagebarn said:


> My wife and I were reflecting on when our kids were these ages....it really sucked. It was wonderful and magical and stuff but when I look back it was pretty sucky. And I am sure it would be nice to spend the time at anchorages and nice little beaches but I can not imaging changing a poopy diaper at 0300 in a blow. Yes, I am sure some people could hang with that and for those they should go for it. But I am just imagining baby poop all over the cushions....


It's been 9 years since our boys were infants/toddlers. The "selfishness" that everyone is hammering on in these two is pretty common. At that point with brand new kids, if you're at all an adventurous sort, you're just starting to transition from living your life for you as a couple, to living your life for your kids. And it's not easy - for anyone. EVERYONE complains about this at the beginning to some degree (like they did on their blog). So I don't buy into the hysterical "bad parent" stuff.

As I said above, the mistake these people made was taking WAY too big a bite on the adventure side at this stage of their family (a 3K mile passage?). This greatly amplified all the issues you deal with as a very young parent.

I hope when they get back they go "underground" and work on their family and marriage and future adventures. If they go the media route, it won't be pretty.


----------



## fryewe

smackdaddy said:


> They should have waited..._*It was their call to make.*_
> 
> ...It happens._*Doesn't it always when complex machines and people are put in challenging situations? It's a big part of the adventure.*_


None of us know the whole story and won't unless Eric tells it. I'd save second guessing until the facts are out.

Two things I'd like to see addressed...
-was the boat really ready? The nature of the failure(s) and why Eric think they happened would be useful.
-was the crew ready? First glance (and I haven't read but a couple of things on their blog) to me it appears that Eric was - in effect - single handing. A more dangerous situation on Rebel Heart would (perhaps) have been Eric falling seriously ill.


----------



## caberg

It seems sort of selfish to take an infant on a long offshore passage. I am not saying it cannot or should not be done, I just cannot imagine ever considering it with my own son until he's of an age where the experience would mean something to him and contribute to his life in positive ways. A baby does not get anything out of being confined to a boat at sea for weeks at a time, and I believe it compromises the ability to provide for the baby's needs.


----------



## MedSailor

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Very few places in the Northern Hemisphere, even most of Alaska, are so remote that emergency medical care is more than 12 (or, at most, 24) hours away; a boat well off-shore being one huge exception. Perhaps you either don't have kids, or if you do you (and they) are lucky enough that you haven't seen just how fast an infant/toddler can develop a life-threatening illness. Believe me, witnessing such is no fun; even with and ER just a short car ride away. I can't imagine waiting days for help to arrive while I watched any small child, particularly my own child, getting closer to death with every passing moment.
> 
> If any of you think that such a risk is worth not having to postpone the adventure for a few years, fine. But how can an infant or toddler make an informed decision about such risks?


Puddin',

I appreciate how you are voicing your opinion here, and yes, I did notice that you are not telling everyone not to do it, but are rather trying to make us think about the risks. I appreciate that approach, not only because it is not judgmental, but because risk was MY point, and you are helping me make my argument with your example.

Now, risk is really what it's all about. What a lot of people are doing here, I feel, is watching someone who just won a medium sized jackpot in the lottery, and debating the pros of buying a ticket with the intent to win.

In the above example or the 80 year old going out on his own, yes, you're right he can make the informed decision to accept that risk, and I endorse him doing that too (so long as he doesn't take an epirb).  I'm not a fan either of parents bringing big unnecessary risks on their kids, who can't make the decision themselves. _The reason the analogy you made doesn't work, is that that same risk _(of really needing acute, high-level medical care) _just isn't there with a healthy 1 year old._

Based on the odds, the sick 80 year old might actually need fast help over a 3 week ocean crossing. The odds that a healthy 1 year old will need fast help during that particular 3 week period that they cross, is lightning strike low.

Unfortunately we can't translate the debate now into one where we change the circumstances suddenly into risky ones, just because of one outcome. That is very poor science. If we want to keep our kids from all harm, including lightning strike odds, then we do have to start considering living in a bubble. Better make it a BPA free, breathable bubble at that.

MedSailor


----------



## blutoyz

PaulinVictoria said:


> A sailing boat moving only using its sails? How is that even possible?


Strange....my boat is faster under sail


----------



## MedSailor

Beccara said:


> Hi MedSailor,
> 
> I've been following the whole story quite closing and I've noticed something about the timings that makes the hair on my neck stand on ends.
> 
> Charlotte has a blog post on March 11 about her and Lyra testing positive for Salmonella, At the end of the post she mentions the following:
> 
> "Cora: la princesa (as she calls herself) is currently taking three types of antibiotics, and a cough suppressant, to battle a bacterial upper respiratory infection.
> 
> Lyra: my little engineer (as I call her) is currently taking three types of antibiotics and a steroid, to battle bronchitis and a bacterial upper respiratory infection."
> 
> With both kids on 3 sets of AB's, Lyra fighting Salmonella/Bronchitis 9 days later they set sail, Without knowing the exact AB's they were on I can only guess but in my experience it would be 7-10days of AB's then follow up.
> 
> Clearly Lyra wasn't over whatever she had on land or was compromised by something new, I was wondering what your thoughts are as a medical professional given the closeness of the illness to the start of the passage. I would be uneasy sailing off that soon given bronchitis + high humidity is not a good place to be


Well, this "could" change how I feel about this particular family's decision to leave, but a LOT more information is needed before I can make an opinion. Once I make an opinion, unless there is a valuable lesson in it worth sharing, I might just keep it to myself as to not add to the pile of judgement that I'm sure the family WILL read.

Here are my thoughts based on this small keyhole look into the medical scenario.

Something is really missing in the info or wrong here. 3 antibiotics for a respiratory infection?? That's not right. Even when I was treating septic (read dying of a bacterial infection) patients in the ICU I rarely if ever prescribed 3 antibiotics at the same time. One usually works. If there is resistance to an antibiotic (now widespread even in healthy people) or if the infection is in 2 areas of the body where antibiotic penetration characteristics are different, then yes, I prescribe 2. Rarely 3, though infectious disease docs are starting to encourage this practice in some circles due to rampant antibiotic resistance. If the kid(s) actually NEEDED 3 antibiotics, then they should probably both have been in the pediatric ICU for whatever they had.

There's the rub though. I'll bet a peso that they didn't need all those antibiotics. Antibiotic prescription for viruses is a MAJOR problem in US medicine and elsewhere. All day long I have patients asking me for a Z-pak for their colds. "I know my body" or "the mucus is green" etc. Currently, in the USA 73% of bronchitis diagnoses are followed with an aintibiotic prescription even though all of us providers (should) know that it's a virus. Yes, a virus. Don't EVER accept a prescription for an antibiotic from your doctor for bronchitis.

Sinus infections? Don't even get me started. Depending on what study you look at 0.5%-2% (lets call it 1%) of sinus infections are bacterial. One percent. Compare that with the data that in the USA if you go to your doctor with acute sinus symptoms 93% of the time you will walk out with an antibiotic prescription.

In mexico, I don't have the data, but I'd be willing to bet the prescribing patterns are the same. So, the kids were probably on a horrific cocktail of antibiotics for viral colds. Should you leave for an offshore trip with 2 kids who have colds? Ideally not, but the average kid in school gets 8-12 colds per year, or a little less if they're not in school. Multiply that by 2 kids, add in 2 parents who get sick and guess what? You'll never have a window to depart at all.

As for the salmonella test and diagnosis before departure, that also depends on a lot of things. Usually with acute bacterial illnesses if you start antibiotics, and the patient improves you're home free. You're especially home free if you know what bug it is because you know what drugs kill it. So departing while finishing a course isn't always a bad idea. On the other hand, I can see circumstances where it would be a bad idea to leave.

Also, we have to account for what advice were they given by the medical professionals? People trust us, and usually we do good things with that trust and give good advice (with the glaring exception of how we treat the common cold). Did the kids doc say everything would be fine, go ahead and go? Or did they leave against medical advice? Questions.

Also, remember when your doctor is advising you about something like the state of your health before going to sea, that your doctor's expertise ends once you start talking about going to sea. Odds are your doc may be just as naive about what life on a boat is actually like and can't accurately advise you unless you give a lot of specifics, much like you have to do to your other land loving friends. Your doc might give you advice that is too conservative, thinking that the second you're on a boat you're "at sea Arrrr" all the time. They also might not know about the specific dangers and challenges that our environment does create.

I look forward to more details emerging. I've read part of their blog and Eric is a USCG licences captain, and a former navy corpsman (which is a medical profession I have a lot of respect for). They both seem level headed, and I never saw evidence of them being flippant with their kids health and safety.

MedSailor


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> They should have waited until the kids were older to do a hop this big. The Carib would have been a great place for them to explore for a few years. They made a mistake. It happens.


That's a pretty big call man.

Do you know them? The boat? Their experience? How they sail as a family?

What exactly was the mistake??

Or is it your opinion that kids should not ever sail bluewater??


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> That's a pretty big call man.
> 
> Do you know them? The boat? Their experience? How they sail as a family?
> 
> What exactly was the mistake??
> 
> Or is it your opinion that kids should not ever sail bluewater??


I don't think a 1-yo and 3-yo are ready for a month-long-plus 3K-mile non-stop passage (if I'm understanding their plan correctly). That's all I mean.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

chall03 said:


> That's a pretty big call man.
> 
> Do you know them? The boat? Their experience? How they sail as a family?
> 
> What exactly was the mistake??
> 
> Or is it your opinion that kids should not ever sail bluewater??


Well, let's see here.

- The kids got sick, at least one of them really sick

- Almost all of their comm equipment failed

- The Air National Guard had to use a C-130 to parachute in medics

- The Navy had to divert a 452-foot ship to effect a rescue

- The boat was leaking, and its steering was INOP, making continuing the trip dangerous enough for the USN to scuttle the boat

Yup, everything went "peachy". They were totally prepared. No doubt about it.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I don't think a 1-yo and 3-yo are ready for a month-long-plus 3K-mile non-stop passage (if I'm understanding their plan correctly). That's all I mean.


And exactly why is that?

When would they be old enough?

It would not be a walk in the park, there isn't much that is a walk in a park with a 1 and 3 year old.

You know that plenty of people have cruised the world with kids. Most don't end up on the news, these guys just got caught out.


----------



## travlin-easy

There seems to be a lot of medical BS involved with many of the posts. First and foremost, no one is put on three different antibiotics simultaneously - it just doesn't work that way. The only way that could happen would be if some idiot decided to do this on their own. No physician I know would ever consider this type of therapy for a URI. And, it could be downright dangerous, especially with young children. And, on top of that, steroids - not a prayer - not with little kids. That would be insane unless the kids were constantly being monitored in a hospital situation. How do I know this? Well, I spent 15 years working in cardio-pulmonary medicine at two of the largest hospitals in Maryland. I saw lots of nasty URI cases, and salmonella cases came in the ER nearly every day of the week. Before posting anything else on this, I would wait for the REAL information to come forth. Too many things just don't sound correct.

Gary


----------



## Brent Swain

smackdaddy said:


> They should have waited until the kids were older to do a hop this big. The Carib would have been a great place for them to explore for a few years. They made a mistake. It happens.


A client who was on a Montreal firefighters pension, Canada pension and CPP combined said he couldn't afford to cruise the Carribean, without going broke. Some places charge hundreds of dollars to just check in. The cruising fees there are horrendous. Only those who work full time, like Smack, can afford it( "Let them eat cake!" says he) The South Pacific is still far more affordable.


----------



## christian.hess

and another high and mighty forum with 20/20 vision...

I read the 1 year old baby had an unkwon heart disease develop midway...so lets stop the whole criticism...and hope they recover the boat and baby gets well



cheers


----------



## Shinook

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Well, let's see here.
> 
> - The kids got sick, at least one of them really sick
> 
> - Almost all of their comm equipment failed
> 
> - The Air National Guard had to use a C-130 to parachute in medics
> 
> - The Navy had to divert a 452-foot ship to effect a rescue
> 
> - The boat was leaking, and its steering was INOP, making continuing the trip dangerous enough for the USN to scuttle the boat
> 
> Yup, everything went "peachy". They were totally prepared. No doubt about it.


As I understand it, they had medicine on board to treat the kids if they got sick (per the sister). When that failed to produce results, they called for help.

As for the boat, the reports of what was wrong with it seem to vary pretty significantly. The most consistent things being that it took on water in some capacity (most saying when the engine was running) and the steering had failed.

I'd imagine that, without the sick kids, they could have managed the equipment failures. They did have backup steering, but the going would be slow and uncomfortable. The blog posts show that Charlotte seemed to have a hard time adjusting to life on board at sea and the conditions seemed pretty rough in the pictures. I would also wonder how well the kids took to the motion of those seas.

It strikes me that the whole series of issues is what brought them to abandon ship, the little girl getting sick was probably the straw that broke the camels back:

1. Sick kid
2. Uncomfortable and unhappy crew (wife!)
3. Rough conditions, no near shore to run to
4. Broken steering, relying on emergency steering (how slow would this be?)
5. No engine power (reduced electrical capacity?)

I can almost visualize the sequence of events happening, the frustration building up, and finally just saying "enough is enough" when their child got sick.

In my opinion, knowing when to throw in the towel is a part of good preparation. They were experienced and took precautions, but eventually, enough stuff goes wrong to invalidate your preparation.


----------



## Brent Swain

Another question is how did the boat start taking on water, and the steering and engine fail? What are the negatives of a massive overkill on the rudder fittings , other than a few nickels saved by a penny pinching builder? Wouldn't a better balanced hull shape, which doesn't need the complexity of wheel steering and it's liabilities, have been better seamanship? Doesn't say much for the designer!
Having been able to eliminate a heat exchanger, salt water intake and pump, and its liabilities ( 60% of marine diesel failures are from water cooling and wet exhausts) , by keel cooling thru my metal hull, and a dry exhaust, have eliminated these problems for my boats.


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Well, let's see here.
> 
> - The kids got sick, at least one of them really sick


The youngest was critically ill yes.They got caught out. The oldest was I beleive seasick.

I have stated above that I accept there is some risk here for cruising families.

We mitigate that risk by having an extensive medical kit onboard, my wife also comes from a medical background and we have an arrangement with an ED doctor who is a colleague/friend where we can call him 24/7 on the sat phone, with data provision( expesive but this is emergency stuff) on the sat phone so that if we need to send him visual info/data we can.



Puddin'_Tain said:


> Almost all of their comm equipment failed


That is speculation. We don't know that. They made a sat call that began the rescue, so it did it's job. The boat also had an ais transponder I believe.



Puddin'_Tain said:


> - The Air National Guard had to use a C-130 to parachute in medics
> 
> - The Navy had to divert a 452-foot ship to effect a rescue
> .


Yes.

The Australian Navy had to save several racing crews in the 1996 Sydney to Hobart, and several RTW singlehanded sailors. One french guy twice. The NZ Navy had to rescue a fishing boat a couple of months ago. My local fire brigade helped a cat out of a tree, What is your point? That a rescue was needed, and undertaken? No one is disputing that.



Puddin'_Tain said:


> - The boat was leaking, and its steering was INOP, making continuing the trip dangerous enough for the USN to scuttle the boat
> .


Boats leak, that would not have been enough to end the trip, a sick daughter was. We do not know what the situation was with the steering. The boat had both autopilot and hydrovane, I find it hard to believe it did not have steering. The boat was scuttled because it was abandoned and a danger to nav.



Puddin'_Tain said:


> Yup, everything went "peachy". They were totally prepared. No doubt about it.


No one said everything went peachy. They were by all appearances well prepared however.


----------



## smackdaddy

Brent Swain said:


> A client who was on a Montreal firefighters pension, Canada pension and CPP combined said he couldn't afford to cruise the Carribean, without going broke. Some places charge hundreds of dollars to just check in. The cruising fees there are horrendous. Only those who work full time, like Smack, can afford it( "Let them eat cake!" says he) The South Pacific is still far more affordable.


Cake is a hell of a lot tastier than old elk meat in cooking oil. Just sayin'.


----------



## zeehag

one cup per hour isno leak. boat could havebeen salvaged. erik chose not to. there were folks ready trying to help but the boat disappeared from tracking last night after 0130. sad. no reason to lose that boat was in excellent shape. 
boat fail is why most calls ar emade but that wasnt fail. steering.. how were they able to easily turn boat if steering was spozedly bad. ok how about the fact he only carried total 30 gal fuel. is why engine alleged ly fail.. he save fuel by sailing, but wasnt trade wind sailing was prefrontal wind sailing..... beating family to bits in name of speed... why. no reason to do it without comfort for family. 
toomahy discrepancies. the only thing wrong was what led up to wifee seasick and baby ill and continuous cross contamination to prolong the agony. sad sad thing.


----------



## Brent Swain

smackdaddy said:


> Cake is a hell of a lot tastier than old elk meat in cooking oil. Just sayin'.


I have never advocated storing meat in oil, only storing cheese in cooking oil. It keeps indefinitely that way.
I'd take elk over your hormone, and who knows what else , intrafacial chemotherapy fed beef ,any day!
Dyslexics of the world , untie!


----------



## chall03

zeehag said:


> one cup per hour isno leak. boat could havebeen salvaged. erik chose not to. there were folks ready trying to help but the boat disappeared from tracking last night after 0130. sad. no reason to lose that boat was in excellent shape.
> boat fail is why most calls ar emade but that wasnt fail. steering.. how were they able to easily turn boat if steering was spozedly bad. ok how about the fact he only carried total 30 gal fuel. is why engine alleged ly fail.. he save fuel by sailing, but wasnt trade wind sailing was prefrontal wind sailing..... beating family to bits in name of speed... why. no reason to do it without comfort for family.
> toomahy discrepancies. the only thing wrong was what led up to wifee seasick and baby ill and continuous cross contamination to prolong the agony. sad sad thing.


Most of that is just speculation, assumption and opinion. Maybe some truth in it, maybe not.

I personally am keen to hear Erik's account when and if he is ready to give it. Until then happy to hear they are safe.


----------



## Dean101

I just watched a report of this situation on the news. It mostly focused on the fact that these people took children to sea. Without having read the blog and my familiarity extending only to the opinions here, I would say that healthy children on a boat, even at sea, are safer than anywhere else other than their own homes. Look at how many children are killed or molested in public schools. How medically safe is it to leave your children in a daycare in close proximity to other children who's health you are clueless about? Are they safer in a park where pedophiles may be lurking? How many children are abused each year by people trusted by their parents? 

That being said, it doesn't sound to me like there are enough definitive facts available to really have an informed opinion on this. No communications, yet they called for help. Either they had comm's or they didn't. If they called for help, then they did and yet the media is reporting they didn't. The boat was leaking. Well, how bad? From what I have gathered, this was primarily a medical emergency which happened to be an infant. Personally, I think a parent that is fully aware of their circumstances, condition of the boat, health issues of the crew, etc, etc, and choose to take a child to sea would be making as much an informed decision as to the risks if not more so than some adults with Captain Ron floating through their dreams. 

I think I'll withhold my own opinion on this particular event until all the facts are known. I certainly won't second guess their decisions, nor try to push my own brand of parenting on them.


----------



## chall03

Dean101 said:


> I just watched a report of this situation on the news. It mostly focused on the fact that these people took children to sea. Without having read the blog and my familiarity extending only to the opinions here, I would say that healthy children on a boat, even at sea, are safer than anywhere else other than their own homes. Look at how many children are killed or molested in public schools. How medically safe is it to leave your children in a daycare in close proximity to other children who's health you are clueless about? Are they safer in a park where pedophiles may be lurking? How many children are abused each year by people trusted by their parents?
> 
> That being said, it doesn't sound to me like there are enough definitive facts available to really have an informed opinion on this. No communications, yet they called for help. Either they had comm's or they didn't. If they called for help, then they did and yet the media is reporting they didn't. The boat was leaking. Well, how bad? From what I have gathered, this was primarily a medical emergency which happened to be an infant. Personally, I think a parent that is fully aware of their circumstances, condition of the boat, health issues of the crew, etc, etc, and choose to take a child to sea would be making as much an informed decision as to the risks if not more so than some adults with Captain Ron floating through their dreams.
> 
> I think I'll withhold my own opinion on this particular event until all the facts are known. I certainly won't second guess their decisions, nor try to push my own brand of parenting on them.


+1

Without knowing facts my strong suspicion is that the media have got some of the facts wrong  I do follow their blog and have had discussions with Eric before on another forum. From this I believe the following to be true.

- Rebel Heart had a HF radio, A sat phone, VHF, an AIS transmitter and I believe( but am not sure) an EPIRB. The initial call for help was on the SAT phone. I can not imagine an situation where 'they would have no comms".

- The reports from Charlotte's sister suggested that they vessel was taking on some water when under motor. Without knowing all the facts this on it's own would not have disabled the vessel, but when you combine it with a medical emergency involving an infant, you can see how the later trumps the former in deciding to abandon a vessel.

I also believed them to well prepared for what was yes a challenging voyage.

I do hope when Lyra is well and they have recovered from the trauma of all of this that Eric would be willing to give an account of what happened.

I am also astounded by the level and nature of attention this has gotten. I understand not everyone 'gets' what we do, but wow there really are some bitter people in this world.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

chall03 said:


> ...
> 
> No one said everything went peachy. They were by all appearances well prepared however.


Nope. "Well prepared" would have included waiting a few years until the kids were a bit older, or at least making damned sure they weren't still sick when the boat headed out (i.e., making sure the "crew" was up to the trip). These folks did neither.


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Nope. "Well prepared" would have included waiting a few years until the kids were a bit older, or at least making damned sure they weren't still sick.


Do older kids not get sick???

We actually don't know what was wrong with the youngest daughter. Again speculation and assumption. But hey don't let me stop your pursuit of righteous indignation.

Angry people on the internet are always right, no matter the facts.


----------



## hangupndrive

I love the self-riteous. Armchair commenters as well. They are a good reality check when I think about sharing my opinions. You know who you are. Just like my mother in law. Even with a 50 ton USCG ticket, I am placing my family in mortal danger each time we sail. 

No one has the right to condone or not to condone. You're not them, they're not you. It is entirely appropriate to say, I would or I wouldn't. Or better: I hope I would or wouldn't as we are all benefitting from hindsight.

I love the comment "they made a mistake". Maybe. Maybe not. Martha Raditz (sp.) ABC made the comment about how she freaks out every time her kids are around a swimming pool. That is easily solved. Put a PDF and a leash on them like any cruising child would wear. a comment from one person who knows nothing about safety at sea.

When the Hallmark Hall Of Fame version comes out, we will hear from these same evangelists.

This family made their decision. I am sure they are thankful for their rescue. Was it a mistake? This is not for any of us to decide. The answer will come to the parents after some reflection. And, reflect they will.

I am happy they are all safe.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

hangupndrive said:


> I love the self-riteous. Armchair commenters as well. They are a good reality check when I think about sharing my opinions. You know who you are. Just like my mother in law. Even with a 50 ton USCG ticket, I am placing my family in mortal danger each time we sail.
> 
> No one has the right to condone or not to condone. You're not them, they're not you. It is entirely appropriate to say, I would or I wouldn't. Or better: I hope I would or wouldn't as we are all benefitting from hindsight.
> 
> I love the comment "they made a mistake". Maybe. Maybe not. Martha Raditz (sp.) ABC made the comment about how she freaks out every time her kids are around a swimming pool. That is easily solved. Put a PDF [sic] and a leash on them like any cruising child would wear. a comment from one person who knows nothing about safety at sea.
> 
> When the Hallmark Hall Of Fame version comes out, we will hear from these same evangelists.
> 
> This family made their decision. I am sure they are thankful for their rescue. Was it a mistake? This is not for any of us to decide. The answer will come to the parents after some reflection. And, reflect they will.
> 
> I am happy they are all safe.


Read my posts. I never said that an infant or toddler shouldn't go sailing (I've taken my own daughter sailing many times, even before she could walk). I just think it's a bad idea to take such little kids off-shore, where getting medical care might necessitate C-130s, Pararescue Jumpers, and 450-foot warships.

It's always easy to tell when someone is arguing a weak case --- they find it necessary to distort and outright lie about what the other side said.

By the way, while a "PDF" might make kids more easily transferable among various computer systems (although, I'm not sure why that would be advantageous in this case), a "PFD" would be far better for them to wear whilst on the water.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

chall03 said:


> Do older kids not get sick???...


Sure they do. So do adults. But very young children have this nasty habit of getting VERY sick, VERY quickly. Far more quickly, and often far more seriously, than kids over five or so. Ask any parent.


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Sure they do. So do adults. But very young children have this nasty habit of getting VERY sick, VERY quickly. Far more quickly, and often far more seriously, than kids over five or so. Ask any parent.


Medsailor addressed this above already and I agree with him and disagree with you that young kids are generally pretty resilient. I believe you will find he is somewhat in an informed position to comment on this.

Of course yes there are circumstances in which young kids do get sick, and it can be pretty scary. I don't need to ask a parent, I am one and have had firsthand experience with hospitalisation of a sick infant, yet do not share your fear.

By your logic alot of travel, camping, in fact visiting anywhere that does have firstclass medical facilitates accessible 24/7 is an unacceptable risk?

We choose not to live our lifes that way, we put what happened to Eric and Charlotte's family in the basket of rare, unlucky and unfortunate things that could happen when cruising.

Can you actually name any other cruising family you know of where there has been a situation like this?? I know several cruising families and cannot, I have several accounts though of happy healthy families of all ages living this admittedly challenging adventure.

As to them knowingly departing with sick kids, until you can prove that, you are being at the very best extremely unkind and at the worst something i can't say here on Sailnet without giving the Mods ALOT more work.


----------



## Ilenart

Some more info

"Before the family left for the trip, Lyra had salmonella poisoning, but doctors cleared her to travel after she was healthy again, English said."

English is the sister

Ilenart


----------



## TomMaine

chall03 said:


> ?
> 
> We choose not to live our lifes that way, we put what happened to Eric and Charlotte's family in the basket of rare, unlucky and unfortunate things that could happen when cruising.


 Problems like these are rare but they seem quite common now with todays media.

We've taken our(then) babies far enough 'away' on our sailboat that an emergency could have caused some serious problems, including criticism, no doubt.

But like most, we had no problems(we couldn't handle), and my family are all better for the experience. It can be a little scary and it's not for everybody, That's life.

You have a nice website and family. I have full confidence in you all.


----------



## chall03

TomMaine said:


> Problems like these are rare but they seem quite common now with todays media.
> 
> We've taken our(then) babies far enough 'away' on our sailboat that an emergency could have caused some serious problems, including criticism, no doubt.
> 
> But like most, we had no problems(we couldn't handle), and my family are all better for the experience. It can be a little scary and it's not for everybody, That's life.
> 
> You have a nice website and family. I have full confidence in you all.


Thanks Tom!


----------



## killarney_sailor

Brent Swain said:


> A client who was on a Montreal firefighters pension, Canada pension and CPP combined said he couldn't afford to cruise the Carribean, without going broke. Some places charge hundreds of dollars to just check in. The cruising fees there are horrendous. Only those who work full time, like Smack, can afford it( "Let them eat cake!" says he) The South Pacific is still far more affordable.


Not to take the discussion in a different direction, but this is just not true. The only place that charges 'hundreds of dollars' is The Bahamas and technically that is not even in the Caribbean. I think I would have a similar pension to your client and did not find the Caribbean particularly expensive.

Back to Smack's point, I get the impression that these folks are from the left coast of the US. This is where they lived and worked while they got their boat ready to cruise. How they could then spend a few years in the Caribbean is not clear. Getting there would involve a pretty long, tough slog that would be tougher on the kids than heading into the Pacific.

I so rarely read anything in the news about sailing that it is pointless to speculate about the details. We met several couples cruising with infants and they all (including the babies) seemed to be having a great time and had had no problems with it. There is a big plus the parents get to spend so much time with the young children. This is going to be terrific for the little ones as they get older. A lot better than if they were in a day care while the parents worked. Glad everyone is safe, sorry that these people lost their boat. Cut them some slack, you don't know the details.


----------



## chall03

As I have said above there is an element a risk medically in sailing offshore, with the stakes being higher when there kids involved. We believe it to be a small mitigative risk.

I had a post all written in which I was going to detail our extensive medical kit to aid those considering cruising with kids but I have thought twice about it however as those with local knowledge and enough desire could locate our boat and find what I have detailed.

For those thinking of heading offshore with kids, I am happy very happy to share our drug list/medical kit/medical preparation via PM.

I will however instead happily share some of the sources we consulted ( my wife is the expert opinion in this area not me). She is happy to discuss details with those interested via email.

YA(ISAF) Special regulations
http://www.yachting.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/130828-2013-16-special-regulations-part-1-keelboats.pdf

Drug List for Vendee Globe http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/vendee%20medical.pdf

WHO medical guide for ships
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/WHO%203rd%20Book.pdf

Medicine for Mariners book by Drs. Eric Weiss and Michael Jacobs.

Royal Flying Doctor Service Australia
RFDS - Medical Chests

CYCA medical management for Mariners course ( Highly recommended for those in Australia)
CYCA Medical Management for Mariners Course (MMM) - Cruising Yacht Club of Australia

Beth Evan's medical list from "Voyagers handbook".
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/Medicallist.pdf

Open 40 Transaltantic kit ( care of Beth Evans)
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/dragon%20first%20aid%20kit.pdf

CCA medical recommendations( care of Beth Evans)
http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/CCAsurgeon.pdf

If you haven't noticed Beth has alot of great info on this and just about everything else on her site.


----------



## Minnewaska

There two entirely different questions, as I see it.

1. Did the parent's make a mistake?

Yes, they made a mistake. I bet they think so now.

2. Did the parent's have the right to decide whether they should take their young children offshore?

Hell yeah! Those kids look properly nourished and clothed. All decisioning is up to the parents after a point of basic requirements.

The Mayflower had several children aboard, in fact, one was born on the trip. It seems the more advance society becomes, the fewer choices and less freedom some would allow ourselves.


----------



## smurphny

I would think twice about taking very young children on an offshore voyage because of all the reasons cited by folks here but that would by my decision. It was their decision to sail and theirs alone. They took a risk which was theirs alone to take. Most meaningful things involve risk. I hope they can get their boat back and continue their journey, one most will never experience.


----------



## zeehag

they can get their boat back by using divers and such, if there is anything left after the navy sunk it. but i think the water may be a tad deep for effective salvage there.

as for taking kids sailing...many many many have done this successfully., sailing is GOOD for kids. 
most dont suffer the conditions endured by this family...dad pushing boat hard despite momma being seasick and a kid with relapsing salmonella.
so..wanna avoid this ... try buying tossaway diapers, so you dont have to wash cloth ones while puking in the sink in galley with em
try not cross contaminating your entire boat with feces and puke. what is TOUCHED is contaminated. ok...... now stick a 1 yr old with already diagnosed salmonella into the mix. 
doesnt matter the doctor sed ok to sail. these are BAD combo iff you wish to continue a successful trip..oh yes, and dad.. WHEN your family is drastically ill, DONT be thinking you need to hurry to the trade winds for personal satisfaction... pushing sea sick wife and bowel sick kid in a boat for your enjoymnent is not cruising . it is torture and bullying of family. 
we are NOT on schedules in this lifestyle.
summary...poppa pushed his sick family past the limit and hopefully learned to not do that, but personalities in this case may preclude learning. 
i hope the lesson was effective.
sorry. there is no excuse for driving so hard you deliberately make spouse ill KNOWING full well she is gonna be so. 
sail with family ...yes and do NOT forget courtesy to your loved ones when your sails are full and you are flying..who is puking.......
good thing i dont get seasick, but also good thing i dont have a seasick family with seasick history.


medical kits are great..especially if you know how to use em. if you dont..why bother with it. 
learn how to use the med kit, dont just stock it into boat and forget about it.


----------



## smackdaddy

The reason for my view on this is, again, the non-stop nature of that 3500-mile passage. Over a month at sea with no respite for the little ones? That's pretty gnarly...especially for the first significant hop.

Apart from that, I'm all for taking kids on big adventures.


----------



## MedSailor

TomMaine said:


> Problems like these are rare but they seem quite common now with todays media.


Yes! If you watch the media too much, you'll start to think that winning the lottery is a common occurrence as well! The media is in the business of showing us stuff that we don't see every day, so that we'll keep watching (their adds). If they showed us boring happy voyages of nuclear families on boats, or people holding loosing lottery tickets, they couldn't sell adds. So, they show us the one and a million over and over. If we, the viewers, aren't careful, we start to shape our world view based on these "experiences" that we're not actually having. Our brain starts to think that air travel is unsafe, that sexual predators are around every corner, and that the lottery is actually something we can win...

Travilineasy made a good point that the amount of medical BS that is flowing from various sources is huge. I've heard salmonella, an upper respiratory infection with THREE antibiotics, and now I've heard of a heart problem? I'd say we R-E-A-L-L-Y don't know much of what happened yet from the medical side. I think it's clear from the comms, steering, and leaking reports, that we don't yet know jack about the sailing part either.

Also, I would disagree again about healthy kids being at risk of going downhill fast at any time. I also wouldn't advise someone who wants an objective opinion on the subject to "ask any parent." How about ask a doctor? Or ask someone with a masters in public health? Parents panic and bring their kids into the ER every day. I'm sure many of them think that we "saved them" in the ER, but likely we didn't. Even if we did, that rare experience will likely color their view of child-rearing.

MedSailor


----------



## christian.hess

another update:

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

chall03 said:


> ...
> 
> By your logic alot of travel, camping, in fact visiting anywhere that does have firstclass medical facilitates accessible 24/7 is an unacceptable risk? ...


Did I say that? No.

However, intentionally putting very young children in a situation where any real medical care is likely to be more than a day away is unconscionable, IMHO.


----------



## Minnesail

And it makes the New York Times: 2 Tots, a Sailboat and a Storm Over Parenting


----------



## okawbow

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Did I say that? No.
> 
> However, intentionally putting very young children in a situation where any real medical care is likely to be more than a day away is unconscionable, IMHO.


What a ridiculous statement! About 75% of the world lives more than a day from "real" medical care. With that statement as a guide; we certainly shouldn't ever let our children ride in cars. A trip to Grandma's is more likely to cause harm than a voyage across the Pacific. Also, you certainly shouldn't let children go to school. They might get germs, and be exposed to who-knows-what from kids and adults who work there.

A voyager should learn to be self sufficient. Failure to do that is the only "crime" in taking children around the world.


----------



## christian.hess

^^^x2 that statement also shows quite a bit of ignorance and naivety for lack of a better word...regarding the world in general

even people in beatiful mountain homes in alaska or the pyreness or any place where you are far away from big cities this can be said of... are often days out from medical assistance...and yet they are living the life...

being on a boat as has been debated to oblivion in so so many threads before is much much safer than commuting to school for example in most cities in the developed world

I can tell you for a fact that where I am...here in el salvador, every day is a miracle when driving in the cities down here

Id much rather keep something afloat go slow and cruise then go out any day of the week only to have a freight truck lose his breaks and smash into me, or a dui driver crashing into telephone posts on a daily basis or buses filled with 100 passenger leaning over like the tower of pizza cut into you in traffic etc...or gangs extort you...or having people break into your house on a weekly or monthly basis...etc etc etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

its all a compromise, LIFE IS...and Im sure these guys thought it out

btw having seen pics of the union 36 they were sailing nobody can say it was not taken care of or well outfitted...its a shame people always try to find faults in other people and not their own...or have such bias that it comes off as Im better and smarter than you attitudes that only do a disservice to the sailing community as a whole
.
there are a million things more dangerous than taking a 1 year old on a month voyage...out to sea

I wish them luck, godspeed and perseverance to follow their dreams as a family once again...

I hope the baby gets well soon...


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> The reason for my view on this is, again, the non-stop nature of that 3500-mile passage. Over a month at sea with no respite for the little ones? That's pretty gnarly...especially for the first significant hop.
> 
> Apart from that, I'm all for taking kids on big adventures.


Is it gnarly....yeah of course. A big bite of the apple? Hell yeah.

They had done 600nm passages previously though.

What respite do they need? Do kids explode after a couple of days on a boat? Young kids are pretty adaptable. The longer you are at sea, the more accustomed you get to it, seasickness disappears, given the boat is made comfortable and the kids are well, it is at worst boring.

Either way, that is long term cruising. Plenty of families do it. Not to many of them get RTW without a passage like this. It is also clearly not for every family.


----------



## chef2sail

So had Sailingdad been crusining in the Carribean with his sons and something happened to his boat or one of them got sick necessitating his rescue would some of you rail on and on about his taking his kids on the open water. Or want him to pay for the resue. Who are you to pass judgement

No one loves their kids more than a parent does, and no parent I know purposely puts their kid in mortal danger. Sailing can be risky. So can driving them in a car on I95 between Baltimore and DC, so is taking them on a plane or sending them to school.

.

Just be thankful that they are safe and sound now with no casualtiues and stop the senseless arm chair second guesssing of the parents with your own over protective moralities.


----------



## Minnesail

Here's an article about kids and cooking, including teaching 3-year-olds knife handling skills. The point of the article is that people didn't freak out about this as much as they might have a couple years ago, so maybe we're turning a corner on the whole bubblewraping our children thing: Blades of gory: Teaching kids to slice and dice


----------



## MedSailor

From the NY times article that minnesail posted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/2-tots-a-sailboat-and-a-storm-over-parenting.html?hp&_r=1

Here's a quote I like from the article:

_Dr. Beth E. Ebel, an attending physician at Seattle Children's Hospital, said it would not be unreasonable to take children on such a trip. "I think people should take the big important precautions, like wearing life jackets, but I don't fault them for being out of instant touch with modern medicine," she said._

Of course there are other "experts" that were consulted for the story, whom sound like people they could readily find on the dock. One fisherman poo-poo'd the USCG captain's licences as _"Any Joe can take a Coast Guard course and you are a captain - it is just above a cereal box certification.""_

There is also a link to the post about the medical issues. There is still something (or many things) very very wrong with the medical picture here...
Rebel Heart - Charlotte's Blog - Not Gone Yet |*Almost!

Medsailor

PS Chef, would I rail on CD if he got in trouble? Heck yeah! I don't even need an excuse to rail on CD.


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Did I say that? No.
> 
> However, intentionally putting very young children in a situation where any real medical care is likely to be more than a day away is unconscionable, IMHO.


 Sweet. Well then I am an unconsciounable and a bad irresponsible parent. Good to know.

How do you define "real medical care" by the way??


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> What respite do they need? Do kids explode after a couple of days on a boat? Young kids are pretty adaptable.


A couple of days? That's great. A month-plus non-stop. Not so great. Most of the sailors I've followed who have done long passages like that have not found that part super enjoyable. It's work. Very exhausting work. Worth it - yes - but work.

I understand young kids can adapt to virtually anything - even hazardous, difficult living conditions. But is that really the point?


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> A couple of days? That's great. A month-plus non-stop. Not so great. Most of the sailors I've followed who have done long passages like that have not found that part super enjoyable. It's work. Very exhausting work. Worth it - yes - but work.
> 
> I understand young kids can adapt to virtually anything - even hazardous, difficult living conditions. But is that really the point?


And kids should not be involved in any that is hard work or exhausting. Heaven forbid.

Generations of cruising families are wrong.

Your right Cam....sorry I mean Smack.

Kids shouldn't sail the world.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smackdaddy said:


> A couple of days? That's great. A month-plus non-stop. Not so great. Most of the sailors I've followed who have done long passages like that have not found that part super enjoyable. It's work. Very exhausting work. Worth it - yes - but work.
> 
> I understand young kids can adapt to virtually anything - even hazardous, difficult living conditions. But is that really the point?


I haven't found long passages (say 10+ days) to be particularly exhausting. If they are you are probably not doing it right or need to look at fitness issues. If anything it can get a bit boring. Having kids onboard might make it more interesting and would be terrific for bonding.


----------



## smurphny

zeehag said:


> they can get their boat back by using divers and such, if there is anything left after the navy sunk it. but i think the water may be a tad deep for effective salvage there.
> 
> as for taking kids sailing...many many many have done this successfully., sailing is GOOD for kids.
> most dont suffer the conditions endured by this family...dad pushing boat hard despite momma being seasick and a kid with relapsing salmonella.
> so..wanna avoid this ... try buying tossaway diapers, so you dont have to wash cloth ones while puking in the sink in galley with em
> try not cross contaminating your entire boat with feces and puke. what is TOUCHED is contaminated. ok...... now stick a 1 yr old with already diagnosed salmonella into the mix.
> doesnt matter the doctor sed ok to sail. these are BAD combo iff you wish to continue a successful trip..oh yes, and dad.. WHEN your family is drastically ill, DONT be thinking you need to hurry to the trade winds for personal satisfaction... pushing sea sick wife and bowel sick kid in a boat for your enjoymnent is not cruising . it is torture and bullying of family.
> we are NOT on schedules in this lifestyle.
> summary...poppa pushed his sick family past the limit and hopefully learned to not do that, but personalities in this case may preclude learning.
> i hope the lesson was effective.
> sorry. there is no excuse for driving so hard you deliberately make spouse ill KNOWING full well she is gonna be so.
> sail with family ...yes and do NOT forget courtesy to your loved ones when your sails are full and you are flying..who is puking.......
> good thing i dont get seasick, but also good thing i dont have a seasick family with seasick history.
> 
> medical kits are great..especially if you know how to use em. if you dont..why bother with it.
> learn how to use the med kit, dont just stock it into boat and forget about it.


Didn't read the post saying they sunk his boat, too bad! There is a good, free medical book that can be downloaded and kept aboard: _The International Medical Guide for Ships_. http://www.stkittsnevisregistry.net/Forms/mlc/WHO%20Medical%20Guide%20for%20Ships,%203rd%20Edition.pdf It would also be advisable for anyone going far from shore to get some advanced FA training.


----------



## smackdaddy

killarney_sailor said:


> I haven't found long passages (say 10+ days) to be particularly exhausting. If they are you are probably not doing it right or need to look at fitness issues. If anything it can get a bit boring. Having kids onboard might make it more interesting and would be terrific for bonding.


Again, we're not talking about 10 days - we're talking maybe 30-40 (sounds like they were not exactly blazing along). That's quite different. And I'm talking about it in regards to the kids - not the adults.

In any case, their blog illustrated the fact that "bonding" didn't seem to be at its optimum on that passage. So, it's not a simple issue any way you look at it.


----------



## downeast450

Seems like some of Slocum's kids were born aboard his ship. At least one died. Just saying. You can die waiting for care in an emergency room today. Or get wiped out by a drunk in a pick up the way my best friend, an Arizona state trooper, his wife and their twin boys were. Or fall out of a canoe and drown. Or.... You should make decisions you are comfortable with and live your life accordingly. Not everyone avoids all the consequences along life's road. If the media of today had been "watching" me as a kid, my parents would have probably been arrested for endangerment. We lived a great life. Mind your own F#cken business.

Down


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> In any case, their blog illustrated the fact that "bonding" didn't seem to be at its optimum on that passage.


You kididng me? We argue like on the way to buy pizza let alone crossing an ocean.

Our family 'bonding' is generally at it's rockiest entering a marina 

Their blog has always been honest. I really respect that, I couldn't be that honest all the time. That their honestly is now being used to pass judgement on them as sailors and parents is very sad.


----------



## hangupndrive

Ah family bonding. At its best when approaching the fuel dock, while anchoring, docking, locking.... Any time my wife and I need to focus our attention. Could be an epic day of sailing. Once the sails come down and we start in to the marina, all hell breaks loose!


----------



## christian.hess

hey guys stop Im seriously wanting to start cruising again and have a 7 month old baby

next week or so and we should be at least on the boat

but I wont go crossing oceans yet...and if I do for sure IM NOT TELLING YOU GUYS HERE ON SAILNET

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> hey guys stop Im seriously wanting to start cruising again and have a 7 month old baby
> 
> next week or so and we should be at least on the boat
> 
> but I wont go crossing oceans yet...and if I do for sure IM NOT TELLING YOU GUYS HERE ON SAILNET
> 
> geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze


Thats awesome.

Take your sense of humour, a bit of patience and you guys will have a ball. You know that though, that's everyday with a 7 month old.

At that age we got good at hoisting the main while singing "if your happy and you know it claps your hands".

Our daughter LOVED being on passage as a baby. The motion put her to sleep. She would then wake up the moment we dropped the anchor, hungry, grumpy and it would be on for young and old.

A basket of loud squeeky toys should be necesary safety equipment for cruising with kids


----------



## Minnewaska

My earliest recollections of being aboard the family boat, were with my youngest sister curled up sleeping in the corner of the cockpit. She would have been about 1 year old.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> You kididng me? We argue like on the way to buy pizza let alone crossing an ocean.
> 
> Our family 'bonding' is generally at it's rockiest entering a marina
> 
> Their blog has always been honest. I really respect that, I couldn't be that honest all the time. That their honestly is now being used to pass judgement on them as sailors and parents is very sad.


I don't know if you're including me in the "passing judgement" camp. I'm not. Their honesty illustrated that the conditions and resulting relationships were increasingly problematic. And that makes a hard trip way harder. It's that simple. That's not "judgement" - it's just reading what they wrote.


----------



## christian.hess

JA!

thanks(chall) cant wait even if it just hopping down our coast for a while... the boat is almost done and ready! so close!

btw this thread needs more peace and understanding and compassion and less bickering and less Im so much better and smarter than you attitudes that prevail.

nothing would make me happier than seing this family get healthy again...get a boat, fix her up and be in business again

If I trully could have my world and life the way I would want to Id convince my wife to go cruising with the kid and boat school him on the boat the first years, cruise around...maybe work around in some places...etc... but its a tough feat with tradiditions and the latin lifestyle...and mindset(im half bred, jajaja)

honestly we are missing tactile, touch and feel these days and age that you get while out there

I have a hard time liking and beleiving that watching tv, and facebooking at the age of 5 is better for our kids

I want mine to touch and feel, explore, fall down get back up, experience learn and not only read about stuff but experience that which he reads about

anywhoo

sidetrack over

lets wrap this thread up

rescue is over...I wish them well


----------



## MMR

There's a FB group, Women Who Sail, that Charlotte Kaufman helped start that is rallying around her with fund raisers, collecting items that will be needed when they touch land, assisting family members etc (sorry if this has been repeated on the thread earlier)

The link below is written by one of the group, in the group's efforts to counter some of the negative publicity and comments. I think its spectacularly written.

Raising a Child Dangerously


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I don't know if you're including me in the "passing judgement" camp. I'm not. Their honesty illustrated that the conditions and resulting relationships were increasingly problematic. And that makes a hard trip way harder. It's that simple. That's not "judgement" - it's just reading what they wrote.


No. It was a general comment.

They ended up abandoning their boat cause their daughter was gravely ill though. Not cause they were arguing.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> No. It was a general comment.
> 
> They ended up abandoning their boat cause their daughter was gravely i'll though. Not cause they were arguing.


Okay. It seems you know the whole story. I don't.


----------



## christian.hess

are you guys reading the latitude updates much less media news and better facts....

they left the boat to sink...they are on their way to san diego if not there already...

baby is stable


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Okay. It seems you know the whole story. I don't.


Not the whole story.

I think it is pretty clear though ( through messages on FB from Charlotte's sister who was in contact with them) that the button push moment was a very sick girl that wasn't getting any better.

I would like to know the whole story from them when and if they are ready, in the hope I might learn something.

Until then I'm not going to judge or jump to any conclusions.


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> are you guys reading the latitude updates much less media news and better facts....
> 
> they left the boat to sink...they are on their way to san diego if not there already...
> 
> baby is stable


There is a great support thread on Cruisers Forum with good updates. I don't think they will be in San Diego for another day.


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> btw this thread needs more peace and understanding and compassion and less bickering and less Im so much better and smarter than you attitudes that prevail.
> 
> nothing would make me happier than seing this family get healthy again...get a boat, fix her up and be in business again


+1

Again I would point you to the thread on Cruisers Forum. The tone is very different there.

Several members just about had a salvage operation figured out, when there seemed to be a chance to save Rebel Heart.

Looking forward to some pics of you sailing with the family! Best of luck.


----------



## rbyham

I do not have a dog in this fight nor an opinion about kids on boats. I just want to ask a question. When in the world did it become impossible to exchange opinion without rancor? Like the guy said, opinions are like a$$holes... everybody's got one. Every post I have read on this thread has left me with the same response - ya know you might be right but then again...


----------



## tdw

While the talk of multiple antibiotics freaks me out somewhat and yes it is undoubtedly true that doing this passage with those kids in that boat was a bad mistake on their part ..... who doesn't make mistakes from time to time ? I wonder just how many cruising boats with youngsters on board have done that passage in the past year or so ? Reported deaths ? That would be none then. 

Bloke we know sailed eastwards across the Indian Ocean when a babe in arms and to boot in a 25'er. Err .... yes his parents where on board as well. Now in his thirties he's out there doing it all himself along with his wife and their youngster. None of them seem any the worse for wear and lets face it the southern Indian is usually a nastier place than the Pacific. 

Me, I can think of nothing worse but that's me. 

So yes, put me in the "leave them alone to get over this nastiness" camp but then I'm a daredevil of the first order ..... flying Malaysian to South Korea on Friday.


----------



## christian.hess

they found the black boxes btw..well sort of


----------



## chall03

tdw said:


> I'm a daredevil of the first order ..... flying Malaysian to South Korea on Friday.


I would get an exit row.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

okawbow said:


> What a ridiculous statement! About 75% of the world lives more than a day from "real" medical care. With that statement as a guide; we certainly shouldn't ever let our children ride in cars. A trip to Grandma's is more likely to cause harm than a voyage across the Pacific. Also, you certainly shouldn't let children go to school. They might get germs, and be exposed to who-knows-what from kids and adults who work there.
> 
> A voyager should learn to be self sufficient. Failure to do that is the only "crime" in taking children around the world.


I well aware that much of the world's population does not have access to medical care, but they don't have a choice, do they? Much of the world's population doesn't have access to clean water either. Would you think it a good idea to give your kid contaminated water simply because "all the other kids are doing it"? Probably not. The subject of this thread are parents who made the choice to risk their kids' lives completely unnecessarily. Your rather ridiculous analogies are laughable.


----------



## chall03

tdw said:


> ? I wonder just how many cruising boats with youngsters on board have done that passage in the past year or so ? Reported deaths ? That would be nine then


FWIW

I read a piece on sail feed that suggested there are 2 boats currently on passage with similar aged kids as part of the 'pacific puddle jump' group and another about to leave.

I know of no similar incident ever occurring(a medical emergency with an infant on passage) period.


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> The subject of this thread are parents who made the choice to risk their kids' lives completely unnecessarily. Your rather ridiculous analogies are laughable.


The subject of this thread actually was the rescue of a family in trouble at sea.

You felt the need to use this thread to decry Rebel Heart and all that seek to cruise with kids as irresponsible parents, without being able to offer up anything other than adjective ridden righteous self indignation to support your soccer mummy position.

What is your actual sailing background? What is your medical background?

I do note than 90% of all your posts here have been in either politics/religion or off topic.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> Again I would point you to the thread on Cruisers Forum. The tone is very different there.
> 
> Several members just about had a salvage operation figured out, when there seemed to be a chance to save Rebel Heart.


I wouldn't mind having a taste of what some of those folks are smoking 

Admirably intentioned, for sure, but completely delusional...

Loved the one who thought it might be practicable to head out there in a large _panga_, carrying extra fuel...


----------



## fryewe

JonEisberg said:


> I wouldn't mind having a taste of what some of those folks are smoking
> 
> Admirably intentioned, for sure, but completely delusional...
> 
> Loved the one who thought it might be practicable to head out there in a large _panga_, carrying extra fuel...


Who woulda thunk that a 'net forum would have the odd "delusional" comment? May not be unique to CF...


----------



## tdw

chall03 said:


> FWIW
> 
> I read a piece on sail feed that suggested there are 2 boats currently on passage with similar aged kids as part of the 'pacific puddle jump' group and another about to leave.
> 
> I know of no similar incident ever occurring(a medical emergency with an infant on passage) period.


I was meaning how many kids have died doing the run across the Pacific, not much how many have done it. Indeed I wonder how many have died across all the world's oceans in recent times. I guess their must be some on board boats that have disappeared without trace but even so the numbers must be so low as to be virtually irrelevent. Other than to the people concerned if course and I'm not trying to belittle their loss.


----------



## Gregrosine

Why did the coast guard require they scuttle their boat?


----------



## mitchbrown

tdw said:


> I was meaning how many kids have died doing the run across the Pacific, not much how many have done it. Indeed I wonder how many have died across all the world's oceans in recent times. I guess their must be some on board boats that have disappeared without trace but even so the numbers must be so low as to be virtually irrelevent. Other than to the people concerned if course and I'm not trying to belittle their loss.


I was thinking the same thing. I've never heard of a child dying or even getting sick until now.


----------



## JonEisberg

tdw said:


> I was meaning how many kids have died doing the run across the Pacific, not much how many have done it. Indeed I wonder how many have died across all the world's oceans in recent times. I guess their must be some on board boats that have disappeared without trace but even so the numbers must be so low as to be virtually irrelevent. Other than to the people concerned if course and I'm not trying to belittle their loss.


Obviously, there are no available 'statistics' to prove one way or another, but if there were, I'd guess that the numbers would show that an infant aboard a cruising boat on a Milk Run circumnavigation is 'safer' than one in a child safety seat on any road in America... Or, in a stroller on the grounds of the Fort Hood military base in Texas, for that matter...

One curious aspect about the 'Media Firestorm' this one has generated... About a month ago, the Open 40 ANASAZI was dismasted west of Cape Horn, nearing the end of a transit of the Southern Ocean. The Chilean Navy rescued the crew, an American named James Burwick, his wife, and their 3 children...

Aged 5, 3, and 1...

Anasazi Racing: ABOUT US

Now, I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that such a passage is a far riskier endeavor than the one REBEL HEART was undertaking... And yet, that incident went virtually unnoticed... I linked to it here in a post about a Brit singlehander who had to abandon his steel boat about the same time west of Cape Horn, it generated no comment whatsoever... That incident was barely a blip on the radar screen, certainly never penetrated the mainstream media the way the REBEL HEART saga has...

OK, so perhaps no one pays attention to what the Chilean Navy does, compared to the US Navy... But I doubt that's the reason... OK, "sick baby" is probably more compelling than a "run of the mill dismasting approaching Cape Horn"... But I've got to believe that their blog, and their heavy presence in social media, has been the most significant distinction, the primary reason this particular case has generated such widespread attention, whereas the concern/outrage/whatever over the safety of the young children aboard ANASAZI remains non-existent...


----------



## B.J. Porter

chall03 said:


> FWIW
> 
> I read a piece on sail feed that suggested there are 2 boats currently on passage with similar aged kids as part of the 'pacific puddle jump' group and another about to leave.
> 
> I know of no similar incident ever occurring(a medical emergency with an infant on passage) period.


I know at least one of them. They are leaving the Galapagos soon last I heard. We expect to catch up to them in the Marquesas.


----------



## Minnewaska

Gregrosine said:


> Why did the coast guard require they scuttle their boat?


Hazard to navigation, I presume.


----------



## chall03

B.J. Porter said:


> I know at least one of them. They are leaving the Galapagos soon last I heard. We expect to catch up to them in the Marquesas.


I am really enjoying your blog. When do you leave for the Galapagos?? 
Fair winds and following seas _Evenstar._

Eric, Charlotte and girls appear to now be safely back in San Diego, he stuck his head in at CF.


----------



## smurphny

Gregrosine said:


> Why did the coast guard require they scuttle their boat?


That's a good question. A navigational hazard? Well, maybe but pretty remote unless it was in a high traffic area. Is it the policy to sink all abandoned vessels? Do they scuttle the hundreds of containers lost overboard by large ships? It seems to me that maybe not enough effort was made to stop the leak and save the boat. Was she abandoned when the sea conditions were too rough to take the time to attempt a fix? Unless a boat is full of water, it is almost always possible to stop a leak.


----------



## JonEisberg

smurphny said:


> That's a good question. A navigational hazard? Well, maybe but pretty remote unless it was in a high traffic area. Is it the policy to sink all abandoned vessels? Do they scuttle the hundreds of containers lost overboard by large ships? *It seems to me that maybe not enough effort was made to stop the leak and save the boat.* Was she abandoned when the sea conditions were too rough to take the time to attempt a fix? Unless a boat is full of water, it is almost always possible to stop a leak.


Seems to me that such efforts were really the responsibility of the Kaufmanns, while they were still aboard. The US Navy's mission in this case was ensuring the safety of the_ people_ aboard, not the saving of _property_... Get the kid the medical treatment required, get the family back home, which they did quite expeditiously...

We'll presumably get more of the story from Eric eventually, but I'm not sure he really had many options in this situation. You don't necessarily get to pick and choose the terms of your rescue in such a situation, they may have actually ordered him to abandon the boat, after all... The boat was apparently "disabled", without steering and taking on water whenever the engine was run. Even if he had elected to stay aboard and try to get her home on his own, the Navy commander might have made the determination "Sorry, buddy, you're coming with us..."

I've always suspected with the abandonment of the Alpha 42 BE GOOD TOO, that it was the discomfort of the owners aboard that really led them to pull the plug. Had it just been Hank and Charlie aboard, I believe they might have toughed it out a bit longer, tried to find a way to make Norfolk, or Bermuda... But once the call was made, and the CG was on the way, no way they were only gonna take 2 people off that boat at that time, only to have to possibly come back at a later date to perform a potentially far more dangerous rescue, that's just the way it works...

Again, some of the folks over on CF are delusional in their expectations of what sort of measures might have been taken in an effort to save $60K cruising boat in this instance... For example, the suggestion of having a couple of the para-jumpers stay aboard with Eric, to help him attempt to sail a boat with no steering to Hawaii, or 1000 NM back to Mexico ??? As if they have nothing better to do? Seriously ???

The Navy and Air National Guard already went WAY beyond the call of duty in pulling this rescue off, to expect them to have hung around the site in any effort to attend to the myriad problems with REBEL HEART - especially with the urgency of attending to the sick child and possibility of it still needing medical care that might have only been available back on land - seems unreasonable, at best...


----------



## christian.hess

and yet another thread getting veered off track

man its a tough internet world out there

Im always amazed and am guilty myself of it sometimes too at the ability of people to write such long and dedicated stories and rebuttles, and statements from such little information...paired with quotes and paragraphs from other sources its like wikipedia...on a daily basis...

seriously guys lets relax a bit



peace


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Seems to me that such efforts were really the responsibility of the Kaufmanns, while they were still aboard. The US Navy's mission in this case was ensuring the safety of the_ people_ aboard, not the saving of _property_... Get the kid the medical treatment required, get the family back home, which they did quite expeditiously...
> 
> We'll presumably get more of the story from Eric eventually, but I'm not sure he really had many options in this situation. You don't necessarily get to pick and choose the terms of your rescue in such a situation, they may have actually ordered him to abandon the boat, after all... The boat was apparently "disabled", without steering and taking on water whenever the engine was run. Even if he had elected to stay aboard and try to get her home on his own, the Navy commander might have made the determination "Sorry, buddy, you're coming with us..."
> 
> I've always suspected with the abandonment of the Alpha 42 BE GOOD TOO, that it was the discomfort of the owners aboard that really led them to pull the plug. Had it just been Hank and Charlie aboard, I believe they might have toughed it out a bit longer, tried to find a way to make Norfolk, or Bermuda... But once the call was made, and the CG was on the way, no way they were only gonna take 2 people off that boat at that time, only to have to possibly come back at a later date to perform a potentially far more dangerous rescue, that's just the way it works...
> 
> Again, some of the folks over on CF are delusional in their expectations of what sort of measures might have been taken in an effort to save $60K cruising boat in this instance... For example, the suggestion of having a couple of the para-jumpers stay aboard with Eric, to help him attempt to sail a boat with no steering to Hawaii, or 1000 NM back to Mexico ??? As if they have nothing better to do? Seriously ???
> 
> *The Navy and Air National Guard already went WAY beyond the call of duty *in pulling this rescue off, to expect them to have hung around the site in any effort to attend to the myriad problems with REBEL HEART - especially with the urgency of attending to the sick child and possibility of it still needing medical care that might have only been available back on land - seems unreasonable, at best...


Actually it is their duty. It's why we, and other countries, finance rescue at sea. In any case they were, of course, not going to provide a crew to get the boat back. I just wonder if there were options at the time that could have left the boat floating with the captain aboard or at least floating. That WAS ultimately the owner's responsibility. Will be interesting to hear further facts about the situation but it seems like another outcome may have been possible.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

christian.hess said:


> and yet another thread getting veered off track
> 
> man its a tough internet world out there
> 
> Im always amazed and am guilty myself of it sometimes too at the ability of people to write such long and dedicated stories and rebuttles, and statements from such little information...paired with quotes and paragraphs from other sources its like wikipedia...on a daily basis...
> 
> seriously guys lets relax a bit
> 
> this whole sailnet knows best attitude is starting to wear me down...
> 
> peace


The value of these forums is the discussion.

The discussion and forum investigations have led, in the past, to greater safe practices on boats.

That is a wonderful and useful purpose.

If you don't like that idea then you can change your stance to be more helpful.

Sycophantic sentimentalism is not helpful... Its a placebo for morons.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

christian.hess said:


> this whole sailnet knows best attitude is starting to wear me down...
> 
> peace


Christian - no offense dude, but when someone says something like this...it's usually not SN that's the problem.

To Mark's point - this is a discussion forum. There are lots of opinions. They don't have to be popular or easy to add to the discussion. They'll rise or fall on their own merit. Open your mind a bit, bro.


----------



## caberg

smurphny said:


> Actually it is their duty.


I am fairly sure this warship and its Naval personnel are not normally tasked with the "duty" to rescue recreational sailors at sea.



I'm proud of the work our military did to carry out this rescue operation, but I think it's far from "their duty" to do so.

Normally you hear of a naval ship diverting to a mayday if it happens to be nearby. I believe the scenario here is fairly unusual whereby the military undertakes the primary rescue efforts. But, again, proud of the guys for a job well done.


----------



## christian.hess

smackdaddy said:


> Christian - no offense dude, but when someone says something like this...it's usually not SN that's the problem.
> 
> To Mark's point - this is a discussion forum. There are lots of opinions. They don't have to be popular or easy to add to the discussion. They'll rise or fall on their own merit. Open your mind a bit, bro.


non taken...it was a mistake to put sailnet...

the point however stands and its the one sidedness and narrowindedness of a lot of the posts, and posters here that prompted me to say such a thing

in any case sorry for the post


----------



## christian.hess

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The value of these forums is the discussion.
> 
> The discussion and forum investigations have led, in the past, to greater safe practices on boats.
> 
> That is a wonderful and useful purpose.
> 
> If you don't like that idea then you can change your stance to be more helpful.
> 
> Sycophantic sentimentalism is not helpful... Its a placebo for morons.
> 
> Mark


keep up the attiude man and name calling...as of yet I have called you names or offended you yet you still and still love to quote me and call me names

keep up the maturity levels

its you who has an issue with my point of views on so many different threads now starting almost a year ago...and still you feel the need to impose your mightiness by calling names and saying stuff like idiocy, stupidity, and now being a moron

get over yourself

my point of view has been expressed quite neatly here before up until the errror of naming sailnet as a whole...

for that Ill take down the post

peace


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

caberg said:


> Normally you hear of a naval ship diverting to a mayday if it happens to be nearby. I believe the scenario here is fairly unusual whereby the military undertakes the primary rescue efforts. But, again, proud of the guys for a job well done.


Nice photo of the navy ship scuttling Rebel Heart!!!  

Yes, the navy did a fine job. Especially those dudes who jumped out of the plane 900 miles to sea in bad weather with just flippers and medical bags. That does take some serious personal courage!

Mark


----------



## downeast450

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The value of these forums is the discussion.
> 
> The discussion and forum investigations have led, in the past, to greater safe practices on boats.
> 
> That is a wonderful and useful purpose.
> 
> If you don't like that idea then you can change your stance to be more helpful.
> 
> Sycophantic sentimentalism is not helpful... Its a placebo for morons.
> 
> Mark


Or ignore it when it isn't making a useful contribution!

Down


----------



## flandria

I will only make a general comment here - leaving aside that some comments were made about possible pre-existing health conditions before the family departed on its voyage.

The current issue of The Atlantic has an artice "The over-protected Kid"... It is a general commentary about how we (collectively, and myself included) have become more and more controlling as to what kids of all ages are allowed to do. Risk-avoidance seems to be the paradigm we all are living in, to a lesser or greater extent.

While I, personally, have never set out on a blue-water sailing voyage (let alone with my children when they were smaller), I readily accept that other families can, and do. 

Now, if everyone were to ask themselves the "what if", and answer as truthfully as possible what their expectations are when trouble strikes when well offshore, we (1) may see fewer people setting out and (2) probably enhance the self-reliance of those who do. That, by the way, applies for everyone, not just for smaller children. A bad fall on board, a hand or finger caught into a line... there are many dangers that we must accept before considering safety issues with the vessel and it is wishful thinking to expect "the cavalry" to arrive at our beck and call... 

This applies equally to those setting off on strenuous hikes in more remote wilderness areas (especially when leaving the warm cocoon of cellphone coverage).


----------



## smurphny

smackdaddy said:


> Christian - no offense dude, but when someone says something like this...it's usually not SN that's the problem.
> 
> To Mark's point - this is a discussion forum. There are lots of opinions. They don't have to be popular or easy to add to the discussion. They'll rise or fall on their own merit. Open your mind a bit, bro.


Smack, you've hit it on the head. Venturing opinions is the only way to hash out things we, as sailors, should be thinking about. There are many issues that are important and go beyond anchors and rigging. Many are political in nature and directly linked to the more mundane. It's good to try to keep them separated but not always easy or advisable. Sometimes our opinions are good, sometimes others have opposing opinions and information that enlighten us. Floating ideas and having discussion promotes higher thought as opposed to keeping one's ideas a secret because it might offend someone somewhere. I think that's called "political correctness," an idea that's gotten us into all sorts of trouble. It's a tough call for moderators deciding when an issue that arises is no longer related at all to the original topic.


----------



## smackdaddy

smurphny said:


> Smack, you've hit it on the head. Venturing opinions is the only way to hash out things we, as sailors, should be thinking about. There are many issues that are important and go beyond anchors and rigging. Many are political in nature and directly linked to the more mundane. It's good to try to keep them separated but not always easy or advisable. Sometimes our opinions are good, sometimes others have opposing opinions and information that enlighten us. Floating ideas and having discussion promotes higher thought as opposed to keeping one's ideas a secret because it might offend someone somewhere. I think that's called "political correctness," an idea that's gotten us into all sorts of trouble. It's a tough call for moderators deciding when an issue that arises is no longer related at all to the original topic.


Yeah - for me, the formula is pretty simple:

Critique does not equal condemnation.

Sure, it can cross over pretty quick, but a lot of people have a lot of trouble seeing the distinction at all. That's never helpful.


----------



## tjvanginkel

And here is what the rescuers have to say about their role.

DVIDS - Video - Guardian Angels from the Rebel Heart Search

An impressive group of professionals.

Thanks to them and all the others involved a family remains safe and intact.


----------



## Minnewaska

tjvanginkel said:


> And here is what the rescuers have to say about their role.
> 
> DVIDS - Video - Guardian Angels from the Rebel Heart Search
> 
> An impressive group of professionals.
> 
> Thanks to them and all the others involved a family remains safe and intact.


Thanks for posting. It's more fact that we've heard in days. My hat goes off to those guys, they are the real deal.

My take away. The parents thought their child was fully recovered and when they learned she wasn't, they were willing to sacrifice everything to get her help. Their home did not need to be abandon for any other reason.

Perhaps I would not have made the same decision to take my young children on that voyage, but I respect their right to make that decision. I have the same respect for them making the hard call to save their daughter.

As for them paying for the rescue, that's just not in the cards. It isn't the deal. While I would support some kind of mandatory safety training or possibly inspection to entitle you to a free rescue, I do not think everyone should pay for their own. If not for the adventurous spirit of mankind, we would wither.


----------



## benesailor

> As for them paying for the rescue, that's just not in the cards. It isn't the deal. While I would support some kind of mandatory safety training or possibly inspection to entitle you to a free rescue, I do not think everyone should pay for their own. If not for the adventurous spirit of mankind, we would wither.


Training is always good; but..........

Who decides what training? What inspections? As we all know, alot of the time it's not the boat it's the sailor. 
Under what jurisdiction? Once your 15 miles out your free right? World standard? Visitors?

I'd venture this is a road we don't want to go down; as it will restrict the rights of all.

.


----------



## Minnewaska

benesailor said:


> .....Who decides what training? What inspections? As we all know, alot of the time it's not the boat it's the sailor.
> Under what jurisdiction? Once your 15 miles out your free right? World standard? Visitors?
> 
> I'd venture this is a road we don't want to go down; as it will restrict the rights of all. .


I don't have all the answers. I only think one should be obligated to exercise reasonable care to be bailed out. I admit, that may be impossible to define.


----------



## MedSailor

Gregrosine said:


> Why did the coast guard require they scuttle their boat?


It might be mistaken for a Malaysian airliner.

MedSailor


----------



## Shinook

Minnewaska said:


> While I would support some kind of mandatory safety training or possibly inspection to entitle you to a free rescue, I do not think everyone should pay for their own.


IIRC you are a pilot, right? Can you imagine what sailing life would be like if the FAA was in charge of mandating inspections and training for boats?

Every time I think about licensing or inspections on boats, I just think about that and it convinces me that we're better off without.


----------



## chall03

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The value of these forums is the discussion.
> 
> The discussion and forum investigations have led, in the past, to greater safe practices on boats.


Yup.

It's also at times led to 100 pages of chest-beating vitriolic crap.

These threads can spiral off in weird directions, the loudest posters win......The facts and sage advice as given by those with the experience to dispense it gets lost in the drivel.

Rescue threads start with a link to a 4 line news article that says something ambiguous like "boat was being battered by waves and taking on water" and with no other facts than that, by 20 posts in generally _Sailnet _has declared the skipper an incompetent fool, the boat unseaworthy and that Obamacare was to blame for the whole thing.


----------



## chall03

Press conference from 129th rescue wing.

DVIDS - Video - Guardian Angels from the Rebel Heart Search

They fill in a few blanks about Rebel Heart. Also of course a truly amazing job done by these guys.

*My 2 cents from my armchair to yours  *

-It would appear that the steering was fine on Rebel Heart.

-It would appear that it was taking on a small, non-critical amount of water, that may -have had something to do with the engine(dripless shaft seal? Heat exchanger?).

-The HF radio for some reason was down, (as was the sat phone???) Would be keen to hear more from Eric on this, as this still puzzles me. These guys seemed to have communication options aplenty.

-It is very clear that the deal breaker was sick, getting sicker Lyra.

-It would seem that even though they had been given an 'all clear' by the doctor in Mexico, the salmonella relapsed.

-Clearly Eric and Charlotte didn't believe this possible or probable when they left, or clearly they would not have left. To suggest otherwise is very unkind.

-Salmonella relapses are not uncommon apparently, and it would appear that they received some bad advice from the doctor in Mexico. Those looking for a 'mistake' could probably conclude that it was made in trusting this medical advice.

- It seems entirely probably to me that if Lyra did not fall ill, despite some not insignificant issues onboard they would of gotten to the Marquesas as Eric was well prepared for this passage, part of that prep for a long ocean passage was in factoring in things not going well. Charlotte was struggling, but clearly a strong women. I have read several passage reports for successful circumnavigators with and without kids that read no differently, you do get seasick, you do get tired, you do wish you were somewhere else.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

chall03 said:


> Press conference from 129th rescue wing.
> 
> DVIDS - Video - Guardian Angels from the Rebel Heart Search
> 
> They fill in a few blanks about Rebel Heart. Also of course a truly amazing job done by these guys.
> 
> *My 2 cents from my armchair to yours  *
> 
> -It would appear that the steering was fine on Rebel Heart.
> 
> -It would appear that it was taking on a small, non-critical amount of water, that may -have had something to do with the engine(dripless shaft seal? Heat exchanger?).
> 
> -The HF radio for some reason was down, (as was the sat phone???) Would be keen to hear more from Eric on this, as this still puzzles me. These guys seemed to have communication options aplenty.
> 
> -It is very clear that the deal breaker was sick, getting sicker Lyra.
> 
> -It would seem that even though they had been given an 'all clear' by the doctor in Mexico, the salmonella relapsed.
> 
> -Clearly Eric and Charlotte didn't believe this possible or probable when they left, or clearly they would not have left. To suggest otherwise is very unkind.
> 
> -Salmonella relapses are not uncommon apparently, and it would appear that they received some bad advice from the doctor in Mexico. Those looking for a 'mistake' could probably conclude that it was made in trusting this medical advice.
> 
> - It seems entirely probably to me that if Lyra did not fall ill, despite some not insignificant issues onboard they would of gotten to the Marquesas as Eric was well prepared for this passage, part of that prep for a long ocean passage was in factoring in things not going well. Charlotte was struggling, but clearly a strong women. I have read several passage reports for successful circumnavigators with and without kids that read no differently, you do get seasick, you do get tired, you do wish you were somewhere else.


So, the bottom line is that if they had not taken a very young child off-shore they most likely would not have had to be rescued. Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Puddin'_Tain said:


> So, the bottom line is that if they had not taken a very young child off-shore they most likely would not have had to be rescued. Thanks for clarifying that.


... or anyone that might have a heart attack, or diabetes, or be in cancer remission, or still have an appendix or tonsils, or have the potential to break a bone, or any one of a number of other medical issues. The age of the child simply isn't relevant.


----------



## TomMaine

chall03 said:


> Press conference from 129th rescue wing.
> 
> DVIDS - Video - Guardian Angels from the Rebel Heart Search
> 
> They fill in a few blanks about Rebel Heart. Also of course a truly amazing job done by these guys.
> 
> - It seems entirely probably to me that if Lyra did not fall ill, despite some not insignificant issues onboard they would of gotten to the Marquesas as Eric was well prepared for this passage, part of that prep for a long ocean passage was in factoring in things not going well. Charlotte was struggling, but clearly a strong women. I have read several passage reports for successful circumnavigators with and without kids that read no differently, you do get seasick, you do get tired, you do wish you were somewhere else.


Good summation. I never got into the blogs and haven't listened to the vid but I've read a few similar reports from the latest news.

As a sailor I have enough background on the sailing experience of these folks to support what they were doing.

As far as the media frenzy, parents on a small boat with two young children are bound to have some 'moments'. Even off the boat, raising babies can be stressful. If you can't understand that, you're either not a sailor, not married, or haven't raised kids.

This young family sailed into Rockport Harbor mid winter, from Holland, a few seasons ago. When I asked the dad if he wanted any recommendations for points of interest down the coast, he replied, "Oh no thanks. We've done this before".

I don't care if the mom knows the bow from the stern. This mom and dad are my type of cruising heros.


----------



## chall03

Puddin'_Tain said:


> So, the bottom line is that if they had not taken a very young child off-shore they most likely would not have had to be rescued. Thanks for clarifying that.


I would put it like this i_f they had not taken someone offshore who had the grave misfortune to have gotten ill they most likely would not have had to be rescued. _


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

SVAuspicious said:


> ... or anyone that might have a heart attack, or diabetes, or be in cancer remission, or still have an appendix or tonsils, or have the potential to break a bone, or any one of a number of other medical issues. The age of the child simply isn't relevant.


Yes, it is. Very young children can get _very_ sick _very_ fast, as happened in this case. I wouldn't consider taking a very young child off-shore for that very reason (I'm NOT talking about coastal cruising, or sailing in general). I've seen first-hand how fast a kid can develop a life-threatening infection (think hours, not days). Yes, other things can also happen, that's the nature of life. However, the odds of a small child getting very sick are high enough tip the balance beyond what I would consider a reasonable risk. You, and others, may disagree. But look at what happened in this case. Luckily it sounds like this little girl will be OK. But, the Air National Guard and Navy had to go to heroic lengths to save her life, when she probably shouldn't have been out there in the first place. Would it take an actual fatality under such circumstances to convince you (and others here) that this was a bad idea from the start?


----------



## Minnewaska

Shinook said:


> IIRC you are a pilot, right? Can you imagine what sailing life would be like if the FAA was in charge of mandating inspections and training for boats?
> 
> Every time I think about licensing or inspections on boats, I just think about that and it convinces me that we're better off without.


Yes, I am and that might just be a good reason not to involve the government. The FAA really is the most screwed up govt agency. However, there are other methods, such as the offshore racing inspection requirement. Maybe all those standards are not necessary, although, they are all pretty smart. I wouldn't cross an ocean without complying.

I'm not sure my idea could work, but there might be some way to prevent the ignorant from setting off without the knowledge they need. The stubborn are always going to get away. In my mind, we should provide rescue, but the rescued should take on some minimum responsibility.


----------



## chall03

TomMaine said:


> As far as the media frenzy, parents on a small boat with two young children are bound to have some 'moments'. Even off the boat, raising babies can be stressful. If you can't understand that, you're either not a sailor, not married, or haven't raised kids.


+ 100 000 000 000 000

Our first overnight passage with a 6 month old was an unmitigated disaster.

We left tired, stressed and feeling like crap in less than ideal conditions.I spilt diesel and the boat stank. I sailed the boat too hard. My daughter was stressed and screamed and my wife was ridiculously seasick.

I bet I made more mistakes in 24 hours and 140nm than Eric and Charlotte made in 6 months.

We arrived in the harbour and couldn't find a berth, our fenders or our lines and were yelling at each other. We vowed we would sell the boat and forget the whole thing.

Luckily two of the kindest cruisers we have ever met grabbed our lines, helped us and then kept looking after us for the next two weeks as we got our crap together.

3 years and several thousand nautical miles later we have had some fantastic passages and memories and are still cruising as a family. Funnily most of the major meltdowns that standout were on the way to the shops trying to provision not storms or rough passages.


----------



## JonEisberg

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Yes, it is. Very young children can get _very_ sick _very_ fast, as happened in this case. I wouldn't consider taking a very young child off-shore for that very reason (I'm NOT talking about coastal cruising, or sailing in general). I've seen first-hand how fast a kid can develop a life-threatening infection (think hours, not days). Yes, other things can also happen, that's the nature of life. *However, the odds of a small child getting very sick are high enough tip the balance beyond what I would consider a reasonable risk.* You, and others, may disagree. But look at what happened in this case. Luckily it sounds like this little girl will be OK. But, the Air National Guard and Navy had to go to heroic lengths to save her life, when she probably shouldn't have been out there in the first place. Would it take an actual fatality under such circumstances to convince you (and others here) that this was a bad idea from the start?


So, then - if the odds of a young child getting sick and needing to be rescued at sea are so significant, surely you can cite numerous previous examples of this sort of thing happening, right?

I'll admit, my memory isn't quite what it used to be, but I'm hard pressed to recall an incident quite like this one... We've seen scores of boat abandoned, passages ended or diverted for a wide variety of reasons in recent years, but I can't recall any that have involved a grave illness to a young child...

Furthermore, in the US for the year 2012, 24 children under the age of 12 died in all varieties of recreational boating accidents. Not one of those deaths occurred aboard any type of sailboat. And, out of the 225 injuries to children reported on a wide variety of craft, a total of TWO occurred aboard an auxiliary sailboat.

http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/News/2012ReportR2.pdf


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> - It seems entirely probably to me that if Lyra did not fall ill, despite some not insignificant issues onboard they would of gotten to the Marquesas as Eric was well prepared for this passage, part of that prep for a long ocean passage was in factoring in things not going well. Charlotte was struggling, but clearly a strong women. I have read several passage reports for successful circumnavigators with and without kids that read no differently, you do get seasick, you do get tired, you do wish you were somewhere else.


I think that sums it up pretty nicely, as well... However, here is the only 'issue' I have with the Kaufmann's voyage, based upon what I'm aware of at the moment (Subject to change, naturally, after we get a more complete debrief from them)

Perhaps I'm reading the blog(s) differently than some, but one thing seems pretty apparent to me. Charlotte was completely unprepared for, and overwhelmed by the rigors of this passage, and the concurrent demands of having to constantly attend to the children. She seems rather clueless about the actual sailing and management of the boat, having no idea whatever it was that Eric did with the sails at one point to dampen the boat's motion, for instance... She confesses to being a "such a noob" regarding "distance sailing", and frankly much of what she writes gives the impression of one who is sailing overnight, or out of sight of land, for the first time, ever...

reviewing their blog, I'm hard-pressed to see where she got all her "experience" many over on CF claim she supposedly has. She was not aboard for the trip from San Diego to Cabo, Eric did that alone. They never ventured up into the Sea of Cortez, and after crossing from Cabo over to the mainland, most of their time in Mexico seems to have been spent moving short distances from one marina to the next. I've seen no indication of any sort of appropriate offshore shakedown cruise the entire family made, prior to setting out upon the single longest passage any Milk Run circumnavigator is ever likely to make...

I'm sorry, but that's simply extremely poor preparation/planning, in my view... We see examples of this time and time again, every year in rallies from the East coast to the Caribbean, crews setting off without sufficient prior offshore experience to have given them a clue what they might be in for. As best we know, that was the genesis of the RULE 62 tragedy, after they bailed out and diverted to the Bahamas, after one or more of the crew experienced some form of meltdown/inability to cope with the conditions...

Even for the typical Mom & Pop voyagers out there, in my view BOTH need to be capable of singlehanding the boat in the event that one or the other might become incapacitated for whatever reason... For a couple like the Kaufmanns, with the added responsibility of young children aboard, that capability seems to be even more vital. But based on what I'm seeing, if Eric had become sick or injured himself, I believe the management of the boat might easily have been well beyond Charlotte's capability, thus placing the entire family at greater risk than should have been necessary... So, that is my only doubt about the wisdom of this trip, I simply think they were not sufficiently prepared in terms of her experience, to allow for dealing with such a contingency...

Many over on CF have also stated that REBEL HEART was superbly prepared for this trip, but I'm not so convinced... Being the sort of dumbass that has managed to break a Forespar whisker pole in comparatively tame conditions myself, the likelihood of Eric's bamboo downwind pole lasting the duration of a 3500 NM tradewinds passage seem rather slim, to me  And, the loss of their drifter first day out is rather disconcerting. Sure, shredding such a sail can happen to anyone, anytime - but the fact that they admit the sail was in such poor condition that they did not _expect_ the sail to last very long has to give one pause. Crossing the ITCZ, on a heavy boat not easily driven to begin with, and carrying only 30 gallons of fuel for a 3500 mile passage, seems to me a reliable and dependable light air sail inventory should have been very near to top of any list of equipment priorities...

However, perhaps that's just me...


----------



## TomMaine

JonEisberg said:


> Even for the typical Mom & Pop voyagers out there, in my view BOTH need to be capable of singlehanding the boat in the event that one or the other might become incapacitated for whatever reason...


I only had time to skim your looooong post Jon(what's that stick on the dock?) 

But I get the gist. Let's test sailing moms abilities on the boat? Good idea!

Oh, and then Dad too, "Here you go dude, take these two crying babies in your arms, now sail the boat" (believe it or not, I've been given that test!)

I suspect that old rule about BOTH being capable single handers, gets broken quite often.

I've known tons of sailing couples, with and without kids. More often that not, there is one stronger sailor, on the boat. And that sailor is not always the male either.

That's life. Break the rules.

I would also wager that those couples I've known, know each others strong/weak points. And most couples, that sail successfully together and as a family, have confidence in each other, for good reasons.


----------



## youmeandthed

We have lots of friends who sail with kids, and one couple we know sailed across the atlantic with a one year old and new born. They have a 28ft boat that is 109 years old. However they had their offshore system down and he had crossed the atlantic 4 times throughout his life on that same boat. They then crossed the Pacific and are "happily" adjusting to "normal" life in NZ. They uses a bamboo pole as a wisker pole too!

I have the same boat as Rebel Heart, a Union 36. I cannot see how the boat could leak if you closed all the thru-hulls; and wrapped up the stuffing box. Mind you we brokedown and were becalmed in the ITCZ off of central america and I can tell you 2 weeks of barely moving will drive anyone crazy. I have also spent 5 days crossing the Carribean in 30 knot plus winds (bad forecasting), the grand finale was a 60 ft wave knocking Cypraea on her side (not capable of tipping the boat upside down) and filling her up to my knees with water, and breaking our steering cable. She still had backups and sailed for another two days.

I would say they did the right things as everyone is alive and well. However, they bit off more than they could chew. Cooking is difficult offshore, and cooking for a family is harder. Plus, sailing with a drifter at night is ballsy. Also, I think they were too focused on a proper watch shedule. Sleep is important when you are offshore, and even more important as a parent. Set the sails and get some rest.

What is the worst, and when you write a blog you need to be careful, is being overly opinionated about others, then having to eat you words. Eric was pretty bad for this on these forums and his blog... bummer for him I guess.


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> I only had time to skim your looooong post Jon(what's that stick on the dock?)
> 
> But I get the gist. Let's test sailing moms abilities on the boat? Good idea!


Nah, I'm afraid that's not the gist, at all, Tom... It's a bit closer to this:

_The 3000+ NM passage from mainland Mexico to the Marquesas is a piss-poor choice for an 'introductory' offshore passage, particularly for someone with as limited "distance sailing" experience as Charlotte Kaufmann. _

That seems to me to be jumping into the deep end, even if it were just she and her husband aboard. Add to that the considerable burden of taking constant care of 2 children ages 1 and 3, her chronic seasickness and sleep deprivation, and such delectable daily chores as having to hand wash dirty diapers in the galley sink on a boat without pressurized water, well... it's easy to see how this 'conversation' with hubby would have arisen only 3 days into the passage:



> "How long would it take you to sail around the world yourself?" "I don't know. Figure a month from here, a month from there, if I went non-stop, maybe six months? Eight months? Who knows? Why?" "I'm just wondering if you could sail around the world, and I could take the girls and fly to my sister's and wait it out there. Realistically, how long?"





TomMaine said:


> Oh, and then Dad too, "Here you go dude, take these two crying babies in your arms, now sail the boat" (believe it or not, I've been given that test!)
> 
> I suspect that old rule about BOTH being capable single handers, gets broken quite often.


Yes, I'm sure it does... But that doesn't make doing so any more sensible, especially with the added responsibility of young children thrown into the mix...



> Lyra is absolutely the most challenging part of the trip. And Lyra, if you are reading this someday, know that we don't mean you were a "bad baby," or anything of the sort. You're a wonderfully active, happy, ingenuitive (<--is that an actual word?) child. You are vocal, and curious, and BUSY, just as you should be. *WE are the nutballs who decided to set to sea with you. Trust me, we have no one else to blame for bringing a 13 month old to sea than ourselves.*


Tom, I realize you have little interest in their blog, and dismiss it as being revelatory of what was REALLY going on out there. Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think it represents the closest thing we have to an accurate account of the voyage... To me it seems obvious there was a lot more going on aboard REBEL HEART than a sick baby. Blogging was as much of a daily routine to these people as brushing their teeth, and the fact that they ceased doing so before there was even any mention of a possible health issue with the toddler would appear to be indicative of that...

Make no mistake, I have the greatest admiration for people like the Kaufmanns, who have the nerve to cross oceans as a family. I can't imagine doing that, myself, being so accustomed to sailing so often by myself. 2 years ago I did a delivery to the islands with my brother and his oldest son as my crew, and I was amazed how burdened I felt by the sense of responsibility. And, my nephew is far from a helpless infant, but pretty experienced sailor who raced on SF Bay, is on the Ski Patrol at Mammoth in the winters, and fights fires for the Forest Service in the summers 

I'm simply saying that I believe these folks were not ready for this passage. Sure, they likely would have pulled it off anyway, if not for the youngest becoming ill... Still, I think they would have been far better served by a couple of offshore shakedown trips beforehand, gained a better appreciation for how challenging this passage could be, and perhaps decided to spend another season cruising Mexico or further south, and put off such a lengthy passage at least until the youngest was able to walk on her own... Or, perhaps for Eric to have sailed to FP on his own or with crew, and the girls would have rejoined the boat there...

I'll bet, now in hindsight, that's what Charlotte would opt for in a heartbeat, if given another chance...


----------



## TomMaine

JonEisberg said:


> Charlotte was completely unprepared for, and overwhelmed by the rigors of this passage, and the concurrent demands of having to constantly attend to the children. She seems rather clueless about the actual sailing and management of the boat, having no idea whatever it was that Eric did with the sails at one point to dampen the boat's motion, for instance... She confesses to being a "such a noob" regarding "distance sailing", and frankly much of what she writes gives the impression of one who is sailing overnight, or out of sight of land, for the first time, ever...
> 
> reviewing their blog, I'm hard-pressed to see where she got all her "experience" many over on CF claim she supposedly has. She was not aboard for the trip from San Diego to Cabo, Eric did that alone.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's simply extremely poor preparation/planning, in my view... We see examples of this time and time again, every year in rallies from the East coast to the Caribbean, crews setting off without sufficient prior offshore experience to have given them a clue what they might be in for. As best we know, that was the genesis of the RULE 62 tragedy, after they bailed out and diverted to the Bahamas, after one or more of the crew experienced some form of meltdown/inability to cope with the conditions...
> 
> But based on what I'm seeing, if Eric had become sick or injured himself, I believe the management of the boat might easily have been well beyond Charlotte's capability, thus placing the entire family at greater risk than should have been necessary... So, that is my only doubt about the wisdom of this trip, I simply think they were not sufficiently prepared in terms of her experience, to allow for dealing with such a contingency...


Ok, you made me read the whole thing. These are the parts that made me think you were piling on her.

But now you have stated they're both un prepared for ocean crossing. OK, that's a reasonable statement and makes more sense to me. This was a joint venture there's no need to single anyone out.

But I disagree with you, I support their attempt. 

And that stick for a whisker, so what?


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> And that stick for a whisker, so what?


Again, probably just me, but I rate a stout downwind pole as an essential piece of gear for tradewind sailing, or any downwind sailing offshore. Especially on a passage where squalls might be prevalent at night. We all know whisker poles are not SUPPOSED to see significant compressive loads, but in my experience, it can sometimes be otherwise 

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised REBEL HEART left San Diego without a proper pole even just for the run down to Cabo. I could be wrong, but that stalk does not look very likely to make it through a Pacific crossing. Especially, given that any visible amount of 'pre-bend' is definitely not a desirable feature in a whisker or spinnaker pole


----------



## christian.hess

are you guys serious about that whisker pole or is that like a joke?

if it is...and he thought that was ok as a whisker pole then that does say something at least to me

ps. Id have no problem with a bamboo pole though but appropriately sized

we have massive bamboo down here and its strong...especially is wrapped with twine and sealed


----------



## TomMaine

JonEisberg said:


> Again, probably just me, but I rate a stout downwind pole as an essential piece of gear for tradewind sailing, or any downwind sailing offshore. Especially on a passage where squalls might be prevalent at night. We all know whisker poles are not SUPPOSED to see significant compressive loads, but in my experience, it can sometimes be otherwise
> 
> Frankly, I'm a bit surprised REBEL HEART left San Diego without a proper pole even just for the run down to Cabo. I could be wrong, but that stalk does not look very likely to make it through a Pacific crossing. Especially, given that any visible amount of 'pre-bend' is definitely not a desirable feature in a whisker or spinnaker pole


Nice boat and gear. What kind of whisker pole did you have when you were the Kaufman's age? You had a boat, right? 

When I was their age, I used an old light cobbled together whisker pole for my first spinnaker pole! LOL! It was all I could afford at 30, but it was better than nothing. I'm sure the old salts scowled.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Yes, it is. Very young children can get _very_ sick _very_ fast, as happened in this case. I wouldn't consider taking a very young child off-shore for that very reason (I'm NOT talking about coastal cruising, or sailing in general).


Consider how fast a heart attack comes on, or a stroke, or a physical injury. Humans of any age are fragile beings.

Now if you want to make the case that taking young children offshore adds to an already substantial workload and may not be advisable on that basis I'll agree. To say, however, that simply taking one's young family offshore is bad because they are young and might get sick doesn't make sense to me. The US would not be what it is today if our pioneers had not packed up and headed West. Someday our descendents will pack up their families and head to other planets.

_Rebel Heart_ and her crew may or may not have been ready to go, but saying that simply because they had a young family they shouldn't go reflects the no-risk, coddling attitude of over-protective, helicopter (no pun intended) parenting that sociologists are suggesting is detrimental to our youth and their and our future.



Puddin'_Tain said:


> I've seen first-hand how fast a kid can develop a life-threatening infection (think hours, not days).


Heart attack - seconds and minutes. Stroke - seconds and minutes. Physical injury - seconds. Diabetes - minutes and hours. Appendicitis - minutes and hours. Blood poisoning - hours.

Shall we compare and contrast SSB and sat phones? Or talk about medical kits? Or pictures and paperwork for burial at sea?



Puddin'_Tain said:


> Yes, other things can also happen, that's the nature of life.


And young children aren't part of the nature of life?



Minnewaska said:


> Yes, I am and that might just be a good reason not to involve the government. The FAA really is the most screwed up govt agency. However, there are other methods, such as the offshore racing inspection requirement. Maybe all those standards are not necessary, although, they are all pretty smart. I wouldn't cross an ocean without complying.


Please let's not go there. We have a thread that has been spiraling down the drain on safety inspections and what they may or may not contribute to the safety of those offshore.



JonEisberg said:


> Even for the typical Mom & Pop voyagers out there, in my view BOTH need to be capable of singlehanding the boat in the event that one or the other might become incapacitated for whatever reason...


I agree with you. Although I know a number of exceptions, I find a huge number of couples with grossly different sailing skills. Janet doesn't have anything like the skills and experience I have. She is a perfectly competent watchstander but not a singlehander and doesn't like passage-making much.

Digression: Janet is prone to motion sickness and her biggest discontent on long passages is that she can't cook. I on the other hand relish the chance to "own" the galley for days on end. *grin*

Of course my delivery crews usually include members that couldn't move the boat by themselves. It isn't unusual for one person aboard to be key. That's why I try very hard not to fall overboard or get hurt. I sleep a lot too. *grin*


----------



## Minnewaska

SVAuspicious said:


> ....Please let's not go there. We have a thread that has been spiraling down the drain on safety inspections and what they may or may not contribute to the safety of those offshore.....


Everyone likes a good car wreck, where is the thread? 

I think the discussion isn't as much about an inspection solely for safety sake, but some minimal demonstration that you deserve to be rescued for free and I think it should be free. I don't have it figure out yet.


----------



## chall03

When guys like Jon and Auspicious talk, I _try_ to keep quiet and listen. I do wonder though if Charlotte was perhaps, as a writing style, for the sake of providing a counter poise to Eric overplaying her part in the blog posts.

More than anything else I just can't imagine doing a passage like that without my wife being able to stand a watch and have good conditional awareness. You have to sleep sometime.


----------



## JonEisberg

christian.hess said:


> are you guys serious about that whisker pole or is that like a joke?
> 
> if it is...and he thought that was ok as a whisker pole then that does say something at least to me


Didn't sound like a joke to me...

Rebel Heart - Eric's Blog - the bamboo whisker*pole


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> Nice boat and gear. What kind of whisker pole did you have when you were the Kaufman's age? You had a boat, right?


Good point... When I was their age, I owned 2 boats, actually... A 16' Alden rowing shell, and a 16' Contender... The latter had no need of a whisker pole 










Unfortunately, that boat became a casualty of Hurricane Sandy...



TomMaine said:


> When I was their age, I used an old light cobbled together whisker pole for my first spinnaker pole! LOL! It was all I could afford at 30, but it was better than nothing. I'm sure the old salts scowled.


They don't appear to be necessarily cruising on a bare-bones budget, spending much of their time in marinas, for example. They've fitted out REBEL HEART with some substantial gear, watermaker, a $6K Hydrovane, satellite/HF comms capability to keep blogging on passage, and so on... Seems there might have been enough in their budget to score one of the many basic aluminum poles likely lying around out back of a place like Minney's in Newport Beach...

I'd only be guessing at what my current cruising boat might be worth, but I can assure you it is substantially less than the Kaufmann's Hans Christian 36... But it does at least have proper whisker and spinnaker poles, and a solid light air sail inventory...

And, a pressurized water system, as well... 

Again, perhaps it's just me, who is placing a primacy on the importance of downwind poles for a lengthy tradewinds passage. It's a bit silly, I realize, to make a judgement based solely on a single item of gear... Still, I think it's indicative of how little actual _sailing_ they might have done since leaving San Diego, or their lack of appreciation of how different the sailing conditions enroute to FP might have been...


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> I do wonder though if Charlotte was perhaps, as a writing style, for the sake of providing a counter poise to Eric overplaying her part in the blog posts.


I think you're probably onto something there...

Still, the more you read from their blogs, it's amazing how rife they are with words that in retrospect are gonna haunt them, and only reinforce the notion of how ill-advised this particular venture might have been...

Posted 5 months ago, from "Reflections on Our First Year of Cruising":



> *Cruising with babies sucks.*
> 
> When they are really little you can just lay them down and sandwich them between blankets like a hot dog, but once they start wanting to sit and crawl, and the boat is bumping and you feel drowsy from Bonine or a little bit seasick and you are just holding a baby in your arms or in a baby carrier or they are stuck in a seat or in a berth while you are underway, or dealing with their older sibling, or trying to pee, or trying to cook, or trying to do ANYTHING&#8230;..yes, it's a run on sentence, *but FOR ME, I have not enjoyed sailing with little kids. I think 3 years old and up may be the magic number for leaving to go cruising with kids.*


Aw, what the hell... Let's make our first-ever offshore passage the 3000 mile jaunt to the Marquesas, anyway...


----------



## christian.hess

weird...I dont like blogs...they are like selfies...to much me me me in them and less this place is wonderful...the sail over was majestic...the locals are great etc...

but just reading the little snippets and quotes here and there from you guys has maybe made me change my stance on them

Im always positive and hope they get back on their feet etc...but it also sucks if they are writing for publcity sake and attracting attention

honestly the whole whisker pole thing threw me off a bit...Im not sure it was a joke on their behalf or for the blog sake etc....

anyways regarding outfitting the boat...on other threads I have mentioned this as well as a bunch of you guys...id much rather have a solid boat, stock then have all sorts of doodads and west marines catalogs on my decks and such and forget about the real stuff that counts...

in any case...hope it all works out in the end

having a healthy baby is worth more than anything else so cheer to that


----------



## TomMaine

christian.hess said:


> weird...I dont like blogs...they are like selfies...to much me me me in them and less this place is wonderful...the sail over was majestic...the locals are great etc...


I'm with you there. I follow a few good ones, but I haven't heard anyone say the Kaufman's is one of those. It's getting read, but for other reasons.

The internet has channeled near infinite material into blogging. I work with an editor and friend who has come through this internet publishing transition in the last 20 years. He fondly refers to much of what's posted on the internet as, "barfing on your keyboard".

I've turned into a skimmer of websites and forums. Scrolling off the screen, cut and pastes, I can't keep my head in them.

30 years ago, a young woman named Tania Aebi set off around the world on a 26' boat. As I recall, she had little or no sailing experience. Most of my sailing peers, then around 30, followed her with great interest.

The difference was, we had to wait a month for the next issue of the sailing magazine that published her articles. They were edited. They were a good read.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I think you're probably onto something there...
> 
> Still, the more you read from their blogs, it's amazing how rife they are with words that in retrospect are gonna haunt them, and only reinforce the notion of how ill-advised this particular venture might have been...
> 
> Posted 5 months ago, from "Reflections on Our First Year of Cruising":
> 
> Aw, what the hell... Let's make our first-ever offshore passage the 3000 mile jaunt to the Marquesas, anyway...


I'm glad at least Charlotte agrees with me. Heh-heh.


----------



## fryewe

The properties of green and seasoned bamboo are remarkably different. Seasoned bamboo is very strong and can handle high compressive loads. Green...not so much.

Google sez that one method of seasoning bamboo is to cut the bamboo in the dry season. Then take the harvested culms and stand the cut end on stones, vertically, supported by other bamboos in the grove. The branches and leaves are left on the pole, and they are left to dry for 2-3 weeks, during which time the starches are drawn out of the culm by the leaves. After this period, the culms are stripped of branches and leaves and layed out to dry in the sun, horizontally, and turned longitudinally every few days for up to 3 months, depending on the size.

Splintered bamboo is like so many needles and knives.

I can imagine a scenario in which a green or partially seasoned bamboo pole snaps and ruins a headsail.


----------



## FSMike

All you folks who are so concerned about bamboo whisker poles would probably have heart attacks if you worked in Asia erecting multi-story buildings. Guess what they use for scaffolding?


----------



## chall03

The blog was about contrasting the drama with the wonderful. Charlottes writing style brutal honesty. 

Whether they were having fun or not, whether their blog is worth the bits and bytes it's written on is all kinda irreverent. 

They were rescued cause they had a unexpectedly sick Bub. 

They probably could of sailed to NZ with Charlotte whinging and a bent bit of bamboo and none if us would if been the wiser.

Or they could of been the ultimate cruising machine who said all the right things at all the right time and still had a sick Bub.


----------



## smurphny

FSMike said:


> All you folks who are so concerned about bamboo whisker poles would probably have heart attacks if you worked in Asia erecting multi-story buildings. Guess what they use for scaffolding?


It's truly disturbing that anyone would consider a material like WOOD for boat spars!


----------



## fryewe

FSMike said:


> All you folks who are so concerned about bamboo whisker poles would probably have heart attacks if you worked in Asia erecting multi-story buildings. Guess what they use for scaffolding?


Mike I have walked under myriad scaffoldings of high rises in East Asia and observed the methods and effectiveness of their use of bamboo. None of it is green. Most of it I observed was 2-4 inches in diameter.

I have *not* seen someone head down to the local bamboo patch and cut a green and flexible bamboo pole on 24 Feb and get underway expecting to use it as a whisker pole on 19 Mar.

I am not concerned about bamboo used in any responsible well-thought out application.

What was more interesting about the high rise work in East Asia was the lack of hard hats/gloves/steel toed boots/harnesses/safety lines and powered lift systems for sending things up and down. No OSHA but they seemed to get things done pretty quickly with minimal injury or death as far as I could tell. Now _that_ made my heart quicken.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Of course bamboo is crap. This boom is really titanium and carbon designed to look like bamboo.


----------



## zeehag

wood sucks so bad my masts and booms , original to boat, spruce WOOD, are in excellent shape 1976 original.


----------



## captain jack

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Very few places in the Northern Hemisphere, even most of Alaska, are so remote that emergency medical care is more than 12 (or, at most, 24) hours away; a boat well off-shore being one huge exception. Perhaps you either don't have kids, or if you do you (and they) are lucky enough that you haven't seen just how fast an infant/toddler can develop a life-threatening illness. Believe me, witnessing such is no fun; even with and ER just a short car ride away. I can't imagine waiting days for help to arrive while I watched any small child, particularly my own child, getting closer to death with every passing moment.
> 
> If any of you think that such a risk is worth not having to postpone the adventure for a few years, fine. But how can an infant or toddler make an informed decision about such risks?


most of the criticism is based on emotional arrguments, such as this one. public ideas about parenting, in the 'western' world today, have radically changed from when i was growing up.

parents, people in general, act like children are made of thin glass. they are over protected. about 9/10 of what we did, as kids, would be considered examples of bad parenting, today. we rode bicycles and skated and skateboarded without body armor or helmets. we climbed trees. we hiked, alone, through the woods. we ate food that would have given our present first lady a fit. we even shot BB guns and....OMG....real guns. during my fathers childhood, kids worked on farms, doing jobs considered adult jobs, right along with their parents. yet, the human race survived and our numbers grew expionentially. today, everyone acts like you can't let your kids do anything at all. they might die. i think that's just making children that turn into adults that are afraid to take any risks at all.

everyone thinks they should have a right to tell other people how to raise their own kids, today. yes, actual child abuse should not be allowed but, people should be allowed to make judgement about what is safe for their own kids. as has been pointed out, pretty much every parent in the industrialized world allows their kids to ride in cars and trucks and school busses....inspite of the fact that automobiles are the number one killer of humans. seriously. just think about how common accidents are. just about everyone sees a few a week. why don't all of the people criticizing these people scream bloody murder about parents allowing they children in motor vehicles?

hmmm maybe it's because they also allow their kids in motor vehicles. it's easy to criticize someone in a sensationalized story, especially when the media has been guiding people towards criticism, but as they say, "those in glass houses...."

personally, i think that, as long as the parents took all reasonable measures ( in preparation and during the trip ) they could to be safe, there is no problem with them taking their kids on such a voyage. if nothing bad had happened, it would have been an incredible memory for the kids. it probably will be, anyway. and, if nothing bad had happened, you never would have heard a word said against them.

the question i have is, why did they scuttle the boat? why not just tow it back in while you are there? it seems they are going to raise it, anyway. humans really treat the ocean as their own personal trash dump. it's just like all the flotsam they keep thinking is the missing airliner, out in the indian ocean. by rights, if we were a responsible species, there shouldn't be that much trash floating around in the sea. it's like sailing in baltimore's inner harbor and seeing all the trash floating in the bay, there. it's really terrible the way we treat the planet...but especially the ocean. i guess, in the ocean, it's a matter of, "can't see it from my house".


----------



## SVAuspicious

chall03 said:


> When guys like Jon and Auspicious talk, I _try_ to keep quiet and listen. I do wonder though if Charlotte was perhaps, as a writing style, for the sake of providing a counter poise to Eric overplaying her part in the blog posts.
> 
> More than anything else I just can't imagine doing a passage like that without my wife being able to stand a watch and have good conditional awareness. You have to sleep sometime.


Interesting thought on writing style. Self-deprecating ...



JonEisberg said:


> Still, I think it's indicative of how little actual _sailing_ they might have done since leaving San Diego, or their lack of appreciation of how different the sailing conditions enroute to FP might have been...


An interesting observation given how small their fuel tankage appears to have been. Did I read somewhere that it was only 30 gallons?

From what I have read first, second, and third hand the Kaufman's (sp?) made a number of choices I think I would have made differently based only on what I know or think I know but I WASN'T THERE. It is easy to sit in the comfort of my nav station and pontificate, BUT I WASN'T THERE. I've been in enough complex situations that led to after-action reports to understand how many small decisions cascade to a conclusion.

It sounds like the boat was safe and navigable although clearly there were some not-clearly-defined problems. With rescue services at hand I think I would have asked for wife and children to be taken off and to get as much fuel as could be managed and save the boat (remember it was their only home). But, of course, I WASN'T THERE.

One of my immediate observations hasn't been commented on. Did I read correctly that SAR put four (4!) people on the boat for a considerable period before everyone was evacuated? Where the heck did they put all those people on a 36' boat that already had an adult couple and two small children aboard? Wow.


----------



## JonEisberg

FSMike said:


> All you folks who are so concerned about bamboo whisker poles would probably have heart attacks if you worked in Asia erecting multi-story buildings. Guess what they use for scaffolding?


Right, bamboo is the new carbon fiber... I fully expect we'll see it put to use in the next America's Cup, for instance... 

Sure, I've been to SE Asia, and seen some of the uses it's put to there. Bamboo is an impressive material, no question, and there's no reason it can't be put to good use aboard a small racing sloop in a place like Carriacou, or wherever Mark's pic is from... But if you think this would make a suitable downwind pole for a 36-footer likely displacing 25,000 lbs. in cruising trim, for a Pacific Ocean crossing, or is evidence of a boat "superbly prepared" for such a passage, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree 










My first thought on reading Eric's post, was wondering how he planned to fit the pole end fitting to the inboard end of the pole. As anyone who as built their own pole probably realizes, this is the part that receives the most working and stress, and is most likely to fail if not done properly. I built my whisker pole using CF tubing of just a slightly different inner diameter than the aluminum tubing the composite Forespar jaw fittings were designed for, and thought I had machined the surfaces for a fit that was 'good enough'... Didn't take too long for me to realize 'good enough' was 'not quite', and required a bit more work to get the fitting to mate to the pole perfectly, to eliminate the sort of working at the mast fitting that would eventually lead to a failure...

But, more importantly, did anyone christian or fryewe actually _LOOK_ at that pole Eric was planning on using? Nobody noticed that gentle S-bend in that wet noodle?

For a piece of gear that will see an endless cycle of forces of compression on a rolly downwind passage of thousands of miles, that piece of crap has _"Buckling Failure"_ written all over it...


----------



## JonEisberg

captain jack said:


> the question i have is, why did they scuttle the boat? why not just tow it back in while you are there?


Towing a 36' Hans Christian 1300 miles behind a Navy frigate capable of speeds in excess of 28 knots, that's in a hurry to get a sick baby back to San Diego?

You're joking, right?


----------



## captain jack

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Did I say that? No.
> 
> However, intentionally putting very young children in a situation where any real medical care is likely to be more than a day away is unconscionable, IMHO.


i'd like to note that, before the cell phone age ( a relatively recent thing ), just going camping might take you more than a day away from immediate medical help. i know you won't believe this but, up until i was well into adulthood, humans lived out our lives without a constant support group on call 24/7....and the species didn't go extinct. amazing, isn't it?

it is interesting how pathetic a species we have become. past generations sailed across oceans in open vessels. they rode in coveren wagons across unknown expanses...with their families. now? we can't ride bicycles without suiting up like a knight for combat or travel more than a day from rescues services.


----------



## captain jack

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Did I say that? No.
> 
> However, intentionally putting very young children in a situation where any real medical care is likely to be more than a day away is unconscionable, IMHO.


i'd like to note that, before the cell phone age ( a relatively recent thing ), just going camping might take you more than a day away from immediate medical help. i know you won't believe this but, up until i was well into adulthood, humans lived out our lives without a constant support group on call 24/7....and the species didn't go extinct. amazing, isn't it?

it is interesting how pathetic a species we have become. past generations sailed across oceans in open vessels. they rode in coveren wagons across unknown expanses...with their families. now? we can't ride bicycles without suiting up like a knight for combat or travel more than a day from rescues services.


----------



## TomMaine

It's fun to see everybody getting their wood out. 

This is our whisker pole(when it's not a spinnaker pole, awning support, etc). Roll down the 135% until it snaps tight to the pole end. I've seen this bent in an S several times. 53 years old.










Come on Jon, the focus on that stick is just petty criticism. I saw pic of the boat, it has a boomed staysail, strap everything down, it'll get you there, you know that...

You finally got me to the blog(skimmed, better than I thought).

I read the last entry. Smart. There's no way they can beat the internet frenzy that is bent on piling on them.

They should stay above the internet fray. The next rescue, is just around the corner, and you guys will jump ship on REBEL HEART as soon as the may-day is called.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> An interesting observation given how small their fuel tankage appears to have been. Did I read somewhere that it was only 30 gallons?


The original specs for tankage on the HC 36 show 50 gallons for fuel. Eric wound up cutting the original tank out of the boat at the last minute before leaving San Diego for Cabo, and replacing it with a 20 gallon tank from WM, and supplementing that with a pair of jerry jugs on deck... Sounded like the plan was to have a replacement for the original fitted in Mexico, but apparently that never happened...

One of the classic problems with a boat of that vintage, the virtual impossibility of a straight 'replacement' of original tankage gone bad:

Rebel Heart - Eric's Blog - ten days to go: excellent time to sawzall the fuel*tank



SVAuspicious said:


> From what I have read first, second, and third hand the Kaufman's (sp?) made a number of choices I think I would have made differently based only on what I know or think I know but I WASN'T THERE. It is easy to sit in the comfort of my nav station and pontificate, BUT I WASN'T THERE. I've been in enough complex situations that led to after-action reports to understand how many small decisions cascade to a conclusion.
> 
> It sounds like the boat was safe and navigable although clearly there were some not-clearly-defined problems. With rescue services at hand I think I would have asked for wife and children to be taken off and to get as much fuel as could be managed and save the boat (remember it was their only home). But, of course, I WASN'T THERE.


I agree completely... Certainly appears they made the right call, when they did... While my own 'inclination' from afar might have been to try to save the boat, at this point we have so little information re all the details, and one can only have respect for Eric's decision to stay with his family...

To me, this seems a classic example of a voyage that - while not necessarily 'destined to fail' - was certainly compromised almost exclusively by decisions and choices made before they ever departed the marina in La Cruz...



SVAuspicious said:


> One of my immediate observations hasn't been commented on. Did I read correctly that SAR put four (4!) people on the boat for a considerable period before everyone was evacuated? Where the heck did they put all those people on a 36' boat that already had an adult couple and two small children aboard? Wow.


That would not have been pleasant, for sure... Especially, with diapers being washed in the galley sink 

Hopefully, one of the para-jumpers came up with the idea that they could be cleaned by trailing them in a mesh bag off the stern for awhile, instead, then simply rinsing them in fresh ?


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> Come on Jon, the focus on that stick is just petty criticism. I saw pic of the boat, it has a boomed staysail, strap everything down, it'll get you there, you know that...


Sure, reliance on a boomed-out staysail could get a heavy boat like a HC-36 through the doldrums, alright...

_SLOWLY_, would be my guess...


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Sure, reliance on a boomed-out staysail could get a heavy boat like a HC-36 through the doldrums, alright...
> 
> _SLOWLY_, would be my guess...


Hey some of us only ever get anywhere _slowly_


----------



## TomMaine

JonEisberg said:


> Sure, reliance on a boomed-out staysail could get a heavy boat like a HC-36 through the doldrums, alright...
> 
> _SLOWLY_, would be my guess...


Yeah, she's slow. Practical Sailor gives the Union 36 high marks as a blue water cruiser. In 36' it looks like a good choice for what they had in mind. Good accommodations too for a family of four, hard to find in 36'. Bob Perry made heavy boats like this go as fast as they possibly could, comfortably.

Union 36 Boat Review - Practical Sailor Article


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

TomMaine said:


> Yeah, she's slow. Practical Sailor gives the Union 36 high marks as a blue water cruiser. In 36' it looks like a good choice for what they had in mind. Good accommodations too for a family of four, hard to find in 36'. Bob Perry made heavy boats like this go as fast as they possibly could, comfortably.
> ]


Its not an Union 36. Eric says its a HC 35 diesnt he?

And Bob Perry denied designing it.


----------



## svHyLyte

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Its not an Union 36. Eric says its a HC 35 diesnt he?
> 
> And Bob Perry denied designing it.


Mark--

The Hans Christian 36 was built by Pantawee Marine Co., Ltd, of Chonburi Province, Thailand. The boat is a (minor) variant of the Union Polaris 36, designed by Perry. One of the serious drawbacks of dealing with Asian yacht builders for Navel Architects was their propensity to "pirate" a design and build it with another name in an associated yard so to avoid having to pay the designer royalties. I believe that Perry was victimized by this practice on more than one occasion. N'any case, the yachts of this mode designed by Perry are quite fast once they get moving, despite their appearances, and are eminently sea worthy. I have little doubt that had Eric elected to remain aboard, in the given wind/sea conditions, he could have easily made Hawaii in 10-12 days, even if the Navy refused to spot him any diesel, where the "girls" could have rejoined him once the munchkin's health was restored.

FWIW...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Ok. I rechecked all and you are right..... found this....

http://rebelheart.squarespace.com/history-of-hc-36s/

It includes an email from BobPerry.


----------



## JonEisberg

svHyLyte said:


> Mark--
> 
> The Hans Christian 36 was built by Pantawee Marine Co., Ltd, of Chonburi Province, Thailand. The boat is a (minor) variant of the Union Polaris 36, designed by Perry.


Well, that's not the way Bob Perry tells it 

While Pantawee Marine now claims to be "Sole Authorized Builder of Hans Christian Yachts", the 36 was built in Taiwan... Bob never "designed" the 36, NC simply took the liberty of 'stretching' the design of the HC 34 he was commissioned to design for them...

The story as told in the PRACTICAL SAILOR review that Tom linked to above is pretty much taken word for word from Bob's book, so I'll go with that account...

As one who got my start in the delivery business running Taiwanese trawlers and sailboats imported by Marine Trading International, I can assure you the story of the genesis of Taiwanese boatbuilding is an endlessly fascinating one, featuring some truly legendary characters in the history of fiberglass Leaky-Teaky boatbuilding...

I hope Bob gets to write that book someday, that will be a terrific read...


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> Yeah, she's slow. Practical Sailor gives the Union 36 high marks as a blue water cruiser. In 36' it looks like a good choice for what they had in mind. Good accommodations too for a family of four, hard to find in 36'. Bob Perry made heavy boats like this go as fast as they possibly could, comfortably.
> 
> Union 36 Boat Review - Practical Sailor Article


Agreed, I think that boat would have been wonderfully suited a family like the Kaufmanns... With ladies aboard, however, the absence of a pressurized water system is still a head-scratcher, for me 

However, as one who sails heavy/heavily laden boat myself, I know all too well the importance of a decent and versatile light air sail inventory, if you want to keep moving through the light stuff


----------



## zeehag

what i find interesting is that it was stated uscg made them scuttle it...they werent even there...navywanted target practice on a hans?? hardly likely.... as there was alleged water ingress with engine use, they ditched and sunk it...perfectly good boat gone ...r i p hans 36. the tagged vessel (hans)was tracked for a few days and what was seen happening while tracking was some air craft and some water craft approached, sunday night, and by monday am, the tracked item was gone. between 0130 and 0500 was the act of scuttlation.. yes i made that word up.
yes i know two teams that were tracking for various reasons, one altruistic, one selfish.....


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Hopefully, one of the para-jumpers came up with the idea that they could be cleaned by trailing them in a mesh bag off the stern for awhile, instead, then simply rinsing them in fresh ?


Maybe. I find getting the salt out takes a prodigious amount of fresh water. I have very few issues with contact dermititus but salty clothes are unpleasant for me. I'd expect a lot of diaper rash or something similar on a small child.

I'm a big fan of ammonia for laundry aboard but I have no experience with washing cloth diapers that way.



zeehag said:


> what i find interesting is that it was stated uscg made them scuttle it...they werent even there...


You are likely incorrect. Many Navy warships carry a US Coast Guard officer aboard specifically to take advantage of the customs and border protection powers of the USCG. I don't know that a USCG officer was aboard but given the interdiction missions of surface ships in that AOR I expect there was.

I do expect the Navy CO made the call.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Maybe. I find getting the salt out takes a prodigious amount of fresh water. I have very few issues with contact dermititus but salty clothes are unpleasant for me. I'd expect a lot of diaper rash or something similar on a small child.
> 
> I'm a big fan of ammonia for laundry aboard but I have no experience with washing cloth diapers that way.


Good point, you're probably right... Needless to say, I don't have much experience washing diapers at sea... Or, anywhere else, for that matter 



SVAuspicious said:


> You are likely incorrect. Many Navy warships carry a US Coast Guard officer aboard specifically to take advantage of the customs and border protection powers of the USCG. I don't know that a USCG officer was aboard but given the interdiction missions of surface ships in that AOR I expect there was.
> 
> I do expect the Navy CO made the call.


At the press conference a few days ago with the Guard unit at Moffett Field, one of the jumpers said that Eric told them pretty much right from the get-go, or shortly after they came aboard and got the baby stabilized, that his plan was to scuttle REBEL HEART, and stay with his family. I believe at that time he still had very limited comms with those organizing the rescue, so I'm guessing that was likely a decision he and his wife arrived at on their own...


----------



## captain jack

Gregrosine said:


> Why did the coast guard require they scuttle their boat?


i had that thought, too. i was wondering why it couldn't just be towed back in with the family. i suppose there must be a reason.


----------



## captain jack

christian.hess said:


> non taken...it was a mistake to put sailnet...
> 
> the point however stands and its the one sidedness and narrowindedness of a lot of the posts, and posters here that prompted me to say such a thing
> 
> in any case sorry for the post


perhaps it is the seeming hostility of some of the posts that inspired it? civil discussion is almost always a benefit but when people get emotional and it turns to bickering....not so much.


----------



## captain jack

Minnewaska said:


> Thanks for posting. It's more fact that we've heard in days. My hat goes off to those guys, they are the real deal.
> 
> My take away. The parents thought their child was fully recovered and when they learned she wasn't, they were willing to sacrifice everything to get her help. Their home did not need to be abandon for any other reason.
> 
> Perhaps I would not have made the same decision to take my young children on that voyage, but I respect their right to make that decision. I have the same respect for them making the hard call to save their daughter.
> 
> As for them paying for the rescue, that's just not in the cards. It isn't the deal. While I would support some kind of mandatory safety training or possibly inspection to entitle you to a free rescue, I do not think everyone should pay for their own. If not for the adventurous spirit of mankind, we would wither.


well, i , personally, think that, living in a country that is very much a welfare state...where we are willing to carry people without their having to even try to work or control their birth rate...where so many people would say you are an evil monster if you suggested putting the brakes on the welfare machine at all...it is amazing that anyone could suggest these people should have to pay for their rescue. unwed mothers, with kids by multiple, absent fathers could easily be said to be acting irresponsibly by not practicing birth control when they know they can't afford more kids...but, you don't hear anyone saying they should pay their welfare back. in fact, the overnment says, "keep popping them out. we'll send you more money."

why is it that we are ok to carry some people, who purposely and repeatedly make obvious irresponsible decisions, but, we want to nail others, whose decisions are completely debatable either way ( and certainly not made with the intention of requiring public aid ), to the wall?

am i the only one that sees an ironic contradiction, there?


----------



## JonEisberg

captain jack said:


> i had that thought, too. i was wondering why it couldn't just be towed back in with the family. i suppose there must be a reason.


Perhaps you missed one plausible reason already alluded to?

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1730441-post178.html


----------



## ravinracin

Way off subject C Jack, but California aggressively goes after absent fathers where the mother receives welfare. I have had to withhold money from employees pay for years and send to the state welfare dept. Get the facts Jack, you sound like a silver spoon boy. With such a massive amount of my tax dollars going into defense, the military out to be out here mowing my lawn, (at the least), or fixing my streets, or doing a little gratis rescue work! Welfare is a big problem in this country, but the biggest recipient is corporate America.


----------



## captain jack

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps you missed one plausible reason already alluded to?
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1730441-post178.html


actually, you are right. i haven't gotten that far, yet, in the thread. been playing catch up as i could. that does make sense. still, not sure why they had to sink it. it's certainly less of a navigation hazzard than some of the big shipping containers.


----------



## boroko

At night you don't see stuff until you are almost on top of it. Less in bad conditions. If I was crossing that patch of ocean I would feel better knowing Rebel Heart was scuttled.


----------



## Tallswede

Concerning the folks who have a problem paying our Navy to go out and rescue these folks, The Navy boat is already out there cruising with a crew being trained or doing some other "mission". I have no problem with them rescueing citizens (who by the way pay taxes to the government) than going out and just training. I see this as an excellent use of our Navy and Coast Guard and prefer that mission to some of the others they would be doing.

Kevin


----------



## JonEisberg

boroko said:


> At night you don't see stuff until you are almost on top of it. Less in bad conditions. If I was crossing that patch of ocean I would feel better knowing Rebel Heart was scuttled.


Too bad the Kaufmanns didn't have better communications at the time, the outcome might conceivably been different.

I was pretty dismissive of some of the comments over on CF regarding various possible salvage attempts, but it does sound like there was one credible effort being put together by some of the members of that forum. I believe zeehag referred to this in an earlier post. A British poster going by "Atoll" seems to have considerable past experience with yacht salvage, and was willing to donate his services gratis. With financial backing from a number of other forum members, he had arranged for the use of a fast catamaran in Panama, and was putting together a crew of volunteers... Sounds like the Kaufmanns were never aware of such arrangements being made on their behalf, but if a tracking device had been left aboard RH, who knows if they might have pulled it off?

A very noble effort on the part of Atoll and others, but of course the odds of a successful outcome still have to be considered very long. As the search for the Malaysian airliner reminds us, it's a damn big ocean out there...

Still, such salvage efforts virtually never seem to actually happen, I'm hard pressed to recall a successful one, especially a boat abandoned almost 1000 miles offshore. Matt Rutherford actually found the Swan 46 WOLFHOUND last summer, and tried for several days to get it to Bermuda, and eventually gave up the effort despite the potential for a substantial financial reward (he was somewhat hampered by being shorthanded, but he's still a very capable and resourceful guy) The IP 38 abandoned only 60 miles off Charleston last June after a run-in with TS Andrea - the owner said he planned a salvage attempt, never happened... The Alpha 42 abandoned 300 miles E of Norfolk in January, a brand new $700K boat might seem worthy of a salvage attempt, yet none was ever mounted... The eventual recovery of the Westsail 32 SATORI after she washed up on the beach at Assateague a week after being abandoned during the Perfect Storm over 2 decades ago is one of the singular successful outcomes in recent memory, and that was more due to simple luck, than anything else...

I read somewhere that another Pacific Puddle Jumper actually passed right by REBEL HEART as she was being abandoned, displaying a hand-lettered banner of sorts expressing support. Most likely, they were a short-handed crew themselves, who might not have had anyone aboard who might have been spared to assist Eric. I'm sure Eric will explain their decision at some time in a debrief of the incident, but I think you've got to figure that anytime the skipper abandons a vessel as sound RH now appears to have been, you have to consider it a goner... I'd be a bit surprised if the CG or Navy actually _ordered_ him to scuttle her, as they never seem to do so in any of the other offshore rescues we've seen of late. Seems Eric and Charlotte simply made a very principled decision, can't help but admire them for that, taking the safety of others who might be sailing that route into account... Easy to say that it's the right thing to do, but I can't imagine how difficult it must have been for a sailor like Eric, or Skip Allan when he was taken off WILDFLOWER a few years ago, to cut open some intake hoses before stepping off...

Abandoning ship: gut-wrenching, perilous, sometimes right


----------



## boroko

JonEisberg said:


> Easy to say that it's the right thing to do


Not just easy to say. It IS the right thing to do.

Money where my mouth is. My wife and I have long agreed we will scuttle our uninsured boat (and home) if we have to abandon it at sea. You must be prepared to do this if you take a boat out to sea. If you do not scuttle your boat when you abandon it you are plain selfish.

Also the smart thing to do in some countries. If you boat ends up on a sensitive reef or beach expect a big bill.

I applaud Eric for doing the right, unselfish and honorable thing in this case.


----------



## JonEisberg

boroko said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> Easy to say that it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Not just easy to say. It IS the right thing to do.
> 
> Money where my mouth is. My wife and I have long agreed we will scuttle our uninsured boat (and home) if we have to abandon it at sea. You must be prepared to do this if you take a boat out to sea. If you do not scuttle your boat when you abandon it you are plain selfish.
> 
> Also the smart thing to do in some countries. If you boat ends up on a sensitive reef or beach expect a big bill.
> 
> I applaud Eric for doing the right, unselfish and honorable thing in this case.
Click to expand...

I agree completely... However, I still say it's easier said than done... 

Otherwise, it would seem more folks would do it, no? With all the recent abandonments of sailing yachts offshore in recent years, who other than Skip Allan and the Kaufmanns have done it?

However, I'd leave a bit of wiggle room before 'Always saying always'... I can imagine a circumstance where I might decline to do so. If I was singlehanding, and had to abandon due to a medical emergency, for example - but was in coastal waters where salvage was a realistic possiblilty, I think I'd be inclined to leave the masthead strobe on, and try to return to fight another day...


----------



## smurphny

Whether to scuttle would actually depend on a number of factors like the location and likely path of boat, realistic feasibility of getting back to it, likelihood that it will keep floating, and financial situation of the sailor/owner. Someone who has his/her entire net worth tied up in an uninsured live-aboard boat would surely have a whole lot different take on the situation than a 1%er playing with his/her expendable toy.


----------



## manatee

JonEisberg said:


> I agree completely... However, I still say it's easier said than done...
> 
> Otherwise, it would seem more folks would do it, no? With all the recent abandonments of sailing yachts offshore in recent years, who other than Skip Allan and the Kaufmanns have done it?
> 
> However, I'd leave a bit of wiggle room before 'Always saying always'... I can imagine a circumstance where I might decline to do so. If I was singlehanding, and had to abandon due to a medical emergency, for example - but was in coastal waters where salvage was a realistic possiblilty, I think I'd be inclined to leave the masthead strobe on, and try to return to fight another day...


A question about the "coastal abandonment" scenario:

Would you consider letting your anchor out to snag bottom before the hull starts bouncing off the shore? Has anyone tried this? Did it work? Seems possible it could buy you some time, even if it dragged a bit.


----------



## boroko

JonEisberg said:


> but was in coastal waters where salvage was a realistic possiblilty, I think I'd be inclined to leave the masthead strobe on, and try to return to fight another day...


Sure. Totally agree. Coastal waters with good chance of salvage is different. Apples to oranges.

By "at sea" I suppose I mean long way from land and towing companies. ICW and Hawk Channel is not "at sea". 900 miles southwest of Mexico is "at sea".


----------



## boroko

manatee said:


> Would you consider letting your anchor out to snag bottom before the hull starts bouncing off the shore? Has anyone tried this? Did it work? Seems possible it could buy you some time, even if it dragged a bit.


Good thought. One of the first questions the Coasties will ask you before they come and rescue is "Have you deployed your anchor?" or something to that effect.

I would hazard a guess not many boats are abandoned in US coastal waters. Seems like boats are usually lost due to piloting error (ie: hit something). Coasties usually help the boater get in touch with towing companies if the boat is not sinking.

The tow boat captains are the unsung heroes.


----------



## manatee

I'm thinking that while you wait for the cavalry to come over the hill, you could prep the boat to survive without you:

tiny riding sail to keep her head to the wind;
auto bilge pump hooked to the deepest battery bank you can put together;
wind and/or solar charging system primed for duty;
ports & hatches as watertight and secure as possible;
release as much anchor rode as you consider proper;
seal the hawse pipe as well as possible -- wrap a cushion in foulies, wrap around your rode/chain, wedge it into the pipe if nothing else;
electronic beacon if you have it;
your contact info prominently & waterproofly displayed;
a generous libation to the gods & goddesses of the winds and seas; 

and distress signals set:

(night) two red all-around lights hoist vertically on mainmast;

(day) Delta Victor flag hoist (just remember "drifting vessel"), two black balls hoist vertically on mainmast;



















With a little planning and luck, you'll already have the necessaries aboard and accessible.....and may you never need them.


----------



## captain jack

ravinracin said:


> Way off subject C Jack, but California aggressively goes after absent fathers where the mother receives welfare. I have had to withhold money from employees pay for years and send to the state welfare dept. Get the facts Jack, you sound like a silver spoon boy. With such a massive amount of my tax dollars going into defense, the military out to be out here mowing my lawn, (at the least), or fixing my streets, or doing a little gratis rescue work! Welfare is a big problem in this country, but the biggest recipient is corporate America.


silver spoon? far from it. anyone who has been reading any of my threads about the $300 sailboat i am fixing up would laugh at your assessment of my status in the world. some think i shouldn't even think about owning any boat because i don't have enough financial nest egg.

how can you possibly arrive at such a sweeping assessment of who i am from one statement?

you're right. that is way off subject and a debate that doesn't belong on this site. it has nothing to do with sailing. so, we can leave it that my life experieces, of which you really have no clue, leave me with a very different view of the subject than you. and that's ok. it's sort of a free country, for now, so we don't have to agree. people who struggle in the trenches often have a different view of the war than the commanders in their command centers.

however, you might want to watch jumping to conclusions about who someone is based off of no information what so ever.


----------



## Brent Swain

I wouldn't worry to much about hitting a plastic boat at sea, in my steel boat. Not much damage likely ;to my boat.


----------



## jzk

This is an excellent point. What was the marginal cost of the rescue? Probably nothing. The Navy is out there burning fuel anyway, it might as well be put to good use.



Tallswede said:


> Concerning the folks who have a problem paying our Navy to go out and rescue these folks, The Navy boat is already out there cruising with a crew being trained or doing some other "mission". I have no problem with them rescueing citizens (who by the way pay taxes to the government) than going out and just training. I see this as an excellent use of our Navy and Coast Guard and prefer that mission to some of the others they would be doing.
> 
> Kevin


----------



## jzk

Never in my life have I had an illness/injury that required medical care OR ELSE, nor have any of my children. If a couple wants to take their young family on a world wide adventure, I say to them, bon voyage.

Of course, if they can do the trip when the kids are above the age of 7 or so, it might have even a greater positive impact on them. But how about the other benefits? Parents that get to be with their kids pretty much all the time rather than being stuck in day care (our educational system)? Good for them. I hope they get back out there very soon.



captain jack said:


> most of the criticism is based on emotional arrguments, such as this one. public ideas about parenting, in the 'western' world today, have radically changed from when i was growing up.
> 
> parents, people ingeneral, act like children are made of thin glass. they are over protected. about 9/10 of what we did, as kids, would be considered examples of bad parenting, today. we rode bicycles and skated and skateboarded without body armor or helmets. we climbed trees. we hiked, alone, through the woods. we ate food that would have given our present first lady a fit. we even shot BB guns and....OMG....real guns. during my fathers childhood, kids worked on farms, doing jobs considered adult jobs, right along with their parents. yet, the human race survived and our numbers grew expionentially. today, everyone acts like you can't let your kids do anything at all. they might die. i think that's just making children that turn into adults that are afraid to take any risks at all.
> 
> everyone thinks they should have a right to tell other people how to raise their own kids, today. yes, actual child abuse should not be allowed but, people should be allowed to make judgement about what is safe for their own kids. as has been pointed out, pretty much every parent in the industrialized world allows their kids to ride in cars andtrucks and school busses....inspite of the fact that automobiles are the number one killer of humans. seriously. just think about how common accidents are. just about everyone sees a few a week. why don't all of the people criticizing these people scream bloody murder about parents allowing they children in motor vehicles?
> 
> hmmm maybe it's because they also allow their kids in motor vehicles. it's easy to criticize someone in a sensationalized story, especially when the media has been guiding people towards criticism, but as they say, "those in glass houses...."
> 
> personally, i think that, as long as the parents took all reasonable measures ( in preparation and during the trip ) they could to be safe, there is no problem with them taking their kids on such a voyage. if nothing bad had happened, it would have been an incredible memory for the kids. it probably will be, anyway. and, if nothing bad had happened, you never would have heard a word said against them.
> 
> the question i have is, why did they scuttle the boat? why not just tow it back in while you are there? it seems they are going to raise it, anyway. humans really treat the ocean as their own personal trash dump. it's just like all the flotsam they keep thinking is the missing airliner, out in the indian ocean. by rights, if we were a responsible species, there shouldn't be that much trash floating around in the sea. it's like sailing in baltimore's inner harbor and seeing all the trash floating in the bay, there. it's really terrible the way we treat the planet...but especially the ocean. i guess, in the ocean, it's a matter of, "can't see it from my house".


----------



## jzk

So did the father have the option of staying with the vessel while Mom went on the Navy ship? Or is it a matter of "all or nothing?"


----------



## Minnewaska

I believe the USCG/Navy would allow the option, but I understand that would have been a beat for weeks to get back and he had a sick baby with little to no comm capability. Could you imagine beating alone across the sea for weeks, in a partially hampered boat, while you wondered if your baby was okay?


----------



## caberg

jzk said:


> This is an excellent point. What was the marginal cost of the rescue? Probably nothing. The Navy is out there burning fuel anyway, it might as well be put to good use.


Well, I also have no problem with our Navy and CG conducting rescue missions and not charging for them, but I don't think it is something to shrug off lightly.

First, the cost is not "nothing." Sorry, but sending a C-130 and then a 453 foot (4,200 ton) Navy warship 900 miles out to sea does not cost nothing. It costs _a lot._ The rescue mission does not replace the regularly scheduled training, so it is an extra cost that would not have otherwise been incurred.

But, again, I'm not so concerned about the cost. More significant is the danger that the rescuers face to conduct a rescue. 4 guys parachuting from a plane into the ocean, transferring onto a small sailboat, and then transferring all to a Navy warship. Luckily conditions appeared to be relatively tame, which is unusual for rescue missions.

Let's not foster an attitude of thinking that the Navy and CG are just out there tooling around with nothing better to do than wait for another recreational sailboat to call them for a pickup.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> .....Sorry, but sending a C-130 and then a 453 foot (4,200 ton) Navy warship 900 miles out to sea does not cost nothing. It costs _a lot._ The rescue mission does not replace the regularly scheduled training......


In this case, I though the Navy ship was essentially already there. The added cost to the taxpayer was minimal for the diversion. Heavy aircraft training in the military is mostly done with simulators these days. Actual flight time is limited and this mission would certainly count toward their available hours.

There is no training as good as the real thing. As an analogy, you can go to the gym all you like, but you'll never be in ideal shape to climb mountains, until you get out and climb mountains. They are better for this exact experience and, coincidentally, I don't think this particular mission had much added cost.



> .....Let's not foster an attitude of thinking that the Navy and CG are just out there tooling around with nothing better to do than wait for another recreational sailboat to call them for a pickup.


Agreed, it just worked out this time.


----------



## MedSailor

In all the debate about cost, I think people are forgetting that the military doesn't buy things the way you and I do. They have a budget, and they spend it. This rescue mission, and the maintenance and fuel costs that are a result of it, will all come out of an already appropriated budget.

If anyone thinks that there is an ACTUAL COST TO THE TAX PAYER they can have that question answered by looking at the defense budget. If the budget didn't go up, we didn't pay any extra.

Several friends of mine are Navy pilots up at the air station where I live. A few years ago we had an unseasonably large number of days with bad weather. They found themselves sitting on the ground too much at the end of the calendar (fiscal?) year. They weren't flying as much as planned (budgeted) and they had a budget of fuel that they needed to burn, otherwise they might not be seen as needing it next year, and thus their fuel budget might get cut.

What did they do? The squadron flew to Las Vegas in order to burn the gas before the end of the year.

I'm sure they needed the flight hours too, but I bet the pilots would prefer to train by doing a real live mission than to "train" by flying their Navy Planes in a long straight line to the desert.

MedSailor


----------



## jzk

Is that really true? Will the C-130 and the pilot really have flown more hours because of a rescue mission? There are budgets assigned to these things. So instead of that training mission scheduled for next week, do the rescue. Cost is then the same.



caberg said:


> Well, I also have no problem with our Navy and CG conducting rescue missions and not charging for them, but I don't think it is something to shrug off lightly.
> 
> First, the cost is not "nothing." Sorry, but sending a C-130 and then a 453 foot (4,200 ton) Navy warship 900 miles out to sea does not cost nothing. It costs _a lot._ The rescue mission does not replace the regularly scheduled training, so it is an extra cost that would not have otherwise been incurred.
> 
> But, again, I'm not so concerned about the cost. More significant is the danger that the rescuers face to conduct a rescue. 4 guys parachuting from a plane into the ocean, transferring onto a small sailboat, and then transferring all to a Navy warship. Luckily conditions appeared to be relatively tame, which is unusual for rescue missions.
> 
> Let's not foster an attitude of thinking that the Navy and CG are just out there tooling around with nothing better to do than wait for another recreational sailboat to call them for a pickup.


----------



## flandria

[*COLOR="PaleTurquoise"]Would you consider letting your anchor out to snag bottom before the hull starts bouncing off the shore? Has anyone tried this? Did it work? Seems possible it could buy you some time, even if it dragged a bit]*[/COLOR]
Two years ago a vessel was abandoned mid-Lake Superior in heavy weather and the crew did exactly that: anchor and all chain/rode. However,the vessel was later retrieved before the vessel was close enough to shore to see if it would have resulted in an anchored rather than wrecked boat.

Definitely worth considering...


----------



## Minnesail

flandria said:


> Two years ago a vessel was abandoned mid-Lake Superior in heavy weather and the crew did exactly that: anchor and all chain/rode. However,the vessel was later retrieved before the vessel was close enough to shore to see if it would have resulted in an anchored rather than wrecked boat.


Do you remember the reason the boat was abandoned? It sounds like the boat was OK if it was recovered later.


----------



## jzk

Dad can't do much of anything at that point except save the family house. He would have been a hero to his family.



Minnewaska said:


> I believe the USCG/Navy would allow the option, but I understand that would have been a beat for weeks to get back and he had a sick baby with little to no comm capability. Could you imagine beating alone across the sea for weeks, in a partially hampered boat, while you wondered if your baby was okay?


----------



## Coquina

I highly suspect the wife NEVER wanted to see that boat again


----------



## jzk

That is not what I am hearing.



Coquina said:


> I highly suspect the wife NEVER wanted to see that boat again


----------



## JonEisberg

manatee said:


> A question about the "coastal abandonment" scenario:
> 
> Would you consider letting your anchor out to snag bottom before the hull starts bouncing off the shore? Has anyone tried this? Did it work? Seems possible it could buy you some time, even if it dragged a bit.


Sure, why not? Couldn't hurt, and could certainly slow the rate of wind driven drift... Remember that Pearson that washed up on Martha's Vineyard last summer after having been abandoned between JAX and Bermuda? I'll bet if her main anchor had been dangling from 200 feet of chain, she would have been spotted and saved before fetching up on the sand...










I think many might underestimate the effect of lowering an anchor that won't reach the bottom might have. For example, on some modern boats that don't want to heave-to, lowering an anchor and 100 feet or so of chain could make all the difference in the world, helping to hold the bow up closer to the desired angle, and reduce fore-reaching...

Likewise, on a boat that sails a lot at anchor, dangling the secondary, or dropping it to a point where it might just be touching or resting on the bottom, can have an amazingly beneficial effect...


----------



## caberg

MedSailor said:


> In all the debate about cost, I think people are forgetting that the military doesn't buy things the way you and I do. They have a budget, and they spend it. This rescue mission, and the maintenance and fuel costs that are a result of it, will all come out of an already appropriated budget.
> 
> If anyone thinks that there is an ACTUAL COST TO THE TAX PAYER they can have that question answered by looking at the defense budget. If the budget didn't go up, we didn't pay any extra.
> 
> Several friends of mine are Navy pilots up at the air station where I live. A few years ago we had an unseasonably large number of days with bad weather. They found themselves sitting on the ground too much at the end of the calendar (fiscal?) year. They weren't flying as much as planned (budgeted) and they had a budget of fuel that they needed to burn, otherwise they might not be seen as needing it next year, and thus their fuel budget might get cut.
> 
> What did they do? The squadron flew to Las Vegas in order to burn the gas before the end of the year.
> 
> I'm sure they needed the flight hours too, but I bet the pilots would prefer to train by doing a real live mission than to "train" by flying their Navy Planes in a long straight line to the desert.
> 
> MedSailor


Wow -- that is quite the spin. Darn, it is a _good thing_ we have people needing rescue hundreds of miles out to sea just so that our military has something to do and a way to spend money.

(And of course, it is entirely legitimate to base your opinion on how the defense budget works from some antics told by a few Navy pilot friends. I'm sure you're right, the commander of the USS Vandegrift probably cruises around the Pacific unnecessarily just to waste fuel. Sounds like the qualities of a good leader, right there.)


----------



## joethecobbler

was stationed at Ft. Riley, KS. in early 90's
Near end of fiscal year the Btn command had soldiers order parts for the motor pool to spend the rest of the money budgeted so the next years budget would not be reduced.
It was an eye opener for me. 
Situations like that was why I chose not to reenlist.the corruption, fraud and abuse was rampant from top to bottom.


----------



## MedSailor

caberg said:


> Wow -- that is quite the spin. Darn, it is a _good thing_ we have people needing rescue hundreds of miles out to sea just so that our military has something to do and a way to spend money.
> 
> (And of course, it is entirely legitimate to base your opinion on how the defense budget works from some antics told by a few Navy pilot friends. I'm sure you're right, the commander of the USS Vandegrift probably cruises around the Pacific unnecessarily just to waste fuel. Sounds like the qualities of a good leader, right there.)


Perhaps SailNet had an error while you were posting. I can see the part of your post where you say I'm wrong in a sarcastic tone, but I can't see the part of your post where you offer any kind of counter-argument.  Yup, must have been an error with the site. [/sarcasm]

Do you know something about our government budgets that you'd like share to enlighten us all? And since you didn't like HOW you think I came to my conclusions, it would only be polite to include how you came to your conclusions (that you haven't offered yet).

As for the part about being a good thing that people needing rescue, it is and it isn't. It was an _air rescue wing_ after all that saved them. They, and the coast guard swimmers wouldn't have much of a job without people to save. Of course, nobody wants anyone to be in distress, but these two things are not necessarily in conflict. I work in urgent care medicine, for example. I don't want anyone to get sick or hurt, but if nobody got sick or hurt, I'd be out of a job.

MedSailor


----------



## awriter111

no doubt


----------



## caberg

MedSailor said:


> Perhaps SailNet had an error while you were posting. I can see the part of your post where you say I'm wrong in a sarcastic tone, but I can't see the part of your post where you offer any kind of counter-argument.  Yup, must have been an error with the site. [/sarcasm]


I thought it was self-evident that operating ships and planes costs money. Some $663,000 in the case of rescuing the crew of Rebel Heart as calculated by one source. Cost for sailing family rescue: $663,000 | UTSanDiego.com

Saying that the government would just pi$$ away the money anyway is a pretty lame argument to justify the cost of the rescue. There may be some truth to that, as I agree that our government isn't exactly a model of fiscal responsibility, but I still need a better justification for the cost before I'm willing to dismiss it as inconsequential.


----------



## Coquina

The cost is justified by the fact we are a 1st world country with a 1st class military-SAR capability and we have decided to protect our citizens even if it is a little bit out of the way. The government budget DOES work way differently than you paying the babysitter. A naval ship or a SAR team is budgeted and expected to use X dollars in a year. It might go to training, real ops, or just end-of-year f-ng around. 
We dig kids out of wells, rescue coal miners, get mountain climbers off mountains, get people out of caves, get people out of canyons, use million-dollar helicopters to get car crash victims to multi-million dollar trauma centers, have a world-spanning navy that rescues ship captains from pirates on the other side of the globe, we send assets 8,000 miles to look for misplaced Malayasion airplanes, and otherwise rescue drunks and fools.


----------



## Yorksailor

The Navy and the rescue team did what they are trained to do and they are rightly proud of a job well done.

The parents rightly called for help when needed. 

The system worked as it is designed to do for the benefit of those in distress. 

The only way to avoid this kind of situation is for everybody to stay at home! Which I suspect is what many of those that are critical do on a daily basis.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Coquina said:


> We... have a world-spanning navy that rescues ship captains from pirates on the other side of the globe, we send assets 8,000 miles to look for misplaced Malayasion airplanes, and otherwise rescue drunks and fools.


....with a submarine that can't quite get to the seabed whilst the Chinese Navy and airforce has had quicker satellite photos, ships in the right places and actually heard pings...


----------



## Coquina

May be something to so with it being a lot closer to China and having mostly Chinese citizens aboard


----------



## JonEisberg

Coquina said:


> May be something to so with it being a lot closer to China and having mostly Chinese citizens aboard


I don't know, I thought it was pretty impressive how quickly those Chinese satellites picked up debris from the wreckage in the Gulf of Thailand, no?


----------



## GeorgeB

Mark, play a little fair! The global reach of the US and their technology is simply amazing by any reasonable measure. Of course, the Chinese are going to have a reconnaissance satellite in the area – it is in their strategic interest to watch the approaches to China. Our strategic concerns lay elsewhere on the planet. A critical question would be “where are the Australian assets?” Why don’t they have a surveillance satellite watching the approaches to Australia? The news reports have come out discounting the claims of the Chinese hydrophones. It was a British ship that had the most credible contact. But even that wasn’t good enough to geo locate and hence the call to the USN for an autonomous submersible to do the job. Sub can’t dive deeper than 15,000 feet? Maybe the Aus Navy could send out one of their Collins class subs to do the work instead?

Sadly, the budgeting rules of the US government is “spend it or lose it”. It would be much better if the budgeting process would reward cost savings instead of punishing it. Fear not, Sequester is alive and well and the DoD budgets have been steadily cut these past few years (I happen to work in this process). Operational budgets have been getting reduced significantly as line items such as pay, benefits and retirements are not covered under sequester. You might not realize that the Navy’s Blue Angels were grounded for most of last year due to lack of funding. The days of flying the squadron to Vegas are a thing of the past (and rightfully so IMHO).


----------



## Dean101

caberg said:


> Wow -- that is quite the spin. Darn, it is a _good thing_ we have people needing rescue hundreds of miles out to sea just so that our military has something to do and a way to spend money.
> 
> (And of course, it is entirely legitimate to base your opinion on how the defense budget works from some antics told by a few Navy pilot friends. I'm sure you're right, the commander of the USS Vandegrift probably cruises around the Pacific unnecessarily just to waste fuel. Sounds like the qualities of a good leader, right there.)


Dude, he's not kidding. If you don't use it you lose it. I have personally chucked pallet loads of sonobuoys out the cargo door over open water just so our squadron wouldn't have its allocation reduced. Generally speaking, the military uses its full allocation in the course of its operations. If for some reason it doesn't, then yes, they will do extra training, extra flights, or even just find some way to piss it away.

I'm not saying that the only reason the military performed this rescue was to waste resources. Far from it. None of us know what there operational status was. I highly doubt they were just bored. However, once they got the call and those jumpers were in the water and on the boat, there is no way in hell they would have left those people until they were safe. Rescue swimmers live by their motto "so others may live".


----------



## Ilenart

GeorgeB said:


> A critical question would be "where are the Australian assets?" Why don't they have a surveillance satellite watching the approaches to Australia? The news reports have come out discounting the claims of the Chinese hydrophones. It was a British ship that had the most credible contact. But even that wasn't good enough to geo locate and hence the call to the USN for an autonomous submersible to do the job. Sub can't dive deeper than 15,000 feet? Maybe the Aus Navy could send out one of their Collins class subs to do the work instead?


All the signals that they believe came from the back box was detected by the Australian Defence Vessel "Ocean Shield". This vessel's purpose is humanitarian and disaster relief so it is ideally suited in deploying towed equipment and ROVs from its back deck. The vessel has been using US supplied equipment that was flown in which includes a TPL-25 towed pinger locator and the Bluefin-21 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. Remember we are talking about a very remote location and there was only a 30-40 day window before the black box recorders ran out. The equipment had to deployed very quickly.

Any subs would need to be fitted with the right type of detection gear. The British sub HMS Echo had the right detection gear onboard and must of been close enough to be able to be deployed. The other pinger was flown in from the US and has been deployed from the Ocean Shield.

Australia has also been deploying Orion P3 aircraft on a daily basis, plus coordinating the overall search. The search has been an international effort with countries assisting in the Australia led search including Australia, China, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Note that all the satellite searching has not helped. I think they have been very lucky to detect the black boxes signals, especially considering no floating wreckage has been identified.

I think Australia plus many other countries have been doing a great job.

Ilenart


----------



## Sal Paradise

Rebel Heart sailboat rescue: Eric and Charlotte Kaufman are part of my community, and we?re good parents.


----------



## caberg

Sal Paradise said:


> Rebel Heart sailboat rescue: Eric and Charlotte Kaufman are part of my community, and we?re good parents.





> My husband and I sailed for three-and-a-half years, over 12,000 miles, and through 10 countries before pulling into a foreign port and having a kid. We kept our adventures land-based for a while, not setting off on our daughter Maia's first extended cruise until she was 3.
> ...........
> We crossed the Pacific when she was 9, part of a Puddle Jump fleet that included more than a dozen "kid boats," as we call them.


Well, that's sort of a different story than Rebel Heart.

By the way, those folks sound like they've done a standout job raising their little girl. Hats off to them.


----------



## Coquina

No reason in general not to have kids of all ages sailing. In THIS case they seemed a bit overwhelmed.


----------



## sulli

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ....with a submarine that can't quite get to the seabed whilst the Chinese Navy and airforce has had quicker satellite photos, ships in the right places and actually heard pings...


The US Navy is not about to reveal our capabilities to the world. This plane could have been brought down just for that purpose. Mostly Chinese aboard and we are told all passengers have been vetted (this from the country that brings us a $50 Rolex and toothpaste colored with line striping paint). I for 1 do not believe a word of it.
1-transponders turned off
2-knowledge of the ACARS system
3-radar avoidance
4-the proper altitude to snuff the passengers
5-black boxes 450 miles apart dropped from a plane and 1 got dragged along somehow(maybe parachute got hung up)
6-an island west of Malaysia with a runway that continues in a straight line unto a road that I could not find on google maps again on March 14
7-try to find a pilot who thinks this plane went into the sea, I know a few and they know a lot most think it landed.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

sulli said:


> The US Navy is not about to reveal our capabilities to the world. This plane could have been brought down just for that purpose. Mostly Chinese aboard and we are told all passengers have been vetted (this from the country that brings us a $50 Rolex and toothpaste colored with line striping paint). I for 1 do not believe a word of it.
> 1-transponders turned off
> 2-knowledge of the ACARS system
> 3-radar avoidance
> 4-the proper altitude to snuff the passengers
> 5-black boxes 450 miles apart dropped from a plane and 1 got dragged along somehow(maybe parachute got hung up)
> 6-an island west of Malaysia with a runway that continues in a straight line unto a road that I could not find on google maps again on March 14
> 7-try to find a pilot who thinks this plane went into the sea, I know a few and they know a lot most think it landed.


And all the Apollo moon landings were actually faked with video from a sound stage in Burbank, CA!!!!!

Get real.


----------



## lowtide

For me it is the dog that didn't bark.

Eric has always been quick to post opinions on several forums. 

They have been back for some time, the baby is stable. The Kaufman's have not forgotten the internet exists.

If the detractors here were off-base, 30 minutes of time and a quick post here could straighten them all out.

You have the right to plead the fifth, but sometimes it tells the story by itself.



They had not sailed under the conditions one would expect on that passage, and jumped off for 3500 miles of it. This would be akin to never having swam more than 100 feet, and taking off to swim the English Channel. The coast from SD to Mexico, and sailing in the Baja are nothing like the milk run. Not only is their duration (600/3500 mi) different, but the type of sailing, equipment, and stresses on boat and crew are totally different. 

Comparing the previously known health issues in this case with ones which occur suddenly like heart attack and appendicitis is apples and oranges. Whether good or bad Medical advice was received, it would be ill advised to leave with anything less than a 100% healthy toddler aboard, given the length of the passage. Any illness will be compounded by seasickness (predictable) and the loss of electrolytes.

Hate to use Miranda twice, but anything you blog can and will be used against you. 

Eric had prolific posting habits and opinions on everything, and his silence is deafening.

Had he not been on that side of so many threads, this might be unfair, but....

There are many times when the smartest thing to do on a passage is to heave-to and allow a front to pass, mainly for the comfort of the crew and to save the boat. A couple days hove to on the proper tack could even make progress south while you relaxed, rested, and mended.

I will have to back him up on the fuel issue. Even twice the fuel would not have taken his heavy boat back to Mexico, and counting on an engine to get you to safety in a sailboat is a farce. Having the proper sails and equipment to sail the boat to safety under any conditions is far more reasonable. Many would think it a requirement for such a passage. 

I am not calling anyone out, nor demanding he explain, merely pointing out that his silence on the matter is out of place for him. Early on, the supporters on CF kept saying "wait to hear the whole story from him", but it has not materialized. We would all love to hear it from the source. The speculation would come to an immediate halt.

'


----------



## MedSailor

You must have missed the part where he DID post to CF the day after he got back. He said he will tell all once the 15 minutes of fame dies down. I'll paste it below.

Frankly I think it's smart to be "mum" for a while until the sheeple watching the boob-toob get distracted by something else shiny. Frankly, the forums will likely tear him up with monday morning quarterbacking (that is our custom right?) so why invite the whole world to do it too?

MedSailor

Link to his post at CF POST #979

_Hey guys, we're all fine and back in San Diego.

The media has been all over us and honestly the facts are so distorted at this point I don't even know where to start. In the few hours we've been back in town the media has been all over us, right up to the front door of our doctor's office when we were getting Lyra checked out.

The rescuers (the 129th California Air National Guard and the USS Vandegrift) were amazing; I've never met a better group of professionals.

I totally want to give you guys all the details but I need the media storm to die down. I've been so amazed at the support that the sailing community has offered us. There was a sailboat that came by the USS Vandegrift on our way into San Diego Harbor that had Rebel Heart banners streaming off of it.

I know some people with disagree with whatever actions I took, but for those of you who support me I want you to know that you've warmed my heart. This entire thing has humbled me and I feel an immense sense of gratitude towards everyone involved.

I promise I'll come back with all the details, but we need to get away from the cameras and lose our fifteen minutes of fame first._


----------



## lowtide

A post with no info. We already knew they were safe and the toddler was OK.

My point exactly.

The two forums in question are his best shot at a support group for back up opinions and expertise. He will find more allies here than anywhere else. A simple explanation here would provide a lot of immediate allies. 

Sorry. If I stand by my decisions, I stand by them in the middle of a s*&tstorm. Nothing to gain by waiting other than to hope everyone just forgets about it, and you never have to explain. That is, you only hide when you have something you feel like hiding. 

We are sailors here. We have all made mistakes, nearly all of us big ones at one point or another. The ocean will provide any of us with all of the opportunity we need to make big mistakes. Even (or even especially) the very best share them, to help others not make them. That is the very purpose of this forum as I would understand it. 

If a young person aboard a sailing vessel can be saved in the future by any such information, wouldn't it be useful? With various reports differing, we can only learn what might be useful from the participants themselves. 

I would be the first to back their decision to take their young children cruising. The only thing that has ever been shown to effectively raise the practical intelligence of a child is travel and diversity. It offers challenges and perspectives that are not available in the suburban picket fence neighborhood. I am all for it, danger and all. 

It won't be any more right or wrong a month from now than it is today.

'


----------



## Minnewaska

This family owes no one on the internet an explanation. The fact that they are willing, but intend to wait out the media storm, further demonstrates their savvy. Good for them.


----------



## lowtide

The last article in the "media storm" was a week ago. When will we know it's over and safe to go outside?


'


----------



## JonEisberg

lowtide said:


> I am not calling anyone out, nor demanding he explain, merely pointing out that his silence on the matter is out of place for him. Early on, the supporters on CF kept saying "wait to hear the whole story from him", but it has not materialized. * We would all love to hear it from the source. The speculation would come to an immediate halt.*
> 
> '


Well, I sure as hell wouldn't bet any money on that last bit 

Certainly, it would be 'interesting' to hear more details, but I think some might be placing too much faith in the presumed validity, or even veracity, of such an after-action report... For instance, if the legendary Bernard Moitessier were alive and blogging today, most of us would probably be inclined to accept as truthful his first-hand account of a recent event, no?

I recently finished Herb McCormick's excellent book about the Pardeys, AS LONG AS IT'S FUN (highly recommended, btw, a terrific read) One of the juicier anecdotes Herb relates has to do with the loss of JOSHUA on the beach in Cabo during the infamous storm in '82...

Contrary to Moitessier's detailed and dramatic account published in CRUISING WORLD of the events that transpired that night, he was actually not aboard JOSHUA at the time, but rather in a hotel in town, smoking dope with the actor Klaus Kinski...

So, as regards what comes from the horse's mouth being the Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, well...

Just sayin'... 

BERNARD MOITESSIER: What Really Happened to Joshua | Sailfeed


----------



## lowtide

I still have my Media Storm anchors set and my slickers on, but haven't felt a breath of wind from the media storm in a month. Almost like it has passed!

'


----------



## MedSailor

The media doesn't have much in the way of an atten... Squirrel! 







MedSailor


----------



## JonEisberg

lowtide said:


> I still have my Media Storm anchors set and my slickers on, but haven't felt a breath of wind from the media storm in a month. Almost like it has passed!
> 
> '


Really?

Eric and Charlotte are having their Media Coming Out Party today, as a matter of fact 

Hmmm, "cracks in the hull", huh? I'm guessing this one will have to be taken with several grains of salt, as well...

Call For Help | This American Life

Oh, well - perhaps we'll have to wait for the book...



> People have approached us with "deals" related to print and display media, and we've turned them all down flat. I've written a small book before and Charlotte writes regularly for a magazine, so the reality is that we write all the time anyway. We already had been writing random chapters of our sailing life before the loss of our boat.
> 
> Plus, if you really want an autopsy that spans the events and decision making process of an offshore voyage ending up in the scuttling of a boat and a rather involved rescue, it's just a lot of damn material to relate. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. There was no "the boat had x, my kid had y, so we did z": I wish it was that simple.
> 
> To really get into any of it, without getting into all of it, is just inviting the soundbite media culture and takes everything out of context. That's a reason we probably will write a book about it, and that's why we've opted for a rather long-format interview.
> 
> http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...he-rebel-heart-blog-125428-6.html#post1534383


----------



## captain jack

lowtide said:


> I still have my Media Storm anchors set and my slickers on, but haven't felt a breath of wind from the media storm in a month. Almost like it has passed!
> 
> '


yes. well, the media is fickle like a hollyood vampire: it sucks all of the life it can from something and tosses it away when it figures there is nothing left to drain. unlike a vampire, the media will feed on something long after most people would think it had nothing left to drain. also unlike a vampire, the media never nurses it's victim along, only sucking a little at a time. nope, the media monster latcjes onto it's intended prey and never lets go, not even for a minute, until it's drained dry.

that's one of the things you have to love about the news media. hen they get a ne story, they pound it as long as they can keep up any sort of public interest. doesn't matter if they ate simply repeating hat they told us a half an hour ago, speculating, or even making up facts they can later 'correct'. they will keep on a subject 24/7, as long as they can get even a smidgeon of public interest going. and they will do anything to strengthen and maintain that interest...to the point tat you are either sick of hearing it or more heartbroken than people that were actually involved.

but, once a story has lost enough of the public eye, it's off like a school of pirranha to beat another story to death without a look back at the last one.....unless, of course, something happens to rouse public interest in that story, again.


----------



## JonEisberg

captain jack said:


> yes. well, the media is fickle like a hollyood vampire: it sucks all of the life it can from something and tosses it away when it figures there is nothing left to drain. unlike a vampire, the media will feed on something long after most people would think it had nothing left to drain. also unlike a vampire, the media never nurses it's victim along, only sucking a little at a time. nope, the media monster latcjes onto it's intended prey and never lets go, not even for a minute, until it's drained dry.
> 
> that's one of the things you have to love about the news media. hen they get a ne story, they pound it as long as they can keep up any sort of public interest. doesn't matter if they ate simply repeating hat they told us a half an hour ago, speculating, or even making up facts they can later 'correct'. they will keep on a subject 24/7, as long as they can get even a smidgeon of public interest going. and they will do anything to strengthen and maintain that interest...to the point tat you are either sick of hearing it or more heartbroken than people that were actually involved.
> 
> but, once a story has lost enough of the public eye, it's off like a school of pirranha to beat another story to death without a look back at the last one.....unless, of course, something happens to rouse public interest in that story, again.


Ahh, yes... that Bogeyman _"THE MEDIA"_, the source of virtually everything that is wrong with the world today: that evil, monolithic entity that exists entirely independent of any _AUDIENCE_, and pays no more heed to Ratings or the Advertising rates they can command, than do politicians to Public Opinion Polls or the Campaign Contributions they can raise...

You speaking of _THAT_ "Media", I presume? 

Seems rather odd, therefore, that the ongoing interest in the REBEL HEART saga on various internet sailing forums - particularly on Cruiser's Forum, where the moderators have resorted to closing some of the threads on the subject - has FAR outlasted the interest of the mass media...


----------



## captain jack

JonEisberg said:


> Ahh, yes... that Bogeyman _"THE MEDIA"_, the source of virtually everything that is wrong with the world today: that evil, monolithic entity that exists entirely independent of any _AUDIENCE_, and pays no more heed to Ratings or the Advertising rates they can command, than do politicians to Public Opinion Polls or the Campaign Contributions they can raise...
> 
> You speaking of _THAT_ "Media", I presume?
> 
> Seems rather odd, therefore, that the ongoing interest in the REBEL HEART saga on various internet sailing forums - particularly on Cruiser's Forum, where the moderators have resorted to closing some of the threads on the subject - has FAR outlasted the interest of the mass media...


i believe you misunderstand the general animosity towards the news media. iy is a long standing traditional belief and ideal, in America, that the nes edia should be an unbiased source of factual information, keeping us aware of what is going on around us. it's kind of a sacred trust, in most people's minds.

the reality is that it is actually a completely ratings driven entertainment form. to that end, they bombard viewers with stories specifically skewed to draw controversy; often even putting out false information, repeatedly, even when the real facts are publically available. like in the trayvon martin case. they continued to call zimmerman a white man, or at the most a white hispanic, for the entire time the issue as in the public eye. why? to drum up controversy because that's hat sells. no one cares if an hispanic kills a black man, or a black man kills a black man, or a black man kills a white man. happends all the time and it only gets a quick mention...if that. however, if a white man kills a black man, hatever the situation or reason, and it's a huge racially charged controversy and that gets you ratings. so, you have to do everything in your power to stir it up.

as far as beating a horse to death, it's like 911. they pounded that story 24 hours a day, for as long as they could. it didn't matter if there as even anything to report. the result was that there were actually people that had to seek treatment for depression becauser of over exposure to the story.

and it's all because of the fact that the news media is ratings driven. but as Americans, we have the belief that the media should be more than that. that it should have a higher standard. the animosity toards the media comes frpm the fact that it isn't hat e expect it to be....and that's not even touching on how it is politically controlled by whatever group holds the power. that's another issue, altogether.

so, i don't think a bit of humor at the media's expense is a terrible thing. and i don't think any of my points, made is semi-jest, were actually invalid.

it's not odd that interest in the story has lasted longer in a sailing oriented environment than in the general piublic. the general public doesn't really care about sailboats; only about telling people how they are living their lives wrong. i think it's odd that you think it's odd hat the sailing community would be interested in a sailing oriented new story past the time when the non-sailing community lost interest. but, that's just me.


----------



## JonEisberg

captain jack said:


> i believe you misunderstand the general animosity towards the news media. iy is a long standing traditional belief and ideal, in America, that the nes edia should be an unbiased source of factual information, keeping us aware of what is going on around us. it's kind of a sacred trust, in most people's minds.


Well, that's a nice romantic, idealized vision of the past, but you might want to read up a bit on the history of professional journalism in America. A century or more ago, newspapers generally reflected the opinions of the publisher, and little else. A.J Liebling nailed it, "Freedom of the press" was, indeed, largely "guaranteed only to those who own one". The US entry into the Spanish-American War offers a classic example, of how your "long standing... sacred trust... unbiased source of factual information" is largely a fictional and imaginary notion...










U.S. Diplomacy and Yellow Journalism, 1895?1898 - 1866?1898 - Milestones - Office of the Historian



captain jack said:


> i think it's odd that you think it's odd hat the sailing community would be interested in a sailing oriented new story past the time when the non-sailing community lost interest. but, that's just me.


Nah, I don't think that's unexpected, at all... What I think is 'odd', is the perception that it is "The Media" that is responsible for perpetuating this story, when in fact in this particular instance, it is _the Kaufmanns themselves_ who have carefully selected the time and place to go public, beyond the reach of their blog...

They are under no obligation to do so, of course... If they're thinking ahead about a possible book deal, however, all bets are off...

But, yeah - it's _THE MEEEDIA_ that will continue to suck this story dry...


----------



## lowtide

JonEisberg said:


> Really?
> 
> Eric and Charlotte are having their Media Coming Out Party today, as a matter of fact
> 
> Hmmm, "cracks in the hull", huh? I'm guessing this one will have to be taken with several grains of salt, as well...
> 
> Call For Help | This American Life
> 
> Oh, well - perhaps we'll have to wait for the book...


Cracks in the hull? No way they can even be serious. Of course if you're speaking half truths to those who know nothing, I guess cracks in the hull and loose keel bolts are the same thing.

I'm certain I know the answer, but, should boats of this type be checked for loose keel bolts, or disintegrating fiberglass hulls?

Those boats have been around for a long time without hull integrity problems.

Seems like something as important as hull cracks might have been mentioned in the first report, as it is a simple construct that even a cub reporter ignorant of boats could grasp.

Good luck to them, I hope they sell lots of books. Who cares if it might falsely portray the dangers of ocean sailing. Hull cracks?

They were not in any weather sufficient to cause a heavy boat to develop cracks, if it's possible in any weather.

It is clearly the boat's fault entirely, and has nothing to with going to sea with loose keel bolts, a green bamboo whisker pole, sick passengers, single handed, with questionable fuel range and tankage, etc..

For me, the takeaway for those considering ocean sailing is this; Take your boat offshore when you know there is some snot coming, and find out what is going to break, who can and can't easily cope and what to do. If you do it in sea room range you can always motor in when it's over. Then you'll know if the keel is going to beat the hull as it racks back and forth on the loose keel bolts. You'll chuckle when the pole snaps, Sick passengers will have an end in sight and emergency care accessible in short periods. You will find your capacity to single hand for extended periods in heavy weather, realistically. Tankage and fuel are not a concern, as you are only a short distance, and have Towboat.

No survey, experience, nor soothsayer, can tell you what will break on the boat when you face heavy weather. Stuff is going to break, and a serious shakedown in moderate conditions is essential preparation. Fair weather beam reach passages, no matter how long or many, can never substitute.

After you find out how it's all gonna work, now go cross the Pacific.

Damn boat just cracked up, me too when I heard that.



'


----------



## fryewe

lowtide said:


> Cracks in the hull? No way they can even be serious. Of course if you're speaking half truths to those who know nothing, I guess cracks in the hull and loose keel bolts are the same thing.
> 
> I'm certain I know the answer, but, should boats of this type be checked for loose keel bolts, or disintegrating fiberglass hulls?


I thought Rebel Heart was an HC with encapsulated ballast...no keel boats to loosen or stretch.

And I didn't go re-check all the posts here or on CF but my memory is that the water being pumped from the boat was on the order of a few liters a day. Would take a lot of days at such a leak rate to sink a boat.

Hmmm...perhaps Jon is right...there might be some lessons to be learned from this aborted voyage.


----------



## smurphny

There has never been unbiased reporting. Whether for dollars or ideology, news media has always been slanted. It's why we need educated readers, readers who have been taught how to weigh the words they hear to sort truth from one-sided coverage. The proliferation of virulent, often downright slanderous shoutfests that seem to dominate the "news" airwaves nowadays demonstrates how entertainment has almost completely replaced any semblance of unbiased news. The fact that people actually BELIEVE what some of these jokers are saying is the scary part. Unfortunately, too many people abide by the mistaken idea that "If it's in the news, it must be true." Our democracy absolutely depends on informed, educated citizens. From what I can see, they are few and far between.


----------



## captain jack

JonEisberg said:


> Well, that's a nice romantic, idealized vision of the past, but you might want to read up a bit on the history of professional journalism in America. A century or more ago, newspapers generally reflected the opinions of the publisher, and little else. A.J Liebling nailed it, "Freedom of the press" was, indeed, largely "guaranteed only to those who own one". The US entry into the Spanish-American War offers a classic example, of how your "long standing... sacred trust... unbiased source of factual information" is largely a fictional and imaginary notion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Diplomacy and Yellow Journalism, 1895?1898 - 1866?1898 - Milestones - Office of the Historian


you are overlooking a very important factor. people's perceptions of reality are more important, as far as their reactions to it, than reality, itself. people expect journalistic integrity. they even have a term for it: journalistic integrity. it doesn't matter if it ever existed. what matters is the idea that it does/did, and should, exist. since people expect it to be a certain way, they feel betrayed when they see that the media doesn't exibit those qualities they expect out of it.

idealism is, of course, not realism. but, idealism is, to an extent, important. if people have certain idealistic views of the world, they, hopefully, will try to work to make the world a better place ( assuming, of course, that their ideals would better the world ). if people lose all idealistic visions of reality, they will simply accept whatever reality has to present them and live in a sort of apathy.

ideally, there should be an avenue where the average person can go to find truth. ideally, that should be the news media. that's supposedly their reason for being. yes. life never is ideal but, people need to believe it can be. they need to believe the world can be more than what it is. it's that belief that gives hope. without any hope, people just usually can't keep going. so, people need to hold themselves and their society up to certain idealistic standards. without such standards, everything just decays.

there really is no such thing as standing still or just maintaining, in life. things are either building up or fading away. if i build a house, the minute i am finished building it, it begins to decay/wear down. there is an illusion that the house stays the same for a while but, that is caused because it takes a whie for the decay to get so bad that you have to repair (a temporary building up) the decay. everything is like that. having standards that you have not reached, yet expect to reach, helps stop things from decaying as fast because you are still building up.

that applies to all parts of life and history. once people accept that life is as good as it gets, they stop expecting (and trying to attain) better. when that happens, it's a down hill slope. eventually, acceptance turns to apathy.....

anyhow, as it applies to the news media, it is a shame that so many people have come to accept that the news is never unbiased, or even accurate half the time, because it will never get better than it is. but, those of us who still feel there should be journalistic integrity are probably not going to ever act like there is no problem with the fact that there is none.



> Nah, I don't think that's unexpected, at all... What I think is 'odd', is the perception that it is "The Media" that is responsible for perpetuating this story, when in fact in this particular instance, it is _the Kaufmanns themselves_ who have carefully selected the time and place to go public, beyond the reach of their blog...
> 
> They are under no obligation to do so, of course... If they're thinking ahead about a possible book deal, however, all bets are off...
> 
> But, yeah - it's _THE MEEEDIA_ that will continue to suck this story dry...


as far as this goes, i have not really been following this story that much. it doesn't affect my life directly so it hasn't taken center stage, for me.

my comment was a statement applying to the media, in general. there are people who purposely seek media attention. neither of my examples fit that catagory. i haven't followed this story enough to know if these folks do. and i really don't care, honestly. it had interest because of the question it brought into public view: if child should be taken on a sailboat voyage.

for the general masses, the story was very interesting because it was another opportunity for them to say how they think others should live....something that the general masses seem to love to do.

there was a related motorcycle issue, in my state, a few years ago. a certain group of people was pushing to make it illegal to have your kid on your motorcycle. that issue mattered to me a great deal. i grew up riding behind my father, on his bike, and it gave me some of the best memories in my life. had it been illegal for my father to take me on motorcycle rides, my life would have been much poorer for it

so, i was interested to see the trend in public opinion, on this issue, because it may, someday, affect what i can do with my own kids (when/if i sire any). but, that was my only real interest in the story. so, i didn't really follow it all that intently. certainly not enough to say whether these folks were courting news fame or not.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Really?
> 
> Eric and Charlotte are having their Media Coming Out Party today, as a matter of fact
> 
> Hmmm, "cracks in the hull", huh? I'm guessing this one will have to be taken with several grains of salt, as well...
> 
> Call For Help | This American Life
> 
> Oh, well - perhaps we'll have to wait for the book...


It has shed some more light on what was happening on board. Eric has confirmed some of the details of the broach and water ingress on CF.

Interested in learning what I can from the ordeal these guys have gone through. I think it is generous to be humouring the forums after losing your boat and home.

It would seem as often is the case, a cascade of bad luck was largely to blame. We are now looking closely at our offshore communications as they are basically identical to Rebel Heart.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> It has shed some more light on what was happening on board. Eric has confirmed some of the details of the broach and water ingress on CF.


I don't know, it actually seems to raise more questions, for me 

I find it difficult to imagine how a "broach" that dipped the boom - presumably vanged or prevented to the rail, perhaps? - would alone cause the failure of the hull to deck joint on a boat like a Union 36...

Also seems odd - given the wealth of information even the Kaufmanns themselves offered in the wake of their rescue, and the dismissal of the modest amount of water the boat was taking on during the Moffett Air NG press conference, and no mention whatsoever of such a catastrophic structural failure of the boat - that this interview is the first we've ever heard about this "broach"... Which, supposedly, was violent enough to destroy the hull to deck joint on a yacht displacing 11 tons, and yet caused no injury to any of the crew, including 2 under the age of 3... 



chall03 said:


> It would seem as often is the case, a cascade of bad luck was largely to blame. We are now looking closely at our offshore communications as they are basically identical to Rebel Heart.


Well, I still put this one down to a bit more than just bad "luck", but perhaps that's just me... 

That deal with the sat phone's SIM card, however, should give pause to those who argue that a sat phone is a viable substitute for HF radio... Wow...

Unfortunately, no word on whether the bamboo whisker pole survived the conditions they encountered 

Transcript | This American Life


----------



## smurphny

He sounded like a smart, honest guy in the NPR interview. The issue about his SSB getting wet should be a lesson. This seems to be a common problem in sailboat emergencies. The mounting spot of an SSB should really be where it is accessible and somewhere 100% visible and least likely to get wet even if the boat turtles (not up on the headliner). The sim card event is simply unbelievable. They (the phone co.) bear some responsibility for this episode which may have had a different outcome if the phone had worked. The publicity surrounding this is not a good thing.


----------



## Shockwave

I don't wish these folks any anomys or ill will and I'm glad they are all safe but sometimes less is more. Being stoic and getting on with life after a setback seems to have fallen out of fashion? Time to shut the pie hole and get on with round two, plan b or whatever the appropriate euphamism might be.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> I don't know, it actually seems to raise more questions, for me
> 
> I find it difficult to imagine how a "broach" that dipped the boom - presumably vanged or prevented to the rail, perhaps? - would alone cause the failure of the hull to deck joint on a boat like a Union 36...
> 
> Also seems odd - given the wealth of information even the Kaufmanns themselves offered in the wake of their rescue, and the dismissal of the modest amount of water the boat was taking on during the Moffett Air NG press conference, and no mention whatsoever of such a catastrophic structural failure of the boat - that this interview is the first we've ever heard about this "broach"... Which, supposedly, was violent enough to destroy the hull to deck joint on a yacht displacing 11 tons, and yet caused no injury to any of the crew, including 2 under the age of 3...


Let's be blunt- your suggesting he made it up.

I am choosing to take them at their word. Then however I also do not have your level of experience offshore. Would it be accurate to say though that sometimes in unlikely situations like this, strange and unlikely things can and do happen??

He does address some of the these questions, ie why no injuries in the same thread on CF.

I agree with you on the sat phone. We have HF and a satphone but hearing about the sim card scared the hell out of me.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> Let's be blunt- your suggesting he made it up.
> 
> I am choosing to take them at their word. Then however I also do not have your level of experience offshore. Would it be accurate to say though that sometimes in unlikely situations like this, strange and unlikely things can and do happen??
> 
> He does address some of the these questions, ie why no injuries in the same thread on CF.
> 
> I agree with you on the sat phone. We have HF and a satphone but hearing about the sim card scared the hell out of me.


No, I'm not saying the broach is a fabrication, as you say, anything that happens offshore is possible... If anything, I suppose I'm suggesting it may simply have been 'embellished' a bit... 

Again, it just seems odd that there was no mention of the event until this interview. And, the amount of water they were shipping has been consistently minimized, easily pumped out in a matter of minutes... The 70 gallon estimate Eric now mentions is definitely more sobering, in my opinion that's a hell of a lot of water to be taking on, on a boat of that size...

What I would be most interested in learning about this "broach", is whether the boom was prevented to the rail at the time. That's a poor practice, IMHO, and a recipe for breaking gear in an accidental jibe, or if the boom is dipped. However, it's usually deck attachments, or tackle that's broken or ripped out - instead of the deck being separated from the hull...


----------



## caberg

It seems they can't get the story of the knockdown straight.

Over on CF when someone noted that you'll often have injuries in a knockdown, Eric responded:



> We got broached and a subsequent larger breaking wave hit us while we were still beam to, I know the boom went in the water but I highly doubt the mast did.
> 
> We were broad reaching and our boom was 19' long, with maybe 12' of beam, so it was decently out there.
> 
> On a port tack we slept along the starboard side so there was no real people injuries. The boat was secured from missile hazards from weeks of bumpy seas prior to that.
> 
> I was actually in the companionway so fairly well braced. I held on tight, waited to get righted, then climbed over the plexiglass, clipped in, and started surveying damage.


Call for Help/ This American Life - Page 2 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

Quite different from Charlotte's recollection.



> *Charlotte Kaufman* ... But I was in the cabin with the girls, and one time our oldest was going to the bathroom by herself-- because she's three, she's almost four, and she want's to do everything by herself-- and when that wave hit it's the scariest sound.
> 
> *Ira Glass* Because it's just a big bang?
> 
> *Charlotte Kaufman* Yeah. It's this huge bang. It's like you were in a car accident. You're expecting to go up and see who just T-boned you. But it was a wave.
> 
> *Ira Glass* And so you guys are downstairs in the cabin and Eric is upstairs driving the boat. Is he upstairs out on the deck when the boat gets turned on its side?
> 
> *Charlotte Kaufman* Yes. He was definitely on the side decks.


Transcript | This American Life


----------



## outbound

I listened to the Ira Glass interview when it was on this past weekend but did not hear which company's satphone it was. We have an Icon 802 and a bunch of VHFs but are in the market for a satphone. Would like to know which company behaved this way as would seem good to avoid them.


----------



## Yorksailor

I first write as a physician who took care of critically ill children for 25 years.

It was 100% correct to get that child off the boat and whatever the financial cost to the Government it was acceptable. 

I think it is wrong to take small children and babies on trans-oceanic trips because once they get sick they can deteriorate so rapidly that a three day rescue is 2 1/2 days too late. I worked on the edge of Appalachia and just getting the baby out of the hills and into a hospital in town often contributed significantly to the child's deterioration.

As an experienced cruiser and off-shore sailor I, like Jon, just cannot reconcile the account of what happened to the boat. I ran medical complications conferences analyzing medical complications for 20 year and almost every time I could not work out what went wrong was when someone was not giving me the full story!

I have been in some exciting situations, at sea, over the last 30 years that took my full time attention and the thought, even as an experienced doctor, of taking care of a sick child during one of these episodes frightens me.


----------



## Coquina

I would have called in about 450 or so Maydays if THAT was worthy of distress 

*Charlotte Kaufman Yeah. It's this huge bang. It's like you were in a car accident. You're expecting to go up and see who just T-boned you. But it was a wave.*


----------



## outbound

Wife works in neonatal special care and ICU. Also spends some time on the floor. I did pedi neuro for awhile. She was in truck as we were driving down to put the rags on the boat this weekend listening to the NPR interview. Both of us said
1.not moral to take a 0-1 y.o on a boat as they can be DEAD in hours if sick.
2.highly questionable to take 1-5 y.o. on boat beyond coastal day sailing and only then if no prior recent illness.
3. What's up with the rash? Something missing in the story.


----------



## fryewe

JonEisberg said:


> I don't know, it actually seems to raise more questions, for me
> 
> I find it difficult to imagine how a "broach" that dipped the boom - presumably vanged or prevented to the rail, perhaps? - would alone cause the failure of the hull to deck joint on a boat like a Union 36...


It is - to me - a riddle.

Even if the boom was vanged or prevented to the toe rail how does that damage the hull to deck joint?

If the connection was though-bolted I don't see how it could damage the joint...perhaps rip out/break the fasteners with some limited hole damage. Through-bolting provides a clamping force to the joint. Was the stress such that the torque caused the hull side or decking to splinter?

If the connection was not through-bolted why did the hull to deck joint get damaged before the fasteners rip out?

Why didn't the boom bend/boom connection fail/sail rip or the loaded shrouds give before hull damage occurred?

Was the damaged location accessible and carefully evaluated? What damage control efforts were used (plug/putty/tape etc) and were they successful or partially successful?

Once the vang/preventer tore out what kept the boom from hitting the shrouds and damaging the rigging? What actions did Eric take and how successful does he think they were?

Finally - in retrospect - what should have been done differently? What changes would be recommended to avoid a similar event...In setup? In design? In seamanship or watchstandng? In damage control?

Perhaps there are no lessons to be learned...but I doubt it. Every "event" has reasons for its occurrence.

Often the lessons can only be winnowed out by "detached" study of the facts. If the facts aren't available such study can't happen and the lessons are lost.

Perhaps I am wrong but maybe this is Jon's point. And I think it's a good one.


----------



## christian.hess

the union 36´s have a weird(nice looking though) wooden flange that acts as the hull deck joint in the forward half of the hull

when I was in panama there was an abandoned union 36, that I was in love with...at first I thought it was a hans christian 36 but no...some building tweaks for sure...

it had been invaded by termites and basically there was so many potential leaks cause of the masive amounts of wood used... that I was even dreaming of making a flat steel deck instead of trying to fix the wood issues this particular boat had

basically the hull is glass but everything else is wood, the cockipt, the floors all use timber and wood, the liners, the deck hull joint forward, everything!

I can totally see that if one wood deck joint side, or big toerail if you will gets damaged you can have a LOT of water come in...especially in rolly seas...I can remember seing huge gaps at the "hull deck joint" in places

I havent read the last pages of anything here just commenting on the union boat design if you will


----------



## Coquina

I think you meant to say offshore or there are a TON of immoral people just in Annapolis 
My own son spent 10% of the first year of his life sailing and the average has continued 

We can also pause to consider the percentage of the world's population who are always much more than a few hours from competent medical care. Maybe infinite hours from medical care.



outbound said:


> Wife works in neonatal special care and ICU. Also spends some time on the floor. I did pedi neuro for awhile. She was in truck as we were driving down to put the rags on the boat this weekend listening to the NPR interview. Both of us said
> 1.not moral to take a 0-1 y.o* on a boat *as they can be DEAD in hours if sick.
> 2.highly questionable to take 1-5 y.o. on boat beyond coastal day sailing and only then if no prior recent illness.
> 3. What's up with the rash? Something missing in the story.


----------



## christian.hess

yup...thats a very one sided argument there...I beleive I got into it in the beginning of this thread

thats like arguing against a family living in a cabin in alaska that has to ride 3 ferries and whatnot to get to "civilization" or a hospital...

are they inmoral?


----------



## Coquina

We are spoiled at least in Maryland. Shock-Trauma was INVENTED here and the state funds a helicopter rescue service. There is basically no place better on the planet to have a serious injury or illness taken care of. To someone used to this level of protection just leaving the USA can seem horribly risky.


----------



## outbound

I've seen kids die from preventive causes because they did not seek medical attention in time. I seen this in families residing in metropolitan settings but more frequently when transport was an issue. You see that a few times and need to try to console the parents it colors your view. Healthy young adults sometimes don't realize how frail young life is. Neither are they aware how subtle the signs of serious illness can be in the pediatric population. Nor are they aware how rapidly things can go irreversibly south. I apologize for the mistake above. You are right I've done the same. But in any child 0-1 y.o. with recent illness I would not take them away from rapid access to medical care. Personally it would have to be a perfect day with a perfect child. I would coastal cruise with my children. We would day sail with in sight of land and rapid response until they were 5. I did not leave my home port until they were 6+. We did not go even if they had something as minor as a URI or inner ear infection.


----------



## MedSailor

outbound said:


> Wife works in neonatal special care and ICU. Also spends some time on the floor. I did pedi neuro for awhile. She was in truck as we were driving down to put the rags on the boat this weekend listening to the NPR interview. Both of us said
> 1.not moral to take a 0-1 y.o on a boat as they can be DEAD in hours if sick.
> 2.highly questionable to take 1-5 y.o. on boat beyond coastal day sailing and only then if no prior recent illness.
> 3. *What's up with the rash? Something missing in the story.*


From the beginning I've been saying this too. Something is definitely missing from the medical story. There are lots of clues, but probably not enough for us to know what really happened.

Most versions of this sick kid story are based on some kind of infectious disease. Simply knowing if she had a fever would be a very useful piece of the puzzle. I also found it interesting that Eric said they still don't know what happened to the younger daughter, even now. How could that be?

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor

outbound said:


> I listened to the Ira Glass interview when it was on this past weekend but did not hear which company's satphone it was. We have an Icon 802 and a bunch of VHFs but are in the market for a satphone. Would like to know which company behaved this way as would seem good to avoid them.


Quote from CF:

_Originally Posted by rebel heart View Post
I have an Iridum 9555 that I bought from a retail outlet of satellitephonestore.com in San Diego. The sales guy was straight forward, but my relationship with the billing department has been rocky to say the least. I use a lot of airtime and data as it's for my job.

- Twice I've had them disconnect my SIM card from their network for no apparent reason. It only took a phone call (via a cellular number) to clear it up, but still, disconcerting for long passages.

- I've had them change my billing plan without my authorization.

- I've had them charge me for overage minutes in addition to my prepaid plan amount, even though the minutes weren't overage at all and were completely within my plan limits.

- Just recently it seems they've broken my data minutes out from my voice minutes. So my "200 minutes a month" is really "200 voice minutes + data billed at $1.01/minute".

- I use uuplus as well and have had great results with them.

Is the breakout of data and voice normal in the ~$200/month prepaid range? This is several months in a row now of getting my invoice and finding things that are either wrong or questionable._
---------------------------------------------------------------

I've heard the SSB/HAM vs satphone debate quite a few times. Pretty unfortunate to have BOTH and have BOTH die on you. The simplicity of design and operation of the EPIRB certainly has it's place. This is probably why the Vendee Globe guys take anywhere from 3-5 of them along on their races.

MedSailor


----------



## christian.hess

I live in a country where simple diseases go uncaught and people die every day from simple things...unfortunate but we have become much more appreciative of life and what is given to us

still that is not enough for me to say that its inmoral for a cruiser to take his kids sailing offshore in their early years and I say this being a sailor, with an 8 month old sittig in my lap as we speak
while Im waiting a bit to show him how to sail, cruise some coastal a bit, maybe after his first year...I agree maybe under a year is a bit young for the quikness needed in treating infants...we had a case where he choked on a bit of vomit and got into his lungs...

needing to go to a hopsital so he could get nebulizer treatment and antibitocs so he wouldnt get his lungs infected...we were really scared...he was only 5 months old.

so based on personal experience I can agree with the rationale to hold back a bit and be more conservative for the long term ocean passages with kids, but for coastal hopping even with infants I really cant hold any moral high ground or actively criticise anyone for chosing to do so...

its like people living in ghettos or projects, I often ask myself why they dont LEAVE why cant they move and seek a better life for their family?

I have a hard time not criticising them instead

thats just me though


----------



## Coquina

I think it mutated from medical issues to boat issues. If memory serves the baby was not seriously ill (anymore?) when the rescue parachuters showed up.


----------



## caberg

Isn't the Elephant In The Room simply that the Kaufman family bit off more than they could chew with this voyage and wanted out?

Heck, I'd want off that boat, too. 3 weeks at sea, confined to a boat, with a 1 year old and a 3 year old. I think Charlotte had had enough. A sick kid gives a good excuse to push that EPIRB button.

The sickness doesn't really pan out, so the boat was knocked down, damaged and taking on water. Except the stories of this are completely inconsistent and really make no sense.

If someone were taking bets, I know where my money would be.


----------



## MedSailor

Coquina said:


> I think it mutated from medical issues to boat issues. If memory serves the baby was not seriously ill (anymore?) when the rescue parachuters showed up.


One important point that came out of the interview is clearing up the communications failure issues. In the beginning of the medical story, they were able to telephone the child's doctor directly for advice. Pretty soon after, they had no Satphone and no SSB, meaning that they lost the ability to get medical advice and were now on their own for appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

I can see things looking very differently to them when they can call their doctor, and get a second opinion from a CG doctor, changing to "I wonder how sick she really is. We have no way of knowing for sure." I have a hard time finding fault with the parents for erring on the side of caution and the safety of their kid in this case. They gave up a lot to do so.

MedSailor


----------



## lowtide

Let's assume the hull/deck joint failure was real, and caused by the broach (I know this is a big leap because the stories make no sense).

There are only two possibilities here.

The first is that the boom was prevented to the wood that served as the joint itself. Regardless of condition, this would be a huge mistake. Any failure is preferable to a breach of the boat's watertight integrity. Such shortcomings (IMO) of boatbuilding should be considered when rigging, and certainly when rigging a preventer.

Also contributing to this first possibility is human fatigue. Many auto steering systems become ineffective when downwind in heavy, pitching seas. When the boat gets off course she gybes. Someone effectively single handing can only hand steer for so long, then it becomes necessary due to fatigue to set the wind vane, rig a preventer, and get some rest, come what may. Eric says he was in the companionway, not steering the boat. If conditions are what is described, the auto steering was not handling it, and hand steering is in order for the safety of the ship and crew. If one is too tired to continue, heaving to or some other tactic is preferable to chancing a broach. It is proven that fatigue contributes heavily to reduced decision making ability.

The other possibility is that the hull/deck joint was compromised (rot, termites, fatigue, improper sealing) before the boat left Mexico. If the joint wasn't carefully checked before such a passage,shame on the skipper. If the weakness was known and the boat left anyway, shame on the skipper for gambling with his family.

This all goes back to the heavy weather shake down that most experts encourage. You have to test the abilities of yourself if singlehanding, and your boat, in heavy weather to find out how she will do in heavy weather. Then you'll know if the hull/deck joint is strong enough, if your preventer is rigged properly, how your self-steer will behave, and how long you can go without rest.

Failure to do these things will always bring you surprises that could have been avoided.

The stories are so full of contradictions I won't bother.

I am all for children making long passages on a well found boat with competent crew. An iffy boat singlehanded on their first such passage is a different story. It is becoming clear where Rebel Heart fit along this spectrum.


'


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Coquina said:


> I think it mutated from medical issues to boat issues. If memory serves the baby was not seriously ill (anymore?) when the rescue parachuters showed up.


And WEATHER issues.

There is this weird psychology we have all heard about where people get into the life raft and die while their half swamped boat survives.

Ther was an interesting one two years ago of a boat going from Tonga to NZ late... And ran into a tag bit of a cyclone. They fell off a wave, minor damage to the boat.
They hit the EPIRB and got off on a ship where the photos and video of the boat showed it was still fine. The boat then went 2,000 nms and washed up on the coast of Australia.
You may remember the wife whoooping it up as she walked off the navy ship?
Their main difficulty, I believe, was they had made the decision to abandon after a number of storm days. Had the weather brightened up the day after the wave they may have just hoisted sail and sail off.
The point is that they invented a knockdown adn embelished it to a 360 roll over. It clearly didnt happen as the video showed the boat was fine.

They wanted off and made the facts speak for themselves.... To themselves.

With Rebel Heart they had many days of badish weather, combined with a bit of damage but nothing unsailable.

I feel if the weather had moderated and the sat phone worked better to keep them in touch with the doctor then the result could have been difficult.

In better weather the wife may have been more supportive. With the sat phone she may have been more confident.

But she left the salon and went to the bathroom and left the decision to push the EPRIB button to Eric. That could indicate there was less than 100% agreement either between themselves or about the direness of the situation.

When multiple things go wrong the psychological state goes south real quick. Even at anchor if two or three things bust on the boat at once I start to feel down... As if the whole thing is insurmountable.

We can't dismiss the psychology to an emergency. Its not exclusively "When the going gets tough the tough get going" but in some incidents one really needs a bucket of fortitude and confidence in the long term outcome - and a nice blue sky!

BTW when Nicolle was on board she would look at the clouds and scream "squall coming! We have to reef now!". I would look and see nice trade winds puffy clouds. One day I took her sunglasses off and had a look through them: the lenses were grey. Any white cloud looked like a storm cloud!

Mark


----------



## outbound

I realize I spoken too harshly and apologize again. Just too scarred by what I've seen. Typically dinner conversation with wife "kid had group B strep by the time she got to just to us .... not much to save" or " I'm sorry your child has been in status epilepticus for some time before I saw him.... that produced irreversible brain damage we can't fix that".
No question these parents did the right thing getting their kid assessed ASAP. No stones to throw there.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

lowtide said:


> Many auto steering systems become ineffective when downwind in heavy, pitching seas. When the boat gets off course she gybes.
> 
> '


A gybe when the main is prevented puts the boat on its ear. Or racing with a shy kite and it broaches puts the boat on its ear.
Both are bloody scary to the uninitiated! Until someone lets go the sheet and then the boat pops back up again in about two seconds. The preventer takes a bit longer!

I am all for cruisers having racing experience. It puts a boat and crew through its paces.
In the 8 years Eric had Rebel Heart he only went on one 400 mile passage, Charlott didnt go with him.
So even though he had all the tickets in the world and did the courses for celestial nav etc, he didnt have experience racing, nor of his own boat.

Thats not a criticism of him... Its a criticism of the whole ******** of buying an old boat and refitting it for years. Thats not whats needed... SAILING is needed!

I do say Go Now. But I mean for people to sail and race till they can actually do it in all weather, all the crew, day or night.

Mark


----------



## smurphny

lowtide said:


> Let's assume the hull/deck joint failure was real, and caused by the broach (I know this is a big leap because the stories make no sense).
> 
> There are only two possibilities here.
> 
> The first is that the boom was prevented to the wood that served as the joint itself. Regardless of condition, this would be a huge mistake. Any failure is preferable to a breach of the boat's watertight integrity. Such shortcomings (IMO) of boatbuilding should be considered when rigging, and certainly when rigging a preventer.
> 
> Also contributing to this first possibility is human fatigue. Many auto steering systems become ineffective when downwind in heavy, pitching seas. When the boat gets off course she gybes. Someone effectively single handing can only hand steer for so long, then it becomes necessary due to fatigue to set the wind vane, rig a preventer, and get some rest, come what may. Eric says he was in the companionway, not steering the boat. If conditions are what is described, the auto steering was not handling it, and hand steering is in order for the safety of the ship and crew. If one is too tired to continue, heaving to or some other tactic is preferable to chancing a broach. It is proven that fatigue contributes heavily to reduced decision making ability.
> 
> The other possibility is that the hull/deck joint was compromised (rot, termites, fatigue, improper sealing) before the boat left Mexico. If the joint wasn't carefully checked before such a passage,shame on the skipper. If the weakness was known and the boat left anyway, shame on the skipper for gambling with his family.
> 
> This all goes back to the heavy weather shake down that most experts encourage. You have to test the abilities of yourself if singlehanding, and your boat, in heavy weather to find out how she will do in heavy weather. Then you'll know if the hull/deck joint is strong enough, if your preventer is rigged properly, how your self-steer will behave, and how long you can go without rest.
> 
> Failure to do these things will always bring you surprises that could have been avoided.
> 
> The stories are so full of contradictions I won't bother.
> 
> I am all for children making long passages on a well found boat with competent crew. An iffy boat singlehanded on their first such passage is a different story. It is becoming clear where Rebel Heart fit along this spectrum.
> 
> '


The forces generated by even a partially submerged sail are huge. Something is going to break if the sail dips in. One aspect of planning a preventer or anything with the potential for this kind of overload is to make damned sure some component in the line has a lower break strength than the anchor point. If the preventer is, for example, attached to the bow fitting/chainplate it could very feasibly pull the whole rig down unless either the line, a shackle or snapshackle, or the boom attachment breaks first. With the introduction of low stretch, 10,000#+ line like Dyneema, it ain't likely going to be the line that gives. Having some sort of clutch/friction mechanism on a preventer seems like a solution, rather than a solid connection.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> One aspect of planning a preventer or anything with the potential for this kind of overload is to make damned sure some component in the line has a lower break strength than the anchor point.


My preventer is just two bits of rope that come down to the amidships mooring cleats, not the toe rail.

Then at the boom I have some very thin lanyard, 96 kg breaking strain, thats looped twice. The preventers tie to that loop. So its 4 x 96 kg breaking strain. Enough for an accidental gybe to slow the boom down, but it should break if the boat is pinned down


----------



## copacabana

Mark, I've been thinking of doing something similar with my preventer. Thanks for the idea of the lanyard- it looks like just the ticket!


----------



## Yorksailor

I listened to the interview and it was very enlightening...

Eric did two things right, he called the USCG on the sat phone to let them know of his situation and when the sat phone quit and he reached his personal limits he hit the EPIRB. The sat phone call was why the 'sky cavalry' arrived fully equipped.

The rest of the story, as usual, is well analyzed by Mark... Inexperienced off-shore sailor in over his head and unable to rig and handle the boat in a seaman like fashion. Doing it with an inexperienced wife and two small children shows a serious lack of judgment.


----------



## khammett

Damm things could get crazy once you're in the middle of the ocean.


----------



## smurphny

I installed a ladder type friction brake last year but am going to try to install a full preventer again. Have tried it before but never to the very end of the boom. I do worry about a line with insufficient strength snapping and causing damage to whoever might be in its recoil path as well as the unexpected sweep of the boom. I wonder what the "window" is between the force of wind on the backside of the sail, when you *want* the preventer to hold, and the force of a dip in the water. Seems there are two figures needed: breaking strength of the deck attachments and the maximum force of wind in an unintentional jibe. Then some suitable material with a breaking point somewhere in between the two could be put in the rig, preferably somewhere so that if it lets go, the springback would be least likely to hurt someone. I just got a copy of Siefert's _Offshore Sailing_ book on Jon's recommendation. I like his preventer setup except for it being attached to the stemhead. He calls for an 8500# load design. 
Don't want to derail the thread so if mods want to redirect, into a "preventer design" thread, that would be great.


----------



## JonEisberg

caberg said:


> Isn't the Elephant In The Room simply that the Kaufman family bit off more than they could chew with this voyage and wanted out?
> 
> Heck, I'd want off that boat, too. 3 weeks at sea, confined to a boat, with a 1 year old and a 3 year old. I think Charlotte had had enough. A sick kid gives a good excuse to push that EPIRB button.
> 
> The sickness doesn't really pan out, so the boat was knocked down, damaged and taking on water. Except the stories of this are completely inconsistent and really make no sense.
> 
> If someone were taking bets, I know where my money would be.


I'm certainly not qualified to address the medical issue with the kid, and at the press conference at Moffett Field with the Air National Guard team, one of the medics said they definitely made the right call when they did... No way I'm gonna second guess those guys, so I don't have a problem with their punching out over concern with the baby's health...

However, I've said all along with many others, this was a classic example of a voyage doomed by choices and decisions made long before they ever left the marina, and a woeful lack of preparation and offshore experience. Blogging was akin to breathing for these people, and it speaks volumes that Charlotte stopped her blogging well before any mention of the damage, or the illness of the child... There was a meltdown of epic proportions happening on that boat, and one especially Unhappy Camper ...

kent_island_sailor over on CA sums it up brilliantly:



> This would have been a non event back in the day. The wife would be going on about "baby is going to die, I am going to die, the boat heels over, waves never stop, it is too hot, wahwahwah" and the husband would point at the VHF radio that was the big electronics investment, the empty horizon, and tell her to STFU because they were just going to have to deal with it.
> 
> Fast-forward to a bar in the South Pacific and the wife is going "that first week out SUCKED. I would have jumped off that damn boat if I could have" and the other wives would be like "Me too"...


)


----------



## smackdaddy

smurphny said:


> I do worry about a line with insufficient strength snapping and causing damage to whoever might be in its recoil path as well as the unexpected sweep of the boom.


Yep.


----------



## Coquina

Boombrake?
Boom brake / Gyb'easy
This looks good to me. I have been on boats pinned with the boom underwater and the preventer on. All fun and games in a race, but my wife would be very less than amused by something like that.


----------



## Donald_Crowhurst

Personally, I would never take kids on a voyage like that. I have young boys, and they would be a major pain in the a$$ to supervise and take care of, never mind the issue of being far away from a hospital. No thanks. I'm sure people do it all the time, but definitely not for me. My wife would never let them be that far away from medical either. 
It's funny. Someone said this voyage was doomed from the start. Contrast this voyage with Rimas, the guy who just buys a boat and leaves. No preparation, nothing, just packs a tomtom and goes and makes it. To me , his voyage was doomed from the beginning, but he made it (so far).
I think the NPR piece was a puff piece. But hey they deserved it after all the negative media they have gotten. I say this as some one who is not a fan of theirs and I think that the couple definitely bit off more than they could chew. But I'm sure many ocean voyages are like that and turn out fine. Hey, a KK42 just made the same passage on power alone. That seems a little crazier to me than taking a union 36 across. Given, the KK couple didnt have 2 young kids, but still something to consider.


----------



## MedSailor

All this talk of preventers with lines that give way as a way to prevent the disaster... Shouldn't the correction be not to have the boom in the water in the first place? I thought that the reef points on offshore sails were supposed to be sewn at an angle to the boom so that with each successive reef, the boom angles upward and keeps it's nose out of the waves while in a rolling sea. Do people not spec that feature anymore on their mainsails? 

MedSailor


----------



## outbound

Posted our preventer system in past. Taught to me by a very experienced passage maker.
One set up each side. 
first line attached to strong point at END of boom. When not in use cleated to boom near gooseneck. That line ends in snap shackle.
second line starts in cockpit. goes forward thro a clutch just lateral to cockpit. then to extreme bow of boat. from there thro a block and back. It ends in snap shackle as well. when not deployed snapped to toe rail lateral to boom.
To deploy- ease lines- attach snap shackles to each other.
If emergent can release by throwing clutch off. when trimming can use lazy side primary to tighten.
If system fails boom will fail in middle ( not likely) with out injury to crew.

I also use the forward part of second line as the foreguys for DDW sails and the aft part of second line as the sheets. I fly a parasailor with no main so this is non issue. Others may use these lines as fore and after guys. Have the Wichard blocks you can attach where ever on the perforated toe rail. System is complicated to explain but easy to use


----------



## Shockwave

I've not seen a tripping reef in years. The world has changed, some things in a not so good kind of way.



MedSailor said:


> All this talk of preventers with lines that give way as a way to prevent the disaster... Shouldn't the correction be not to have the boom in the water in the first place? I thought that the reef points on offshore sails were supposed to be sewn at an angle to the boom so that with each successive reef, the boom angles upward and keeps it's nose out of the waves while in a rolling sea. Do people not spec that feature anymore on their mainsails?
> 
> MedSailor


----------



## khammett

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

*Kaufmans Break Silence on Rescue*

May 12, 2014 - San Diego, CA

In an era when sound-bite journalism and short attention spans are the norm, it was no surprise that the dramatic South Pacific rescue of the Rebel Heart crew - two young parents and their 3- and 1-year-old daughters - quickly faded from the media spotlight shortly after the family returned safely to San Diego on April 11 aboard the USS Vandegrift.

That's exactly what parents Eric and Charlotte Kaufman hoped would happen. But they promised to share all the details, and correct widespread media reporting errors on their ordeal, once their story had become yesterday's news. Sunday, a full month after returning home, they finally broke their silence in an NPR segment called This American Life. (Available as a podcast here.)

While some specifics remain unanswered, the Kaufmans did clarify many key elements that led to their decision to set off their EPIRB, effectively laying the groundwork for being rescued, yet knowing they would have to scuttle their boat - their home of eight years - to do so.

Here's a synopsis of clarified facts: According to Eric, on their 15th day out, the day before they called for help, they sailed into the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) where they met with strong winds and big seas. Charlotte explains that they were knocked down several times. But one particular broach stressed the boat so much that it began leaking along the starboard hull-deck joint and elsewhere (unspecified). The resulting inflow of sea water was estimated at 60 or 70 gallons per day.

Meanwhile, one-year-old Lyra had been ill since day seven. As Charlotte explains, the infant developed a widespread rash, had diarrhea, and became lethargic. During a sat phone call, Lyra's doctor advised that she be given the amoxicillin that was carried on board. When there was no improvement after two days, Eric called in a pan-pan to the US Coast Guard to advise them of his family's situation. But because of his (unnamed) sat phone service provider's changing to new SIM cards the week before and deactivating the old ones that very day, that pan-pan was the last sat phone call he was able to make. Rebel Heart was equipped with an HF radio, but Eric was unable to make outside contact with it, and suspected its usefulness had been compromised by the incoming seawater.

The couple discussed their options, with Eric calculating that it would be another three weeks before they would arrive in the Marquesas - if their pumping could keep up with the incoming water. "What would you do?" he asks rhetorically of his radio audience. As Charlotte explains, the decision was heartbreaking: "You know if you hit the EPIRB, help will come, but that if you hit it your home is gone."

- latitude / andy

Call For Help | This American Life


----------



## emcentar

I listened to the story on "This American Life" this morning. I haven't been paying too much attention to this story, as much of the outrage has been directed at their parenting decisions, not their sailing decisions. (I don't have kids myself, so I am strictly a bystander on all parenting discussions)

But I'm really curious about some of the details of the incident, particularly as I have no off-shore experience myself. Can anyone help me understand:

1. How can/does a breach damage a hull-deck joint? Is this plausible or is it more plausible that there was a previous undetected leak?
2. If the leak from the hull-deck joint wasn't bad, why does Eric say 'I did the math and knew we were going to lose the boat'?
3. The NPR story described Eric as having a sailing certification that requires ~360 days at sea. But I've heard him described here as not having very much off-shore experience. Is this certification misleading? It's clearly included in the story to show that inexperience wasn't an issue in the incident.​
I have no opinion on taking babies off-shore, but I am extremely curious to learn from others what exactly went wrong here apart from the sick baby. (The story makes it sound like the boat also was probably lost, but I can't understand how one broach could scuttle a boat.)


----------



## emcentar

PS - if you listened to the entire 'This American Life' episode, I'm just going to brag that in the third story about the two friends Maya and Charlotte, that Charlotte is the daughter of an old school friend of mine. Doesn't she sound like an awesome kid?


----------



## MedSailor

emcentar said:


> I listened to the story on "This American Life" this morning. I haven't been paying too much attention to this story, as much of the outrage has been directed at their parenting decisions, not their sailing decisions. (I don't have kids myself, so I am strictly a bystander on all parenting discussions)
> 
> But I'm really curious about some of the details of the incident, particularly as I have no off-shore experience myself. Can anyone help me understand:
> 
> 1. How can/does a breach damage a hull-deck joint? Is this plausible or is it more plausible that there was a previous undetected leak?


Great question. Nobody can make much sense of this. There is a big discussion on Cruising Forum right now where Eric is participating and still nobody seems to understand this. What it sounds like though, is that even though nobody is sure of the mechanics of the cause, there WAS a leak, and it leaked onto the batteries and essentially fried his electrical system thus taking out the SSB and electric bilge pump.



emcentar said:


> 2. If the leak from the hull-deck joint wasn't bad, why does Eric say 'I did the math and knew we were going to lose the boat'?


He was referring to doing the math on pressing the EPIRB button. He knew if he pressed it, he'd have to give up the boat.



emcentar said:


> 3. The NPR story described Eric as having a sailing certification that requires ~360 days at sea. But I've heard him described here as not having very much off-shore experience. Is this certification misleading? It's clearly included in the story to show that inexperience wasn't an issue in the incident.


A standard USCG "captain's license" that you or I can get, after taking an exam also requires that you prove, through your own log books that you spent 360 or more "days at sea". This keeps us sailnet types who never sail but know all the answers D) from acing a test and going out and causing trouble due to lack of experience. The "at sea" part, if I'm correct about this means 360 days on the water on a boat where you were helping operate it. If I recall, if you spend 4 or more hours out on the boat, you can log it as a day. Crewing on a J-24 for 4 hours counts as "one day at sea".



emcentar said:


> I have no opinion on taking babies off-shore, but I am extremely curious to learn from others what exactly went wrong here apart from the sick baby. (The story makes it sound like the boat also was probably lost, but I can't understand how one broach could scuttle a boat.)


Basically, Eric has said several times that the rest of the stuff "contributed" to the abandon decision (though it's not crystal clear exactly how) but THE decider was the sick baby. I would surmise that the lack of comms, made the sick baby situation much worse, and that is the "contributing factor".

MedSailor


----------



## JonEisberg

emcentar said:


> 3. The NPR story described Eric as having a sailing certification that requires ~360 days at sea. But I've heard him described here as not having very much off-shore experience. Is this certification misleading? It's clearly included in the story to show that inexperience wasn't an issue in the incident.


Good question, one that certainly serves to highlight what a farce obtaining a USCG license has become...

With only ONE trip out to Catalina and back aboard REBEL HEART during the 7 years they lived aboard in San Diego, he must have been doing a hell of a lot of sailing on OPB's...


----------



## titustiger27

I've waded through this thread ... so to speak. I find it interesting how in America we believe in personal freedom, but not to practice that with one's family...

Would there be the same concern if the family practiced religion that doesn't believe in using doctors? 

Or what if the family was living in one of the various remote parts of the country -- say Alaska ?

Edit: and if we find it reprehensible to take a family out to sea... is it just as reprehensible to have children in poverty?


----------



## emcentar

Thanks for helping clear that up. I had inferred from the early news reports they used the EPRIB because of the sick baby, full-stop. The radio story spends a fair amount of time on the breach, the leaks, the possibly dead communications equipment, and certainly seemed to imply that it might not be safe to continue the voyage in the boat - but not for any reasons that made sense to me. 

One thing the story does make abundantly clear, however, is that they knew they were going to make themselves homeless by calling for help. It certainly wasn't a decision made lightly.


----------



## JonEisberg

titustiger27 said:


> I've waded through this thread ... so to speak. I find it interesting how in America we believe in personal freedom, but not to practice that with one's family...
> 
> ...
> 
> Edit: and if we find it reprehensible to take a family out to sea... is it just as reprehensible to have children in poverty?


I must have missed it, care to point to a post in this thread where anyone has deemed it "reprehensible" to take a family out to sea?


----------



## Kostis

I dont know guys. I think people are really sheep with emotions, that they just act like a mass. They way they crucified this family.... I am not saying they did right. Or wrong. At the end of the day what happened was they lost their boat, and the coast guard and army did their duty and the emergency EPRIB proved to be working safety device!! 

Tell me something. Arent u proud that u live in a country that they will go thousands of miles to save a family? If this is not a success i dont know what is. Those are the true values of country that offer protection to their citizens. We should be celebrating now


----------



## titustiger27

JonEisberg said:


> I must have missed it, care to point to a post in this thread where anyone has deemed it "reprehensible" to take a family out to sea?


Perhaps a bad use of the word 'reprehensible' but if bring a baby on an ocean crossing is wrong, why is it wrong... and isn't it 'reprehensible'

I guess the problem is that word implies bad parenting, not bad decision making.

But I hope you see the point of my post and not solely focus on a wrong word...?

edit: here are some of the comments



> A someone who watched an otherwise healthy 4-year-old go from having a run-of-the-mill cold to pneumonia, complete with 106˚ fever, overnight I can tell you that I would never take a little kid off-shore, NEVER.





> I do not think children of that age should be involved in "around the world" trips...





> Should they be allowed to sail with an infant on board and/or should they be required to pay the cost of providing the emergency services?


----------



## titustiger27

Kostis said:


> I dont know guys. I think people are really sheep with emotions, that they just act like a mass. They way they crucified this family.... I am not saying they did right. Or wrong. At the end of the day what happened was they lost their boat, and the coast guard and army did their duty and the emergency EPRIB proved to be working safety device!!
> 
> *Tell me something. Arent u proud that u live in a country that they will go thousands of miles to save a family? If this is not a success i dont know what is. Those are the true values of country that offer protection to their citizens. We should be celebrating now*


If you look at the press conference from the rescuers they basically say: 'this is our job.'

They don't say it directly, but the cost of the rescue has already been paid.... If you have a coast guard and their job (in part) is to rescue people [also this is not the furthest they have gone].

Not everyone benefits equally from our taxes, but this is as good a use as any.


----------



## Kostis

titustiger27 said:


> Not everyone benefits equally from our taxes, but this is as good a use as any.


Well said brother. Amen


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Posted our preventer system in past. Taught to me by a very experienced passage maker.
> One set up each side.
> first line attached to strong point at END of boom. When not in use cleated to boom near gooseneck. That line ends in snap shackle.
> second line starts in cockpit. goes forward thro a clutch just lateral to cockpit. then to extreme bow of boat. from there thro a block and back. It ends in snap shackle as well. when not deployed snapped to toe rail lateral to boom.
> To deploy- ease lines- attach snap shackles to each other.
> If emergent can release by throwing clutch off. when trimming can use lazy side primary to tighten.
> If system fails boom will fail in middle ( not likely) with out injury to crew.
> 
> I also use the forward part of second line as the foreguys for DDW sails and the aft part of second line as the sheets. I fly a parasailor with no main so this is non issue. Others may use these lines as fore and after guys. Have the Wichard blocks you can attach where ever on the perforated toe rail. System is complicated to explain but easy to use


Yup, preventers from the end of the boom taken forward are definitely the way to go... Mid-boom preventers/vangs taken to the deck amidships increase the loads upon the gear to a great degree, and are a perfect recipe for breaking possibly the boom, deck gear, or both...

For a low aspect main with a long boom more likely to get dipped in sporty conditions DDW, a more elastic climbing rope can work well...


----------



## chall03

titustiger27 said:


> Would there be the same concern if the family practiced religion that doesn't believe in using doctors?
> 
> Or what if the family was living in one of the various remote parts of the country -- say Alaska ?
> 
> Edit: and if we find it reprehensible to take a family out to sea... is it just as reprehensible to have children in poverty?


I share some of your frustration and continue to have mixed feelings about this thread and in general the attention and criticism that _Rebel Heart_ is receiving.

We as parents all do what we believe is the best thing by our kids and for our kids. Every decision we make involves assessing risk and carries the underlying concern of whether we are doing right by them.

I will not be passing judgement on how anyone chooses to parent, either land based or seafaring.

I do however take the advice of Yorksailor, Outbound and others suitably qualified to have an opinion seriously and thank them for it. Yet I wonder if it is in fact their experience in this area that might cloud objective judgement?

I note that access to paediatric emergency medicine is a far smaller issue here is Australia (where large areas of our country do live remote from high level health care) than say childhood obesity.

To simplify such a discussion as this down to going offshore with kids is _inherently_ dangerous while staying on land with them is 'safe' is a mistake.


----------



## lowtide

If you go offshore, much less across an ocean, relying totally on an electric bilge pump, you are woefully unprepared.

No matter what the cause when the SHTF, the batteries or electrical system is almost always the first casualty.

I have a Whale Gusher that will pump 70 gallons in a few minutes mounted such that it can be pumped while steering the boat.

This whole story is about a total lack of preparation, rather than "bad luck".

Leaving on a long passage with sick passengers, especially your own children -- not bad luck.

Not having tested the boat and crew in heavy weather -- not bad luck.

Not having tried and tested a proper preventer and the hardware and attachment points on the boat -- not bad luck.

Not having enough crew to hand steer the boat when automatic systems just won't do or if they fail -- not bad luck.

Not having the ability to pump a mere 70 gallons of water per day manually and easily -- not bad luck.

Not having the ability to temporarily slow a leak of that type -- not bad luck.


Why am I being such an a$$? Several reasons. To start, if they had hit a real Pacific storm, with that level of preparation, they might have been lost, including their innocent children. The sea may not have granted them time for such a rescue.

Secondly, stories like these open the door for the kind of thinking that goes; ocean sailing is so dangerous and rescues cost the taxpayer so much, we should restrict people from doing it without "fill in the blank with a thousand bureaucratic requirements".

As far as this analysis being mean to the poor Kaufman's, they have already collected more than the uninsured boat was worth in donations, and their children are safe and sound. So, all in all it appears that others have fully paid the monetary costs of their poor preparation. 

'


----------



## caberg

chall03 said:


> To simplify such a discussion as this down to going offshore with kids is _inherently_ dangerous while staying on land with them is 'safe' is a mistake.


I think that's an entirely fair observation. I do not have a problem with parents taking their kids on offshore passages, but I'll make two points that have stuck with me since the beginning of this saga.

1. I have a 4 year old boy, and I cannot imagine confining him to a sailboat for weeks at any point in his life up to now. Since he started crawling at around 8 months, and walking soon thereafter, he is constantly on the move. Add the movement of a sailboat offshore, where even moving around the tiny space of the sailboat becomes difficult, and it starts to seem cruel to subject _my kid_ to that for weeks at a time. Even now, we rarely spend an entire day on our boat, but find a place to anchor where we can swim, go ashore, go fishing, because it is damn boring for a kid that age to sit in a sailboat all day long.

2. I am not convinced that the Kaufman's had the best of intentions with this voyage. From what I have read, they seem like attention who*** who are more concerned with creating some sort of reality television life for themselves so they can write about it and publish. Note how their blog is filled with lots of juicy stuff that you don't ordinarily find on a sailing blog, from their sexual encounters to Charlotte being molested as a child. It's not surprising that a book is already in the works according to Eric, and had been planned had they made it to the S. Pacific. I have far more respect for the family who silently goes and voyages.... maybe someday writing and reflecting about the sailing and adventure sans drama.


----------



## Coquina

Bilge pumps - I can *easily* clear 70 gallons a day with my hand pump. If *that* was their distress then they were very lucky to not encounter real weather or a real leak.


----------



## JonEisberg

lowtide said:


> If you go offshore, much less across an ocean, relying totally on an electric bilge pump, you are woefully unprepared.
> 
> No matter what the cause when the SHTF, the batteries or electrical system is almost always the first casualty.
> 
> I have a Whale Gusher that will pump 70 gallons in a few minutes mounted such that it can be pumped while steering the boat.
> 
> This whole story is about a total lack of preparation, rather than "bad luck".
> 
> Leaving on a long passage with sick passengers, especially your own children -- not bad luck.
> 
> Not having tested the boat and crew in heavy weather -- not bad luck.
> 
> Not having tried and tested a proper preventer and the hardware and attachment points on the boat -- not bad luck.
> 
> Not having enough crew to hand steer the boat when automatic systems just won't do or if they fail -- not bad luck.
> 
> Not having the ability to pump a mere 70 gallons of water per day manually and easily -- not bad luck.
> 
> Not having the ability to temporarily slow a leak of that type -- not bad luck.
> 
> Why am I being such an a$$? Several reasons. To start, if they had hit a real Pacific storm, with that level of preparation, they might have been lost, including their innocent children. The sea may not have granted them time for such a rescue.
> 
> Secondly, stories like these open the door for the kind of thinking that goes; ocean sailing is so dangerous and rescues cost the taxpayer so much, we should restrict people from doing it without "fill in the blank with a thousand bureaucratic requirements".
> 
> As far as this analysis being mean to the poor Kaufman's, they have already collected more than the uninsured boat was worth in donations, and their children are safe and sound. So, all in all it appears that others have fully paid the monetary costs of their poor preparation.
> 
> '


I believe some of your observations might be in error... I'm pretty sure I heard it stated in the interview, or over on CF, that they did have a high-capacity manual pump aboard... Which would supposedly evacuate "one gallon per stroke", like the large Edson, or similar...

And, according to the Kaufmanns, Lyra had been given "a clean bill of health" by a doctor in Mexico, prior to their departure... Which, they had actually delayed until they were reasonably confident she was over her infection, if memory serves...

Also, precious few Mom & Pop cruisers out there are making passages with what many might consider "enough crew" aboard to hand steer, should it be required due to the conditions, or if the self-steering might go tits up... How capable Charlotte might have been at the helm in heavier conditions, however, might reasonably be called into question, given her lack of offshore/overnight experience... So, you might have a point, that perhaps _they_ might not have had sufficient crew, especially given the amount of care and attention the two young children aboard would have demanded...

I'd be interesting in learning whether the boat was under the control of the Hydrovane, or the autopilot, when she suffered the damaging broach... Based upon my one experience with a Hydrovane on a 43-footer, I was 'underwhelmed' by its performance, to say the least... And that's putting it politely...  It came nowhere close to steering as well as any of the servo-pendulum vanes I've used, and I wouldn't trust it sailing DDW, or in a situation when an accidental jibe might occur...


----------



## lowtide

70 gallons is a 5 gallon bucket every hour and forty three minutes, or a single gallon every twenty minutes. 

Also unless you can count and measure while pumping, water in the boat is almost always overestimated. We used to have a swing keel lake boat that had almost no bilge. We came in early once because we thought there was too much water in the boat, to find it was about 2 gallons in reality.

20 pumps on the Whale Gusher is a gallon, so if it comes to it I can know exactly what I'm taking on, whether it is getting better or worse, realistically estimate whether and how long I can keep up, etc..

Less than 40 strokes per hour would keep her dry at 70 gallons.

The Scared Man With a Bucket brand bilge pump could handle it without fatigue. Shouldn't have been a factor in abandoning ship.

'


----------



## Coquina

All kids are different, but my son has had no issues on the boat since infancy other than normal kid stuff getting into things. As a baby it was easy - we strapped the car seat where we wanted it and it stayed put 
When he got older he LOVED the motion and we would have him in the double berth with the lee cloth up. He had his toys in there and would be rolling back and forth laughing.

One thing though not always realized is that the skipper is now a single hander essentially. In any "stuff" hits the fan situation it was me-boat and wife-child. I was used to singlehanding, but if you aren't you need to realize child care is a full time job for someone.



caberg said:


> 1. I have a 4 year old boy, and I cannot imagine confining him to a sailboat for weeks at any point in his life up to now. Since he started crawling at around 8 months, and walking soon thereafter, he is constantly on the move. Add the movement of a sailboat offshore, where even moving around the tiny space of the sailboat becomes difficult, and it starts to seem cruel to subject _my kid_ to that for weeks at a time. Even now, we rarely spend an entire day on our boat, but find a place to anchor where we can swim, go ashore, go fishing, because it is damn boring for a kid that age to sit in a sailboat all day long.


----------



## lowtide

JonEisberg said:


> I believe some of your observations might be in error... I'm pretty sure I heard it stated in the interview, or over on CF, that they did have a high-capacity manual pump aboard... Which would supposedly evacuate "one gallon per stroke", like the large Edson, or similar...
> 
> And, according to the Kaufmanns, Lyra had been given "a clean bill of health" by a doctor in Mexico, prior to their departure... Which, they had actually delayed until they were reasonably confident she was over her infection, if memory serves...
> 
> Also, precious few Mom & Pop cruisers out there are making passages with what many might consider "enough crew" aboard to hand steer, should it be required due to the conditions, or if the self-steering might go tits up... How capable Charlotte might have been at the helm in heavier conditions, however, might reasonably be called into question, given her lack of offshore/overnight experience... So, you might have a point, that perhaps _they_ might not have had sufficient crew, especially given the amount of care and attention the two young children aboard would have demanded...
> 
> I'd be interesting in learning whether the boat was under the control of the Hydrovane, or the autopilot, when she suffered the damaging broach... Based upon my one experience with a Hydrovane on a 43-footer, I was 'underwhelmed' by its performance, to say the least... And that's putting it politely...  It came nowhere close to steering as well as any of the servo-pendulum vanes I've used, and I wouldn't trust it sailing DDW, or in a situation when an accidental jibe might occur...


There have been several versions of the crew's health upon leaving. If she was still taking antibiotics (or two), or just finished them at least, no one could proclaim a clean bill of health, due to common sense.

Eric says he was braced in the companionway, Charlotte has him on the side deck, so no one has him at the wheel.

I agree that servo-pendulum is the way to go, and it will steer strong enough to break a less than fit tiller, happened to me in a storm, I wasn't prepared.

If you are exhausted, the auto steering isn't doing the job, and conditions are dangerous, you should have already hove to, or deployed a drogue or chute or anything many hours ago. I have never heard of a vessel broaching while hove-to in conditions like they faced. If you're still screaming along on a beam reach, yeah. I have never regretted acting early, even when conditions didn't materialize. If have often regretted waiting too late. Knowing your boat and capabilities are the only way to know when is when.

Part of preparation and knowing these limits is so we can take measures before dangerous situations even exist. No one fares well when caught with their pants down.

'


----------



## outbound

Have low and high water electric bilge pumps. Every year on any boat I have ever owned when annual commissioning comes up run ALL the bilge pumps. Current boat (and same for past) have two Whale gushers with strainers. One in cockpit and one down below. When run found both were clogged with debris left from initial construction of the boat which worked down over last years sailing. Clumps of what was probably congealed sawdust and the like.This is not a reflection on the builder as debris was quite small and to be expected. Cleared the bellows and good to go. However, this was done at the slip not in the middle of a passage. Believe such pumps required for offshore races and a good idea for any boat. 
Think any prudent sailor should check function of all the pumps every year and each time before heading out on a significant sail.
Also carry usual plugs, self set sticks of 2 part epoxy ( which will set underwater) and fiberglass repair kit with extra cloth, self amalgating tape, shrink wrap tape. Short money and little space for piece of mind.
Don't understand issue of water coming in. Would think once noted you would fix it. Also don't understand losing batteries. Once did a delivery where we had down flooding and lost all electronics and engine start. Since then have paid much attention that I have at least two banks of batteries and they be placed in such a manner that only massive down flooding would result in lost or inability to recharge should discharge occur.
Lastly note comment about AP and would note in my limited experience the overwhelming majority of blue water boats no longer have wind vanes. Even those single or double handed. It is common to carry an extra ram and rudder angle indicator as the other components of modern APs seem fairly immune to failure. Sister ship just came back from Bahamas. They commonly saw 17+kts SOG and averaged in double digits. This is on a cruising mono. I strung 3d of 200+d together last year. Impression is this is not that uncommon when running before a front. Suspect even servo pendulum will not perform in that setting. Know they are of little value in racing multi's or mono's for similar reasons.


----------



## JonEisberg

lowtide said:


> 70 gallons is a 5 gallon bucket every hour and forty three minutes, or a single gallon every twenty minutes.
> 
> Also unless you can count and measure while pumping, water in the boat is almost always overestimated. We used to have a swing keel lake boat that had almost no bilge. We came in early once because we thought there was too much water in the boat, to find it was about 2 gallons in reality.
> 
> 20 pumps on the Whale Gusher is a gallon, so if it comes to it I can know exactly what I'm taking on, whether it is getting better or worse, realistically estimate whether and how long I can keep up, etc..
> 
> Less than 40 strokes per hour would keep her dry at 70 gallons.
> 
> *The Scared Man With a Bucket brand bilge pump could handle it without fatigue. Shouldn't have been a factor in abandoning ship.*
> 
> '


According to Eric, doesn't sound like it was:



> Yeah. The boat's not going to sink at that point. We're not all going to die because we've got a bunch of water coming in. It's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. There you are. It was under control.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm pretty positive the boat itself could have made it, although the water was exceeding the electronic bilge pump's capacity so it would have needed manual pumping at least once (and more like three times) a day.


Of course, none of us will ever know what might really have been going on aboard that boat... Charlotte might have easily been freaked out by the realization they were shipping water... For instance, recall the story of the abandonment of TRIUMPH a couple of summers ago. After the loss of the engine, and then one of the shrouds, Doug still appeared to be somewhat coping with the problems... It was not until the surprise discovery of water in the bilge a day or 2 after - presumably admitted through the unplugged hole in deck left by the broken chainplate - that became a total game-changer... Doug's wife Evelyn was really spooked by that discovery, there seemed to be no convincing her that it was not a big deal and could be controlled, she simply wanted off that boat, _NOW_...In her mind, that boat was _SINKING_... And thus, the button was pushed, the sat phone call placed to the CG, whatever... (I'm just going from memory, here, but I believe that account of the event is reasonably accurate)

So, yeah, I can easily imagine a similar dynamic playing out aboard REBEL HEART, particularly with a spouse and mother as inexperienced as Charlotte... That's pure speculation, of course, perhaps we'll just have to wait for the book...


----------



## Yorksailor

The decision to take a small child trans-oceanic is obviously a parental decision and I think that it does not reach the level of governmental intervention. However, I personally, as a pediatric intensive care doctor and a sailor, do not think that the medical risk is acceptable.

If we take a serious but usually non-lethal pediatric problem like febrile seizures it is possible to fairly accurately calculate an estimate of the possibility of a child between the age of newborn and 5 years having a seizure that will result in unconsciousness. One study I have used followed 18,500 newborns for 5 years. (University of California, Berkeley).

The risk of a febrile seizure in any one month period for a child in the first 5 years of life is approximately 1 in 3000. Eric had two children in that age group so his chances of that problem were 1 in 1500. There are other studies that suggest the risk may be almost twice as high as the study I quote. And febrile seizures is just one of dozens of diseases a child can develop.

After 25 year of practicing high risk pediatric medicine and sailing, taking care of a pediatric seizure on a short handed boat in bad weather is more excitement than I would care to experience.


----------



## oceangirl

They told their story, retold in many cases. Rescuers confirm state of boat and crew. The implication that there is a grand cover up, especially a hysterical or unstable woman on her first open ocean crossing is quite insulting. Their story is dramatic enough without the embellishments.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Erica, most of us are from democracies. We are allowed to critically analyse situations. George Orwell's thought police never arrived.... And thats the way it ought to stay .


Mark


----------



## Coquina

Insulting but true as a far as I can tell.


----------



## oceangirl

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Erica, most of us are from democracies. We are allowed to critically analyse situations. George Orwell's thought police never arrived.... And thats the way it ought to stay .
> 
> Mark


Yes, great point. Does "democracy" end with the critics, or with countering the critics?

How bout my critical analyses of certain posts, implying the woman was hysterical, and therefore her fault that the boat was abandoned. This reeks of chovinism? Too critical?


----------



## night0wl

They had the right boat, they had the right equipment, they had the right preparation and experience. They also had bad luck with illness. I do question their (and all) parents who choose to take on the ocean with young children. Yes, its been done for generations...but never has it been considered mainstream or particularly safe. 

As a parent, your #1 job is to get a child to adult age, at a physical level. Anything that detracts from that primary purpose, well, it has to be considered heavily. I feel this responsibility so much now with my own daughter, now that I'm a parent. Any undue risk that could cause her harm, well, I try to minimize it! I'm not a helicopter parent by any means, but taking on the ocean is just a lot of risk of downside!


Theres a reason why ocean going men left their wife and children on shore as they plied the seas. This so called "hobby" or lifestyle of ours is not without its risks, and is certainly higher risk than safer land-side pursuit of staying in a house thats mortgaged to the hilt. As with all risks, there is always a probability that you lose...as in lose everything, including your life.


----------



## ravinracin

This thread. beating a horse to death. I don't think we are going to learn much more from this story. Let's let it go. There must be some subject more worthwhile than RH.


----------



## lowtide

> How bout my critical analyses of certain posts, implying the woman was hysterical, and therefore her fault that the boat was abandoned. This reeks of chovinism? Too critical?


I would say the events that caused the eventual demise of Rebel Heart occurred when they left Mexico unprepared, when no one was hysterical. Just not prepared for what predictably was ahead.

No one is being mean.

Actually, I think the opposite way. Beyond the decision to put herself and her children on board, it seems she bore almost no responsibility for the boat, passenger not crew. She really then didn't have knowledge/experience/say-so in the events that damaged the boat and systems.

And for the record, if I had never made a long passage, never been in a storm at sea, had 2 sick kids to tend, was washing messy diapers in the galley sink of a closed up boat, and could see no end in sight, I too would be hysterical. If I did that to my wife, the story would have included "then she came up the companionway with the biggest knife from the galley" or something to that effect.

The epirb went off because they left Mexico doomed, not because Charlotte was hysterical. Meeting with some foul weather on a 3500 mile passage shouldn't be a surprise, and isn't bad luck, it is to be expected, respected, and prepared for carefully.

'


----------



## JonEisberg

oceangirl said:


> They told their story, retold in many cases. Rescuers confirm state of boat and crew. The implication that there is a grand cover up, especially a hysterical or unstable woman on her first open ocean crossing is quite insulting. Their story is dramatic enough without the embellishments.


My apologies, my intent is not to "insult" anyone, or either gender  I thought I made it clear my point was purely speculative, and I was not meaning to characterize Charlotte's state as being "mentally unstable"...

However, are you suggesting such a prospect is not a possibility? I cited the example aboard TRIUMPH, where a woman with far more ocean sailing experience than Charlotte - and who had none of the additional stresses placed upon her by the sickness of her baby to deal with - still succumbed to a measure of extreme fright due to the perception that the boat was leaking, while they were hundreds of miles from the nearest land...

It's not like such things have not happened before, after all... Again, look to the RULE 62 tragedy, which from what little we know, was precipitated by their abandonment of the Caribbean 1500 after one of the crew (never identified by gender) became sufficiently 'unstable' as to become a concern. Reading Charlotte's blog, seems pretty obvious that was NOT a happy ship... When she raises the prospect of abandoning the plan of a circumnavigation 3 days out, I don't see it as being entirely beyond the realm of possibility that 12 days later, she may have reached the point where she simply wanted Off That Damn Boat... 

Just to show I'm not some chauvinist picking on the distaff sailors among us, an 'instablility' issue can easily arise with men, as well... During one of the ARC Rallies several years ago, a boat had to be abandoned after the crew became concerned for their own safety, due to the increasingly irrational behavior of the skipper...

The end of Compromise | Yachting World

Again, no intent to "insult" Charlotte was intended by raising this prospect. And my point has solely to do with her level of experience, nothing to do with her gender, or anything akin to her 'mental state'. But I believe it's a simple reality that among the majority of cruising couples out there, the male tends to be the more experienced (Yeah, I know, I can't produce any "data" to support that opinion  ) Given her lack of experience sailing offshore, coupled with the damage to the boat and the grave concern over the health of her child, such a reaction would not necessarily have been entirely unjustified or 'irrational', at all...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

oceangirl said:


> Yes, great point. Does "democracy" end with the critics, or with countering the critics?
> 
> How bout my critical analyses of certain posts, implying the woman was hysterical, and therefore her fault that the boat was abandoned. This reeks of chovinism? Too critical?


I think you have a right to say whatever you like.  I dont think its too critical for you to say you think some are too critical of Charlottes "hysteria". Mind you, I dont remember reading that word in any post. But what I did read in her own blog posts that she was clearly ultra uncomfortable.

I do think its a leap for anyone to think that any analysis is about fault finding. Its about learning what to do and what not to do when we are at sea. (Of which making a partner or crew psychologically comfortable is more important than many people think).

If we all sit around and say 'how terrible, lets knit them a tea-cosy' it does no good at all. Not the family, but especially not the people out there cruisng and the new people planning their cruise.

Its only by stiring the pot can we see all the elemnts of the stew these folks got themselves into, and out of. And we can not see much if people are stopped from questioning or analysing the information we know.

The "other" forum has a havpbit of closing threads when the analysis gets too heated. So a lot of good information is lost. Two thread of Rebel Heart have been closed because the Moderator have no capacity to adjudicate criticism for trolls. Through that lack of capacity they have destroyed all the posts written during the actual time of the rescue. So a lack of "free speach" has only lessened knowledge. Crazy.

I will write a different one re hysteria, etc.

Mark


----------



## titustiger27

ravinracin said:


> This thread. beating a horse to death. I don't think we are going to learn much more from this story. Let's let it go. There must be some subject more worthwhile than RH.


better to beat a dead seahorse ..


----------



## outbound

my boat's name means seahorse in Greek. please don't beat me and please don't let her ever die.
Did learn a few real good tidbits from this this thread. Will pay a great deal of attention as to which satphone to get and from which vendor. now know the questions to ask.


----------



## svHyLyte

outbound said:


> ...
> Did learn a few real good tidbits from this this thread. Will pay a great deal of attention as to which satphone to get and from which vendor. now know the questions to ask.


Rather a major issue that merits further investigation/explanation in my view.


----------



## chall03

Yorksailor said:


> The decision to take a small child trans-oceanic is obviously a parental decision and I think that it does not reach the level of governmental intervention. However, I personally, as a pediatric intensive care doctor and a sailor, do not think that the medical risk is acceptable.
> 
> If we take a serious but usually non-lethal pediatric problem like febrile seizures it is possible to fairly accurately calculate an estimate of the possibility of a child between the age of newborn and 5 years having a seizure that will result in unconsciousness. One study I have used followed 18,500 newborns for 5 years. (University of California, Berkeley).
> 
> The risk of a febrile seizure in any one month period for a child in the first 5 years of life is approximately 1 in 3000. Eric had two children in that age group so his chances of that problem were 1 in 1500. There are other studies that suggest the risk may be almost twice as high as the study I quote. And febrile seizures is just one of dozens of diseases a child can develop.
> 
> After 25 year of practicing high risk pediatric medicine and sailing, taking care of a pediatric seizure on a short handed boat in bad weather is more excitement than I would care to experience.


I do agree with you that you can cannot dismiss the medical risk involved in offshore sailing without giving it due cosnideration.

I have ran your example of febrile seizure past my wife the medical authority on our boat, and also a work friend of hers who is a pediatric resident in the emergency department.

They have offered up the following on your example of febrile seizure.

-Often there is an identified history or predisposition that would manifest.
- That in _most_ cases the seizures are self limited with no actual treatment required and that the treatment a major hospital would give (basic seizure response and IV Diazepam or lorazepam) could be administered aboard a sailboat by someone suitable trained on such a course as CYCA Medical Management for Mariners Course (MMM) - Cruising Yacht Club of Australia

-That while certainly unpleasant they are nearly never fatal and in fact there is very rarely any lasting effects.

As for there being a 1 of 3000 chance - I actually don't mind those odds. I will prepare as best I can to face this and other potential risks.

I wonder what the chance of an average suburban child being involved in a car accident would be?


----------



## smurphny

Mark is right on the money. Nobody learns anything when the "politically correct" police start deleting valid opinion and speculation.

Whether it was a factor here or not, a leaking boat is a major panic inducer. When the floorboards start floating it takes a great deal of self control to logically assess the situation. Those of us old enough to remember wood boats probably remember times like that. I surely do.

I would not go out in the ocean without *manual* pumps both in the cockpit and down below in addition to two electric pumps, one capable of moving a LOT of water. If this boat was not so equipped, IMO, it did not belong where it was.


----------



## SVAuspicious

smurphny said:


> Mark is right on the money. Nobody learns anything when the "politically correct" police start deleting valid opinion and speculation.


An opinion is an opinion. What makes one more valid than another? Generally the credibility of the speaker. Not everyone's opinion is of equal value.


----------



## JonEisberg

night0wl said:


> They had the right boat, they had the right equipment, they had the right preparation and experience.


I believe you may be vastly overestimating their prior "preparation and experience", particularly Charlotte's...

As for REBEL HEART being "the right boat", see below...



MarkofSeaLife said:


> If we all sit around and say 'how terrible, lets knit them a tea-cosy' it does no good at all. Not the family, but especially not the people out there cruisng and the new people planning their cruise.
> 
> Its only by stiring the pot can we see all the elemnts of the stew these folks got themselves into, and out of. And we can not see much if people are stopped from questioning or analysing the information we know.
> 
> The "other" forum has a havpbit of closing threads when the analysis gets too heated. So a lot of good information is lost. Two thread of Rebel Heart have been closed because the Moderator have no capacity to adjudicate criticism for trolls. Through that lack of capacity they have destroyed all the posts written during the actual time of the rescue. So a lack of "free speach" has only lessened knowledge. Crazy.
> 
> I will write a different one re hysteria, etc.
> 
> Mark


Yeah, I think that thread on CF is yet another one living on borrowed time 

As one who cut his teeth in the delivery business running Taiwanese-built boats of that vintage, I'm well aware of many of their shortcomings... But some of the stuff that Smackdaddy and others have unearthed from Eric's blog, and the extent to which plywood rot likely plagued that boat - Wow, just _WOW_...

Anyone who thinks that particular boat qualified as a "Bluewater Boat", dream on... Hell, your Beneteau is is infinitely more suitable for that passage, than that thing was, even after all the sweat and Elmer's Wood Filler he poured into it... 

You're absolutely spot on, Eric would have been far ahead of the game, if he'd simply bought any off-the-shelf GRP production HunteBeneLina and spent all those years _SAILING_ the damn thing, instead of wasting all that time trying to make this hole in the water 'whole'...


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, I think that thread on CF is yet another one living on borrowed time


Once Smack turned up it was all but doomed for closure 

_"umm I'm still learning about this whole sailing thing.... but I was wondering"._
Smack you crack me up. I didn't know where you were going with it all, I did think you were barking up the wrong tree, and yeah maybe you were but by the same token wow.



JonEisberg said:


> Anyone who thinks that particular boat qualified as a "Bluewater Boat", dream on... Hell, your Beneteau is is infinitely more suitable for that passage, than that thing was, even after all the sweat and Elmer's Wood Filler he poured into it...
> 
> You're absolutely spot on, Eric would have been far ahead of the game, if he'd simply bought any off-the-shelf GRP production HunteBeneLina and spent all those years _SAILING_ the damn thing, instead of wasting all that time trying to make this hole in the water 'whole'...


I think it is worth keeping in mind that they jumped ship because of a sick little girl not a bad boat. If others want to build conspiracy theories here go for it, i'm not going there.

However I think your right Jon. Good old boats aren't always good old boats. It is worth balancing the bashing of production boats going offshore with the fact that sometimes good old boats are well old and not necessarily 'bluewater'.


----------



## christian.hess

JonEisberg said:


> I believe you may be vastly overestimating their prior "preparation and experience", particularly Charlotte's...
> 
> As for REBEL HEART being "the right boat", see below...
> 
> Yeah, I think that thread on CF is yet another one living on borrowed time
> 
> As one who cut his teeth in the delivery business running Taiwanese-built boats of that vintage, I'm well aware of many of their shortcomings... But some of the stuff that Smackdaddy and others have unearthed from Eric's blog, and the extent to which plywood rot likely plagued that boat - Wow, just _WOW_...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that particular boat qualified as a "Bluewater Boat", dream on... Hell, your Beneteau is is infinitely more suitable for that passage, than that thing was, even after all the sweat and Elmer's Wood Filler he poured into it...
> 
> You're absolutely spot on, Eric would have been far ahead of the game, if he'd simply bought any off-the-shelf GRP production HunteBeneLina and spent all those years _SAILING_ the damn thing, instead of wasting all that time trying to make this hole in the water 'whole'...


this is EXACTLY what I saw on that union polaris I saw in panama that was abandoned

exactly this, all over...basically anythig that was wood had to be scrapped

imagine ones thought process when you think that installing a steel deck is easier and better than fixing the current one

when Im mean all the deck I mean all, oncluing cabin top sides, etc...

the amount for rot, dry rot I found was beyond repair...so if these guys had a boat with this it means the boat was UNFIT for cruising

especially regarding the wood toerail that acts as a hull deck joint for the reasons I mentioned a while back

basically its very possible to easily compromise the integrity of the hull and water intrusion of the toerail snapped off or broke as a result of the boom getting into the water in a wild gybe or whatever

to me it makes sense and the water leak absolutely could be caused by what he said...

anyways


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. Chall, that's my specialty dude!

You guys are both spot-on. This boat was a disaster. Even a knucklehead like me can see that. I've already laid out my summation over there that is exactly as you guys say: The vaunted "bluewater passage maker" that everyone always talks about can actually be a deathtrap unless you're willing to completely rebuild questionable areas. Newbs should know this.

We'll see where the thread goes from there. But as I said over there, I see a lot of myself in RH. And that's why I'm paying close attention to what and how he screwed up. I can totally see myself doing some of the same things. I'd much rather ask questions and get humiliated for my ignorance than use Elmer's Wood Filler as a structural component of my "bluewater boat". Just sayin'.


----------



## chall03

You are always learning and making mistakes. 

I have had to have a bit of a think about how we rig our preventer. It has always niggled me, but I have to admit now that because of this and the CF threads I have accepted our arrangement to be unwise. 

Morgan's Cloud have a great article on preventer setup, i'm reading that and I am going to do it properly.


----------



## sailvayu

For me I think this could have been a good learning opportunity because the main folks involved where active on the forums. Sadly it has turned into anything but that. 

For what ever reasons the information form Eric is vague and somewhat misleading with conflicting information.

He talks about the sat phone being suddenly cut off because the company decided with a weeks notice to change all their sim cards. I find this odd and did a google search and nothing. You would think if a company did this to all their customers as Eric implied (and maybe I got that wrong) there would be something about it online. Eric does not mention company name or I missed it. Anyway I would love to know what really happened here so the issue could be avoided by others or at least get a more reliable company.

The leak: Eric says his electric pumps could not keep up but yet it seems only 70 gallons a day and the rescue folks said it was not big deal. So why would the electric pumps not keep up? Even a small electric can easily handle 70 gallons a day. Once again it would be nice to know just what was up.

For some reason, despite a lengthy discussion on the other forum Eric has not said anything about the leak other than it was in the quarter and he tried to fix it and failed. Not a big deal but why not just explain it so everyone will understand. Maybe we could learn why the fix failed so that others could be better prepared for emergency repairs. 

The broach, there was no mention of this at first, maybe just an over sight by Eric. But once again even after long discussions he will not explain this in detail. 

I know Eric does not owe anyone anything and he is not required to explain anything but I do find it disappointing that he has been so vague and not taken the time to clear things up. Considering how critical he is of others it seems he could at least give the details and put this to bed. I my mind at least something just does not seem right about this. 

Personally I think he screwed up and the outcome proves that to be true. We all make mistakes and lord knows I have made my share so I do not mean to say he should be faulted for his mistakes. But the thing about mistakes is that once made we should learn from them. I do not think we are learning much from this episode though because we may never know just what really happened. Instead of learning we are left with a bunch of conflicting information and a ton of speculation. 

Just my two cents and we all know two cents aint worth much these days


----------



## outbound

Wife makes fun of me. Any time I see a boat I study it. ? Maybe they ran their lines differently? Maybe they have something else set up better? 
Any time on someone else's boat study what they do. Maybe they have better or easier way.

When you stop learning they had better have thrown dirt in your face first because they soon will.


----------



## sailvayu

Outbound, Ha I do the same thing and my wife used to make fun of me too, of course now she is my ex wife lol. I agree learning is a life long thing and makes life interesting.


----------



## lowtide

sailvayu said:


> I know Eric does not owe anyone anything and he is not required to explain anything but I do find it disappointing that he has been so vague and not taken the time to clear things up. Considering how critical he is of others it seems he could at least give the details and put this to bed. I my mind at least something just does not seem right about this.
> 
> Personally I think he screwed up and the outcome proves that to be true. We all make mistakes and lord knows I have made my share so I do not mean to say he should be faulted for his mistakes. But the thing about mistakes is that once made we should learn from them. I do not think we are learning much from this episode though because we may never know just what really happened. Instead of learning we are left with a bunch of conflicting information and a ton of speculation.
> 
> Just my two cents and we all know two cents aint worth much these days


Very well said. Exactly the reason I didn't let this thread die.

I fear the future book featuring the Kaufmans as heroes would be ruined by admitting to mistakes here, especially the kind that doomed the voyage before it began. It is not in my nature to "stir the pot" as Mark put it, but my bovine excrement meter pegged on too many elements of this story.

If you are going to participate here in critiquing others when they make mistakes, man up and fess up when it's you.

It is also kinda insulting when someone tries to sell us a steaming load, knowing that it's not going to fool anyone here. The truth would have been welcomed with open arms. Maybe the NPR listeners and potential non sailing book buyers don't know any better, but we do.

It's not as if we are not respecting their privacy, as they blogged things far more intimate than any of cared to know. TMI on several counts. Closing the floodgates now only smacks of the guilty taking the 5th indignantly. How dare you even ask.

Just my 2 cents, too.

'


----------



## smackdaddy

MarkJ said:


> Oh, I think I intended to discuss this in my oost and forgot... And it was getting long anyways
> 
> Thats not what I call broaching. What do you call it? Its a "knock down", or "knocked on ones beam ends", "fall off a wave", A small one "pushed about"?
> When a wave hits you and chucks you on your side, or slews you around. Or as Phil pointed out, it can cause a broach if it lifts the rudder, or white water is under the rudder so it cavitates and the boat comes up to wind.
> 
> When the waves are big enough and breaking dangerously enough for the boat to be knocked down then one must do one of three basic things: de-power the boat, change the angle of the boats attack to the waves, heave to, or run off.
> You just can't keep going because a knock down can break the brandy balloons below!
> 
> Even the milder ones where I get pushed about by a wave I wonder at the exponential increase in pressure on the rudder.
> 
> Mark


This is a good point - that you made over on CF. But that thread turned into a MoronFest - so I'll bring it over here where the sailors are.

It's yet another red flag to me on this whole story. RH doesn't seem to have a firm grip of the terminology. Sure, I get quarter and bow mixed up too - but I don't have a license.

The discrepancies between their stories, his unwillingness to provide details - this whole things just seems like they had no real idea what they were doing and were willing to take pretty outrageous gambles with everyone's lives. When the baby is the one that actually has to step in to save the family, something's not right.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> This is a good point - that you made over on CF. But that thread turned into a MoronFest - so I'll bring it over here where the sailors are.


Glad to see you back. BS was getting lonely.

Too much time over there and you would have had to trade the Hunter in on a 56' Cat and join the Carib 1500 



smackdaddy said:


> It's yet another red flag to me on this whole story. RH doesn't seem to have a firm grip of the terminology. Sure, I get quarter and bow mixed up too - but I don't have a license.


Mark's point is valid, but your taking it a step too far. Eric knows his stuff, maybe it is more knowledge than hard earned experience, but Eric is a good sailor. The broach business came up in an interview. Maybe there was some confusion, maybe some exaggeration or simply the interviewer kinda got it kinda wrong and Eric rolled with it.

It isn't a smoking gun either way. Sorry. It just isn't really anything.



smackdaddy said:


> The discrepancies between their stories, his unwillingness to provide details - .....


Smack, Eric came back onto CF weeks after losing his boat and answered a bunch of questions. He gave a firsthand account, filled in plenty of details and copped a bunch of crap.

How often in these incidents does a skipper come back to a forum to allow that level of scrutiny? He has my respect for doing it.

Yeah he didn't answer some of your specific questions. Clearly something to the hull/deck issue, but again so what.



smackdaddy said:


> this whole things just seems like they had no real idea what they were doing and were willing to take pretty outrageous gambles with everyone's lives. When the baby is the one that actually has to step in to save the family, something's not right.


How do you get to that rather alarmist and condemning conclusion?

What 'outrageous gambles' were they taking in your opinion? 
Why do you feel 'they had no real idea" ?

My impression is that they were well prepared. Not in a perfect boat, but a good one that was well outfitted.

You seem determined to find a smoking gun, a reason to nail these guys and declare that they didn't know what they were doing and that is why they got hammered.

The truth is harder to take but more based in reality.

Rebel Heart didn't do anything necessarily wrong, they took risks, but we all take risks, in their case they rolled the dice and lost.


----------



## Minnewaska

Everytime I come into the slip, I think I could have done something a bit differently. It's a part of sailing. No doubt, if I lost my boat at sea, my mind would be full of those thoughts. I assume the same for the Rebel Heart crew. Again, I would not have chosen to take my infant children on that cruise, but I see no clear damnation that no one should have. It's their call and I believe more do so successfully under their circumstances than don't. That's admittedly an assumption. 

However, inconsistent details are not surprising. There has to be something these guys wish they did differently and may not be fully forthcoming. I don't really have a problem with that. They don't owe us a glance, let alone an explanation. 

Yes, there was risk in what they set to do. It was not the insane risk of sailing the Bounty into a hurricane, but it was a risk beyond what many would have taken on. I still consider it inside the band of a decision they had a right to make for themselves and their children.


----------



## lowtide

Well prepared?

With absolutely 0 practice/shakedown/experience in heavy weather offshore?

With passengers who had never been offshore in any big weather?

In a boat with known unaddressed issues?

With passengers still/just finished taking antibiotics for serious issues?

With untested (in conditions) self-steering totally relied upon in heavy conditions?

If that was prepared, it was prepared for the rescue flight.

I'm sorry, but the apologists and distractors have got to get a dose of reality here. They clearly were not prepared, and if they had faced a real Pacific storm, they would likely have been lost. They faced weather one should expect to see somewhere along the way, and were not ready.

Prepared? 

'


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Glad to see you back. BS was getting lonely.
> 
> Too much time over there and you would have had to trade the Hunter in on a 56' Cat and join the Carib 1500


At least it's not the Salty Dawg Rally.



chall03 said:


> How do you get to that rather alarmist and condemning conclusion?
> 
> What 'outrageous gambles' were they taking in your opinion?
> Why do you feel 'they had no real idea" ?
> 
> My impression is that they were well prepared. Not in a perfect boat, but a good one that was well outfitted.
> 
> You seem determined to find a smoking gun, a reason to nail these guys and declare that they didn't know what they were doing and that is why they got hammered.


Hey, smoking guns are what I do. I'm a tabloid poster.

Seriously, I reach my opinion-laced-conclusions based on what he posted regarding his work on the boat and the details of the incident. Nothing more. You are welcome to the opinion that a CG Licensed Captain is "well prepared" when he uses Elmer's Wood Filler as an exterior marine-grade repair material, then chooses to neglect more than 10% of his leaking deck that is rotten enough for it to be crumbling in his hand, then heads off for a several-thousand mile passage, the first leg of a _circumnavigation_, in this very questionable boat with essentially 3 clueless passengers - _then those decks fail in the first rough weather they face_ and their lives are threatened. If that's how you define "well-prepared" - we don't agree on the definition.

You've been around me long enough to know that I almost never hammer guys that get caught out. I usually _defend_ them (Ronnie Simpson ring a bell?).

This is different purely because of what this guy _did know and should have known with his credentials_ coupled with the stakes of (allegedly) taking his young, inexperienced family into _his_ gamble that those rotten decks and Elmer's Wood Filler would hold up long enough for a quick sail around the world.

Ronnie Simpson, a guy who'd never sailed before, bought an old boat and the rudder failed when he hit bad weather. He didn't know about the questionable rudder stock (likely didn't even know what one was). It was just him in his gamble.

Judging by his blog, RH, a _sailing Captain_, apparently knew about those decks that failed before he cast off with his young family.

Different kettle of hamsters.

Raw Faith (and deferred maintenance) will only get you so far.


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> Well prepared?
> 
> With absolutely 0 practice/shakedown/experience in heavy weather offshore?
> 
> '


7-8 Years cruising and living on the boat. That wasn't a shakedown?



lowtide said:


> With passengers who had never been offshore in any big weather?
> 
> '


Plenty of boats sailing across the Pacific with people on board with no previous experience offshore in 'big weather'. That is how one get's experience sailing offshore in big weather.



lowtide said:


> In a boat with known unaddressed issues?
> 
> '


Every boat has some known unaddressed issues somehwere or other. The judgement call is in figuring out what needs addressing and what doesn't. It would appear that made a mistake here. Mistakes though are what generally makes us better sailors. Their's bit them in the bum.



lowtide said:


> With untested (in conditions) self-steering totally relied upon in heavy conditions?
> 
> '


So you missed where Eric tested the Hydrovane in the Sea of Cortez? Or that they also had an autopilot?? Or that a boat like that would of probably been pretty balanced with a lashed wheel anyway???



lowtide said:


> If that was prepared, it was prepared for the rescue flight.
> 
> '


Clever. I see what you did there.



lowtide said:


> They clearly were not prepared, and if they had faced a real Pacific storm, they would likely have been lost. '


A 'real pacific storm'?????


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> .
> 
> Seriously, I reach my opinion-laced-conclusions based on what he posted regarding his work on the boat and the details of the incident. Nothing more. You are welcome to the opinion that a CG Licensed Captain is "well prepared" when he uses Elmer's Wood Filler as an exterior marine-grade repair material, then chooses to neglect more than 10% of his leaking deck that is rotten enough for it to be crumbling in his hand, then heads off for a several-thousand mile passage, the first leg of a _circumnavigation_, in this very questionable boat with essentially 3 clueless passengers - _then those decks fail in the first rough weather they face_ and their lives are threatened. If that's how you define "well-prepared" - we don't agree on the definition.
> 
> You've been around me long enough to know that I almost never hammer guys that get caught out. I usually _defend_ them (Ronnie Simpson ring a bell?).
> 
> This is different purely because of what this guy _did know and should have known with his credentials_ coupled with the stakes of (allegedly) taking his young, inexperienced family into _his_ gamble that those rotten decks and Elmer's Wood Filler would hold up long enough for a quick sail around the world.
> 
> Ronnie Simpson, a guy who'd never sailed before, bought an old boat and the rudder failed when he hit bad weather. He didn't know about the questionable rudder stock (likely didn't even know what one was). It was just him in his gamble.
> 
> Judging by his blog, RH, a _sailing Captain_, apparently knew about those decks that failed before he cast off with his young family.
> 
> Different kettle of hamsters.


No denying that the rotten deck was a monumental fluff up. No argument here at all. A good lesson, postpoing necessary maintenance does bite you in the bum.

As a father though, I can only believe that if for a minute Eric thought it would undo them they would not have left the dock.

Other than that IMHO they set that boat up well, with good gear. That is what I call well prepared.

So Ronnie is a hero cause he was utterly clueless and these guys get crucified because they were in your opinion half clueless??

I think it is drawing a long bow to go from some shoddy maintenance to declaring that they had no real idea what they were doing and were deliberately gambling with their childrens lives. They made some mistakes they are learning from them and I believe have every intention of getting back out there again. That takes real stones.


----------



## christian.hess

these threads just keep getting more dumb and opinionated by the day

one thing I find amusing and sad is how vociferous some are that have never even sailed the open ocean themselves, on their boat, on others etc...

its like the vociferousness comes from the fear of not actually having done it...so you must yell louder so it rings more true or something...

its simply baffling...and sad


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> So Ronnie is a hero cause he was utterly clueless and these guys get crucified because they were in your opinion half clueless??


No - my point was that Ronnie didn't know anything was wrong before he set out. RH did (apparently). Big, big difference.



chall03 said:


> They made some mistakes they are learning from them and I believe have every intention of getting back out there again. That takes real stones.


I agree with this completely. I hope they get back out there too. I can almost guarantee they won't make the same mistakes twice.

To me this is a brilliant case study of how you can focus on all the "right things" to check off your list - yet neglect _that very obvious thing staring you in the face every day_ - the very thing that will do you in.


----------



## Shinook

Why is everyone focusing on the mechanical issues, as though that is what doomed the passage? 

That wasn't what doomed the trip, the little girl getting sick and needing emergency care is what caused them to bail. Both the RH crew and the rescuers indicated that the boat would have continued along fine if their girl had not gotten sick, none of the issues aboard were severe enough for them to call for help. 

According to rescuers, they only had to pump water out for a few minutes out of each day. They also indicated there were no steering problems with the boat, as was reported by the media.


----------



## chall03

Shinook said:


> Why is everyone focusing on the mechanical issues, as though that is what doomed the passage?
> 
> That wasn't what doomed the trip, the little girl getting sick and needing emergency care is what caused them to bail. Both the RH crew and the rescuers indicated that the boat would have continued along fine if their girl had not gotten sick, none of the issues aboard were severe enough for them to call for help.
> 
> According to rescuers, they only had to pump water out for a few minutes out of each day. They also indicated there were no steering problems with the boat, as was reported by the media.


Because some want to find a smoking gun here. They want to be able to say that these guys were bad sailors and tut tut in their direction.

Smack's little deck drama was perhaps a contributing factor, certainly a good lesson to rest of us, but NOT the issue.

Rebel Heart got unlucky. It could of been a 60 year old having a heart attack or it could of been an brand new Amel losing it's mast.

It sucks but it's sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shinook said:


> Why is everyone focusing on the mechanical issues, as though that is what doomed the passage?
> 
> That wasn't what doomed the trip, the little girl getting sick and needing emergency care is what caused them to bail. *Both the RH crew and the rescuers indicated that the boat would have continued along fine if their girl had not gotten sick, none of the issues aboard were severe enough for them to call for help. *
> 
> According to rescuers, they only had to pump water out for a few minutes out of each day. They also indicated there were no steering problems with the boat, as was reported by the media.


That bolded part isn't true - according to RH's own continually evolving account (see the thread over on CF). Sure they all said that in the beginning - in terms of the boat being able to _sail_. But the 60-70 gallon/day leak was causing the electrics to go down - and that was leading to (among other things like losing comms) losing the watermaker....hence, according to RH himself, _they were running out of drinking water_ (they apparently had relatively minimal tankage). Furthermore, their charging capability was apparently pretty minimal in the first place (e.g. - low supply of diesel for engine recharging, damage to solar panels, etc.). So, assuming they could even fix the problems caused by the salt water intrusion into the electrics in the first place, keeping everything running was definitely questionable.

So, if you add all this up and factor in the fact that RH says they still had about 3 weeks to go to make landfall (which he - alarmingly in my opinion - insisted he could've still done)...with no water and no means to make it...no comms...and a boat that was coming apart...the sick girl was actually a blessing, letting them avoid what would have likely been much worse had they continued.


----------



## fryewe

I don't desire to flail at this topic too much more because the point of diminishing returns was hit a while ago due to reticence to fill in the blanks by those who can...but I will simply say this...

...the toddler was getting better.
...the boat was getting sicker.
...the crew was sick of it.

The end result is what it is.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> No - my point was that Ronnie didn't know anything was wrong before he set out. RH did (apparently). Big, big difference.


I just found this... 

Associated Press
21st May 2014
San Diego

*Cruising family begins event free circumnavigation.
*
Charles and Erica of the _SV Larggard Heart_ a Swan 90 have recently arrived in New Zealand with their children Tom( 36) and Billy(30) aboard.

"It was just lovely." said Charles. "We've been working very hard for this day for over 30 years."

"Ever since Billy was born we had a dream of seeing the world as a family and having a safe and risk free family adventure". said Erica a soccer mum.

After using their entire life savings and grandma's inheritance in purchasing the Swan, they spent a decade outfitting the vessel and ensuring it was as safe as could be. 
"we really wanted to leave sooner but everytime we did Cruising World would feature a new model EPIRB, life jacket or Dan Buoy and leaving without it would of made us irresponsible parents"

Concerned what complete strangers on the internet thought, they sensibly kept waiting until Tom and Billy were then old enough to have completed their Yachtmaster (Ocean) qualifications and sign legal declarations that they were active participants in the dream. " We also didn't want to leave until all the internet forums thought it was the right thing to do". However having bought a Swan by then the teak decks were showing signs of wear from the boots of the ISAF safety auditor.

"Prudently we did the only thing we could, we hired a fulltime shipwright to keep the SV Laggard Heart in bristol condition" stated Charles. Even then everytime they tried to leave a cupboard handle would fail or a bungee cord would come loose.

"With the Shipwright, the doctor, the nurse, the security personnel, the mechanic, electrician, rigger and pharmacist onboard for most passages, we were able to maintain 2 hour watches the whole trip and had time to caulk during the off watch"

Unfortunately due to poor vaccination records in most Pacific nations, poor electronic cartography and no certified Volvo Penta dealers they were unable to stop anywhere "the Palm tree's looked nice in the distance though " said Billy.

_* Tom was unavailable for comment as after arriving safely and prudently in New Zealand he caught a cold and was then kicked in the nuts by a sheep and is in hospital recovering. 
_


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> I just found this...
> 
> Associated Press
> 21st May 2014
> San Diego
> 
> *Cruising family begins event free circumnavigation.
> *
> Charles and Erica of the _SV Larggard Heart_ a Swan 90 have recently arrived in New Zealand with their children Tom( 36) and Billy(30) aboard.
> 
> "It was just lovely." said Charles. "We've been working very hard for this day for over 30 years."
> 
> "Ever since Billy was born we had a dream of seeing the world as a family and having a safe and risk free family adventure". said Erica a soccer mum.
> 
> After using their entire life savings and grandma's inheritance in purchasing the Swan, they spent a decade outfitting the vessel and ensuring it was as safe as could be.
> "we really wanted to leave sooner but everytime we did Cruising World would feature a new model EPIRB, life jacket or Dan Buoy and leaving without it would of made us irresponsible parents"
> 
> Concerned what complete strangers on the internet thought, they sensibly kept waiting until Tom and Billy were then old enough to have completed their Yachtmaster (Ocean) qualifications and sign legal declarations that they were active participants in the dream. " We also didn't want to leave until all the internet forums thought it was the right thing to do". However having bought a Swan by then the teak decks were showing signs of wear from the boots of the ISAF safety auditor.
> 
> "Prudently we did the only thing we could, we hired a fulltime shipwright to keep the SV Laggard Heart in bristol condition" stated Charles. Even then everytime they tried to leave a cupboard handle would fail or a bungee cord would come loose.
> 
> "With the Shipwright, the doctor, the nurse, the security personnel, the mechanic, electrician, rigger and pharmacist onboard for most passages, we were able to maintain 2 hour watches the whole trip and had time to caulk during the off watch"
> 
> Unfortunately due to poor vaccination records in most Pacific nations, poor electronic cartography and no certified Volvo Penta dealers they were unable to stop anywhere "the Palm tree's looked nice in the distance though " said Billy.
> 
> _* Tom was unavailable for comment as after arriving safely and prudently in New Zealand he caught a cold and was then kicked in the nuts by a sheep and is in hospital recovering.
> _


Now THAT is some brilliant prose.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Now THAT is some brilliant prose.


Not as good as the original. Excuse the plagiarism


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Priceless


----------



## smackdaddy

And in the spirit of AFOCers-gone-by (related to your prose above - and a reason this whole thing is a bit different than the glowing light lots of people cast it in)...here is a quote from RH himself over on CF where he was castigating a kucklehead that got himself rescued:



rebel heart said:


> How long until someone here defends him with an argument such as: Hey guys, stop attacking him! He's out there doing it!


See? It's just the natural order of things.

Or how about this...



rebel heart said:


> It's not over yet. The two options are:
> 
> - He sells it to ..... someone who's going to do what with it exactly? It can't be "fixed up".
> 
> - He abandons it, and then it ends up on the tax payer's dime.
> 
> There's no way this ends happy. It will get hauled, chopped, and thrown into a landfill. The only questions are how much longer and who will foot the bill.


Better yet, this classic exchange...



> Ocean Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing about him selling this boat, the vultures may just leave him and his family alone.
> 
> Rebel you plan on buying this boat? No? Why are you emailing him questions like you are a buyer?
> 
> I hope everyone here gets a shot at a crazy dream, defy the know it alls, and I hope it makes you better for it.
> 
> Peace to him and the vultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rebel heart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a small, petty man and enjoy schadenfreude.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Many, many more examples of how schadenfreude really sucks.


----------



## lowtide

I'm not going to bother with most of the post with all the quotes, but I will address the obvious.

First of all, 100 years living aboard their boat and making short hops in fair weather is definitely NOT preparation for facing heavy weather at sea. Not for the crew, and certainly not for the boat. If you don't understand why, it's because you've never faced heavy weather at sea.

For those who haven't, captain Ron is kinda right, if it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen when the snot whips up. Fittings, rigging, sails, and even Elmer's wood filler might all seem perfectly fine when the wind is 15 on the beam, for months on end. An hour in the snot will expose the flaws that years of light air never would. 

So no, their years living on the boat was not in any way preparation for facing challenging circumstances far offshore.

As for all boats having known unaddressed issues, that is true. However, in most cases, these are minor issues, not affecting the watertight integrity or safety of the vessel or crew. In this case, there were major issues that directly affected the watertight integrity and safety of the vessel and crew. 

Also, minor issues are not a big deal on most boats, because they will never venture far offshore. When you plan on being in the middle of the ocean, non-issues for the coastal boat now are paramount.

You have to have water to live. There is no substitute for tankage, preferably in more than one tank, so that one failure can't take all of your water. Power dependent devices like water makers are fine for coastal boats as they are never far from a hose. In the middle of an ocean, an emergency supply of real, already made water is a pretty big deal.

What they experienced was just the passage of a front, not even a gale. It is to be expected on such a lengthy passage, maybe even more than one or two. They did not face a major storm. The winds they faced would be no problem in my boat, or even in Smack's Hunter.  A real Pacific storm would have smashed that boat to bits. It would have opened up that rotten hull/deck joint like a can of sardines, and 4 lives would have been lost. 70 gallons a day would have become 70 gallons a WAVE, and that don't last long. 

I wouldn't have taken that boat 10 miles offshore, much less 1,000.

'


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> I'm not going to bother with most of the post with all the quotes, but I will address the obvious.
> 
> First of all, 100 years living aboard their boat and making short hops in fair weather is definitely NOT preparation for facing heavy weather at sea. Not for the crew, and certainly not for the boat. If you don't understand why, it's because you've never faced heavy weather at sea.
> 
> For those who haven't, captain Ron is kinda right, if it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen when the snot whips up. Fittings, rigging, sails, and even Elmer's wood filler might all seem perfectly fine when the wind is 15 on the beam, for months on end. An hour in the snot will expose the flaws that years of light air never would.
> 
> So no, their years living on the boat was not in any way preparation for facing challenging circumstances far offshore.
> 
> As for all boats having known unaddressed issues, that is true. However, in most cases, these are minor issues, not affecting the watertight integrity or safety of the vessel or crew. In this case, there were major issues that directly affected the watertight integrity and safety of the vessel and crew.
> 
> Also, minor issues are not a big deal on most boats, because they will never venture far offshore. When you plan on being in the middle of the ocean, non-issues for the coastal boat now are paramount.
> 
> You have to have water to live. There is no substitute for tankage, preferably in more than one tank, so that one failure can't take all of your water. Power dependent devices like water makers are fine for coastal boats as they are never far from a hose. In the middle of an ocean, an emergency supply of real, already made water is a pretty big deal.
> 
> What they experienced was just the passage of a front, not even a gale. It is to be expected on such a lengthy passage, maybe even more than one or two. They did not face a major storm. The winds they faced would be no problem in my boat, or even in Smack's Hunter.  A real Pacific storm would have smashed that boat to bits. It would have opened up that rotten hull/deck joint like a can of sardines, and 4 lives would have been lost. 70 gallons a day would have become 70 gallons a WAVE, and that don't last long.
> 
> I wouldn't have taken that boat 10 miles offshore, much less 1,000.
> 
> '


Yeah but the cushions were real nice.  No doubting the boat had problems. To the extent your making out? I'm not sure we will know that. It's conjecture.

I get living on a boat for years isn't beating to windward in 45 knots.They do talk about a few shakedown passages in their blog, my assumption being that in that time of living on her they have sailed it some. Again I'm not sure you can categorically declare that Eric never sailed in the rough stuff unless you are privy to information that I am not.

You and captain Ron are right you don't know until you are out there, they got out there and now they know 
Maybe the next boat will be a Hunter 40?


----------



## aeventyr60

chall03 said:


> I just found this...
> 
> Associated Press
> 21st May 2014
> San Diego
> 
> *Cruising family begins event free circumnavigation.
> *
> Charles and Erica of the _SV Larggard Heart_ a Swan 90 have recently arrived in New Zealand with their children Tom( 36) and Billy(30) aboard.
> 
> "It was just lovely." said Charles. "We've been working very hard for this day for over 30 years."
> 
> "Ever since Billy was born we had a dream of seeing the world as a family and having a safe and risk free family adventure". said Erica a soccer mum.
> 
> After using their entire life savings and grandma's inheritance in purchasing the Swan, they spent a decade outfitting the vessel and ensuring it was as safe as could be.
> "we really wanted to leave sooner but everytime we did Cruising World would feature a new model EPIRB, life jacket or Dan Buoy and leaving without it would of made us irresponsible parents"
> 
> Concerned what complete strangers on the internet thought, they sensibly kept waiting until Tom and Billy were then old enough to have completed their Yachtmaster (Ocean) qualifications and sign legal declarations that they were active participants in the dream. " We also didn't want to leave until all the internet forums thought it was the right thing to do". However having bought a Swan by then the teak decks were showing signs of wear from the boots of the ISAF safety auditor.
> 
> "Prudently we did the only thing we could, we hired a fulltime shipwright to keep the SV Laggard Heart in bristol condition" stated Charles. Even then everytime they tried to leave a cupboard handle would fail or a bungee cord would come loose.
> 
> "With the Shipwright, the doctor, the nurse, the security personnel, the mechanic, electrician, rigger and pharmacist onboard for most passages, we were able to maintain 2 hour watches the whole trip and had time to caulk during the off watch"
> 
> Unfortunately due to poor vaccination records in most Pacific nations, poor electronic cartography and no certified Volvo Penta dealers they were unable to stop anywhere "the Palm tree's looked nice in the distance though " said Billy.
> 
> _* Tom was unavailable for comment as after arriving safely and prudently in New Zealand he caught a cold and was then kicked in the nuts by a sheep and is in hospital recovering.
> _


Chall,

I thought you were going to keep my story a secret!


----------



## lowtide

> Yeah but the cushions were real nice. No doubting the boat had problems. To the extent your making out? I'm not sure we will know that. It's conjecture.


Conjecture?

Eric tells us and shows us pictures of the wooden hull/deck joint totally rotted. He tells us he didn't even try to remove all of it, and repaired what he did remove with Elmer's wood filler. None of that is conjecture.

None of his repairs could possibly bear the weight of any substantial water. The wood that was not removed also could not. In addition to connecting the hull and deck to keep water out, it is also the connection structurally. When solidly connected to the deck, the hull is braced by the deck so it doesn't flex under lateral loads applied, like waves. Without the deck solidly connected the hull is no longer braced by it's "top bulkhead", and can now flex inward, or break under the enormous loads. The loads applied in big seas are enormous. None of that is conjecture.



> I get living on a boat for years isn't beating to windward in 45 knots.They do talk about a few shakedown passages in their blog, my assumption being that in that time of living on her they have sailed it some. Again I'm not sure you can categorically declare that Eric never sailed in the rough stuff unless you are privy to information that I am not.


All of the passages in the blog are fair weather, and the longest hop didn't include the crew at all. A comfortable beam reach won't do much to test your preventer or it's hardware or the rot it's connected to. Not 10,000 miles of it. It won't test whether your type of self steering gear will steer your boat when the forces are multiplied. It won't test the mettle of the crew, nor the stamina of the singlehanded skipper in rough conditions.

I never said anything about what kind of experience Eric has, and frankly don't think it matters. What we do know is that Eric and his crew never had RH in any heavy weather,unless you think they did it and didn't blog about it.

'


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> Conjecture?
> 
> Eric tells us and shows us pictures of the wooden hull/deck joint totally rotted. He tells us he didn't even try to remove all of it, and repaired what he did remove with Elmer's wood filler. None of that is conjecture.
> 
> None of his repairs could possibly bear the weight of any substantial water. The wood that was not removed also could not. In addition to connecting the hull and deck to keep water out, it is also the connection structurally. When solidly connected to the deck, the hull is braced by the deck so it doesn't flex under lateral loads applied, like waves. Without the deck solidly connected the hull is no longer braced by it's "top bulkhead", and can now flex inward, or break under the enormous loads. The loads applied in big seas are enormous. None of that is conjecture.


Actually it is precisely that.

*Conjecture*.

_noun_
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

No one can say for sure here on the interwebs on the basis of a few blog posts that the boat was doomed cause of the hull deck issue.

Eric himself said he could of continued to sail the boat, maybe he was wrong, given the information available I certainly have my doubts but I personally am just choosing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Same goes for a real shakedown, he has stated previously that not everything is in the blog, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that if he set out on that passage with his family onboard he was reasonably confident in their vessel and their ability to sail it.


----------



## lowtide

Would you risk your family's lives on that boat, honestly? After seeing the pictures Eric himself posted, I would hope not, or the Navy is going to be very busy.

Hopefully people trying to learn here won't take the apologists seriously and think it's fine to undertake a 3500 mile voyage under those circumstances. That is after all the purpose of these forums, to disseminate knowledge, coddling friends is Hallmark's business.

BTW, the silly "we can't know anything unless we have all the facts" argument logically means we can never know anything. Rene' Descartes covered it long ago. All the jails should be empty, because we never have all of the facts on a criminal case. We should not get up in the morning because we don't know everything that will happen today. These forums should be immediately eliminated, because we can never know everything about anything, making them a certain waste of time. Analysis of anything at all is always pointless, as imperfect humans we simply never have all the facts, we are not omniscient.

Eric has never been shy about analyzing these situations, so take his word for it, it's OK. Search posts by user and see for yourself. 

So please tell us you'd point that boat towards 3500 miles of open water, with your babies aboard. I forgot, you really can't even know whether you would or wouldn't, or even if you are really reading this. Poor Descarte.

'


----------



## Shinook

smackdaddy said:


> So, if you add all this up and factor in the fact that RH says they still had about 3 weeks to go to make landfall (which he - alarmingly in my opinion - insisted he could've still done)...with no water and no means to make it...no comms...and a boat that was coming apart...the sick girl was actually a blessing, letting them avoid what would have likely been much worse had they continued.


People have been crossing oceans long before watermakers existed, there are other ways of gathering water aside from using electrical devices. Whether that would be functionally acceptable for 2 adults and 2 children is a matter of opinion. I have mine, you have yours, but I can say that mine isn't formed by experience crossing oceans but based on reading, so it doesn't mean much. In what little I've learned over the years, I've found that (the science of it aside) reading provides some food for thought, but that real world experience often differs from what I have read in books.

The only reason I am intent that they could have continued is the confidence that the rescue crew had in their ability to make the journey. During the press conference, they seemed pretty convinced that they could have continued on without issue had the girl not been sick. Given the number of rescues they perform, I'd think their opinion would weigh pretty heavily.

All that said, I have to admit, I am curious how many modern production boats would survive the event they went through. A knockdown or broach can be pretty stressful on any boat, new or old, and I'm curious if the condition and age of the boat really played a role in the damage or not. If you took a Hunter/Catalina/Beneteau/whatever out in the same conditions and exposed it to the same stress, would it have escaped damage free? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm legitimately curious.

I also have to admit that this entire thread, despite what I feel is the misfocus on mechanical failure, has lead me to look at our own boat and wonder what the first thing to go is. It seems to me that in the incidents we've seen lately, "<word here> happens" is appropriate and there is nothing you can do about it, something will fail and hopefully you've mitigated it. In my opinion, the loss of a well maintained/newer production boat in the Atlantic due to what appears to be a lost keel is further evidence that something will eventually give and proper preparation is, with some exceptions, more an effort of mitigating failures than preventing them.


----------



## christian.hess

you do realize(second to last post) most coastal cruisers NEVER put their boats to the test simply because the conditions never require it...conditions are boring...light, shifty, etc...

most guys hoping from california down the coast can experience easy going conditions all the way to panama with the exception of maybe tehuantepec and or some papagayos in central america

so some can never really know how their boat will handle or unhandle if you will in tough conditions

so how can some TEST their boats if they can never get those perfect storm conditions?

sometimes you cant, so you go for it

all this talk of shakedown cruise and lack of it is kind of nonsensical...

you dont shakedown crossing the atlantic in winter do you...no you shakedown hopping down the us east coast or do a bahama trip or maybe some fiddling in the carribean so when it does come time to cross you are better prepared mentally...

I understand the point about the family having less experience and such but this is getting a bit ridiculous


----------



## christian.hess

Shinook said:


> *In what little I've learned over the years, I've found that (the science of it aside) reading provides some food for thought, but that real world experience often differs from what I have read in books.*


BINGO this is the essence of cruising...or learning

all this talk is gibberish and will absolutely do nothing for you once out there...

its the little and big things you learn while out there and how to handle them PHYSICALLY with a cool mind that will help you or not

arguing semantics is beyond futile...while this thread has opened some minds and offered some advice most 99 percent of it is infantile gibberish...

what can you take from this thread?

check you hull deck joint?
if you have a lot of wood on your boat dont fill with elmers glue or leave it alone
if you have dry rot fix it...
dont broach ever
if you have kids make sure they have an intensive care unit beside them at all times, you know just cause

if your wife seems unhappy when starting the cruise maybe turn back and have her flown to the next port

dont rely on sim cards on satelite phones(thats some knowleadge right there huh) they are like damn cell phone carriers now

and thats about it...

oh dont take a bamboo stick for a whisker pole:laugher

other than that what is all this knowleadge and disseminating facts and myths Im reading about?

honestly

if anyone is out there looking for info on cruising and searching these threads for help and knowleadge to help them better prepare RUN

RUN NOW!

Your brain will explode...

peace


----------



## smackdaddy

lowtide said:


> Would you risk your family's lives on that boat, honestly? After seeing the pictures Eric himself posted, I would hope not, or the Navy is going to be very busy.
> 
> Hopefully people trying to learn here won't take the apologists seriously and think it's fine to undertake a 3500 mile voyage under those circumstances. That is after all the purpose of these forums, to disseminate knowledge, coddling friends is Hallmark's business.
> 
> BTW, the silly "we can't know anything unless we have all the facts" argument logically means we can never know anything. Rene' Descartes covered it long ago. All the jails should be empty, because we never have all of the facts on a criminal case. We should not get up in the morning because we don't know everything that will happen today. These forums should be immediately eliminated, because we can never know everything about anything, making them a certain waste of time. Analysis of anything at all is always pointless, as imperfect humans we simply never have all the facts, we are not omniscient.
> 
> Eric has never been shy about analyzing these situations, so take his word for it, it's OK. Search posts by user and see for yourself.
> 
> So please tell us you'd point that boat towards 3500 miles of open water, with your babies aboard. I forgot, you really can't even know whether you would or wouldn't, or even if you are really reading this. Poor Descarte.
> 
> '


Okay - that's good. Nicely played tide.

BTW - Descarte has a forum? I hung out on Nietzsche's for a while but it was really boring.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shinook said:


> People have been crossing oceans long before watermakers existed, there are other ways of gathering water aside from using electrical devices. Whether that would be functionally acceptable for 2 adults and 2 children is a matter of opinion. I have mine, you have yours, but I can say that mine isn't formed by experience crossing oceans but based on reading, so it doesn't mean much. In what little I've learned over the years, I've found that (the science of it aside) reading provides some food for thought, but that real world experience often differs from what I have read in books.


Eric himself said they were "running out of drinking water". What this means to me is that he (and they) had almost complete reliance on that $4K watermaker, which was failing. In other words, they had provisioned and planned around it, and he was losing his electrics and the generation ability to keep it running. Now factor in two very young children and their needs (irrespective of the illness) and then decide if gambling _their lives_ on getting and gathering enough rainwater over three weeks to keep them healthy is a good call.

You don't really need ocean experience to determine that. But it was a gamble RH says he was still willing to take.



Shinook said:


> The only reason I am intent that they could have continued is the confidence that the rescue crew had in their ability to make the journey. During the press conference, they seemed pretty convinced that they could have continued on without issue had the girl not been sick. Given the number of rescues they perform, I'd think their opinion would weigh pretty heavily.


I completely respect their opinion as well. But that's a complex question and answer. The CG is never going to put a survivor in a bad light - in any way. Could the boat have kept going (i.e. not sink)? Probably, in the right hands. Was it safe for these particular people? Well, _everyone_ was pulled off of it in the end and it was scuttled. That and RH's comments afterward are proof enough for me.



Shinook said:


> All that said, I have to admit, I am curious how many modern production boats would survive the event they went through. A knockdown or broach can be pretty stressful on any boat, new or old, and I'm curious if the condition and age of the boat really played a role in the damage or not. If you took a Hunter/Catalina/Beneteau/whatever out in the same conditions and exposed it to the same stress, would it have escaped damage free? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm legitimately curious.


I personally have absolutely no doubt that a Hunter/Catalina/Beneteau in good shape could handle those conditions. None. They do all the time.

I've mentioned it many times on this forum - and you can find the account in the BFS thread - but when Michael took his Hunter 49, Sequitur, through an F-10/F-11 off Cape Horn...with virtually no damage to the boat... that told me one thing: It's much more about the sailor than the boat. And there are many, many other examples of these boats handling long passages and storms just fine.

So the whole production/bluewater boat argument is dead as far as I'm concerned (at least for non-high-latitude sailing). RH was a vaunted "bluewater boat" that was 40 years old and rotten to the core. It's now at the bottom of the sea while "production boats" are sailing overhead.

Again, it's much more about the sailor than the boat. And I say that fully understanding that I, God forbid, could one day be in RH's shoes. I'm definitely no Michael. So I'm going to be very, very careful to find and stay within "boring conditions" as much as I can, and will be relying heavily on our boat to keep us safe. But I trust it.



Shinook said:


> I also have to admit that this entire thread, despite what I feel is the misfocus on mechanical failure, has lead me to look at our own boat and wonder what the first thing to go is. It seems to me that in the incidents we've seen lately, "<word here> happens" is appropriate and there is nothing you can do about it, something will fail and hopefully you've mitigated it. In my opinion, the loss of a well maintained/newer production boat in the Atlantic due to what appears to be a lost keel is further evidence that something will eventually give and proper preparation is, with some exceptions, more an effort of mitigating failures than preventing them.


Then this "misfocus" is absolutely worth it. I'm like you - I'm thinking things through much differently now due to the facts I've found behind this incident. Had it simply been ONLY about the sick girl - that wouldn't have happened. It wasn't just about her as has become very clear.

As for Cheeki Rafiki - that was a racing boat that always got pushed hard. No one knows the cause of the keel failure yet - though many suspect a hard grounding that wasn't reported. To me that's a different bag of monkeys.

But I totally agree with your conclusion - regardless of the boat's brand, it's always about mitigating failures as best you can.


----------



## lowtide

christian.hess said:


> you do realize(second to last post) most coastal cruisers NEVER put their boats to the test simply because the conditions never require it...conditions are boring...light, shifty, etc...
> 
> most guys hoping from california down the coast can experience easy going conditions all the way to panama with the exception of maybe tehuantepec and or some papagayos in central america
> 
> so some can never really know how their boat will handle or unhandle if you will in tough conditions
> 
> so how can some TEST their boats if they can never get those perfect storm conditions?
> 
> sometimes you cant, so you go for it
> 
> all this talk of shakedown cruise and lack of it is kind of nonsensical...
> 
> you dont shakedown crossing the atlantic in winter do you...no you shakedown hopping down the us east coast or do a bahama trip or maybe some fiddling in the carribean so when it does come time to cross you are better prepared mentally...
> 
> I understand the point about the family having less experience and such but this is getting a bit ridiculous


As I posted earlier, you test in increasingly heavy conditions.

Start taking the boat out when it is blowing. When you are comfortable with all of the weather that will still allow leaving and coming back into port, you can step up.

Leave a day or two before the passage of a front to gain sea room, and negotiate the heavy weather to test your systems fairly near shore. Safety and help are not far away if something huge fails.

How is this simple, time tested procedure nonsensical? Do you believe you can only shakedown in nice weather hopping down the coast?

Airplanes, cars, and just about anything are tested gradually in this same manner. Look up sea trials, and see that most passenger ships are given trials in progressive weather up to what is expected routinely before they ever carry passengers.

The idea that most people don't do a proper shakedown somehow makes it seaman like is certainly nonsensical. Seamanship is not democratic, it is tried and true methods for surviving the unfathomable power of the sea. The rules of seamanship have been developed by analyzing and learning from the failures of ships that are lost, and the methods of those that have thrived, over hundreds of years of history at sea. Basic rule of seamanship; watertight integrity. Ranks pretty high.

Nobody here pulled any punches discussing the Bounty's very poor watertight integrity, it's deceased Captain was held feet to the fire right here, because the boat should have been fixed.

Modern people are way too smart I guess to do things the right (hard) way, and don't have time for all of that. Besides they have satphones and spots and inreach and epirbs and someone else can always risk their life to come get them, so just do it!

No time to fix the boat, learn the boat, or do a shakedown, just go!

The Pardey's have sailed all of their miles without any of these "safety" gadgets, taking the ultimate responsibility for their own safety at sea. I can't imagine Larry leaving port with a rotten boat, because he knows no one will be coming to get them. They always stress learning your boat in increasing weather conditions until you are comfortable in the snot, but what do they know, they don't even use a gps or a satphone.

So rather than fix the boat, make sure your sim cards are in order, and head out! No big deal to have someone else's kid jump into the ocean and risk their life to save you, it's their job.

Yes, me, the Pardy's and the very rules of seamanship are nonsensical, who needs that crap. Finding out what will surely break should be done as far from land as possible, preferably with precious cargo. It makes for a much cooler book.

Highwire artists should all begin learning 100' off the ground! Shakedown shmakedown. Ainobody got time fuhdat! 

'


----------



## christian.hess

dude Im not arguing with you Im stating what happens out there...sometimes you cant really test a boat unless the conditions get that way

I laugh sometimes when people get all technical with drougues and stuff when you wont know till you have to deploy one...and see how YOUR boat in the conditions required of it handles such conditions

it just doesnt make sense...thats whats nonsensical to me

Im not arguing against prepping refitting, modidying..im not saying its ok to leave on a dry rotted boat at all, now! fix later...etc

you arent getting what Im saying is all,

regarding time...HARDLY what I was implying...

btw the stuff you are saying is what I have implemented for myself, I took the pardeys to heart when I sailed a wooden old boat 10k miles with only a vhf and an autopilot

the simple way

what Im trying to put in bold here is that sometimes you just cant cover all the bases until your out there...how you got that I say go even though your not ready when I stated clearly that hopping down the coast of the pacific for example youll almost never really test your boat is beyond me

the culture out there for most cruisers todays is engine on if the boat goes under 5knots, and if the wind goes over 20 the sails are dropped and the engine is turned on..."to ride" out the bad weather

its not hard to see why...some boats never get tested on a proper sea trial out there before a real offshore trip


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> Would you risk your family's lives on that boat, honestly? After seeing the pictures Eric himself posted, I would hope not, or the Navy is going to be busy
> 
> '


No I wouldn't but I never said I would. The opposite in fact. I am a big fan of forum analysis as well. Have said that many times. Participated in many discussions.

For the most part though I enjoy those that can do it with class without crucifying the poor bastard that lost his boat, or making the mistake of thinking they actually do know everything that went down.


----------



## christian.hess

bingo


----------



## Coquina

My old C&C 35 has survived worse than that with no damage. I would not really want to be in the ocean in a BeneHun to find out about them, but plenty of them do make ocean voyages. I did a lot of work on them back in the day and was not overly impressed. I think the bigger Catalinas would do OK.

Honestly - no weather they encountered would have registered to me as unusual for being in an ocean.



Shinook said:


> All that said, I have to admit, I am curious how many modern production boats would survive the event they went through. A knockdown or broach can be pretty stressful on any boat, new or old, and I'm curious if the condition and age of the boat really played a role in the damage or not. If you took a Hunter/Catalina/Beneteau/whatever out in the same conditions and exposed it to the same stress, would it have escaped damage free? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm legitimately curious.
> 
> .


----------



## lowtide

chall03 said:


> For the most part though I enjoy those that can do it with class without crucifying the poor bastard that lost his boat, or making the mistake of thinking they actually do know everything that went down.


So, now I have no class, and am a crucifier. Cool, and classy!

I have also said I know everything that went on, awesome, show me where.

No one has been crucified, last I checked. Actually, everyone has been very nice about it, only the facts as Eric and Charlotte's blogging presents them, the pictures, and the conflicting statements are not nice to them. Only their own testimony, not me or anyone so far, has called them out.

If I am a crucifier, this is my first. Eric on the other hand has participated in many of these discussions on this very forum. Perhaps the "class" judges should hold court on a review of those as well. Where were the class police when the deceased Captain of the Bounty was being kicked around like a football here? Where were they when the Nina was discussed? Why aren't they outraged by those who have analyzed the Titanic sinking, the guy lost his damn boat, and it was bigger. They should have really been upset by the things said about the Captain of the Cruise Ship on the rocks, that poor guy lost his boat.

I have called no names, and called a spade a spade, more precisely pointed out the Emperor's lack of clothes. Maybe not popular, but honest. I guess in this politically correct age, we're supposed to just agree that the emperor's new suit is the greatest yet, if we have "class".

'


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> So, now I have no class, and am a crucifier. Cool, and classy!
> 
> I have also said I know everything that went on, awesome, show me where.
> '


Comments were not _specifically_ addressed at you.

Glad however that your happy to accept that you don't know everything that went on and therefore the best we can achieve here is _conjecture_.


----------



## Don L

seems there is no real discussion of the event going on anymore, the "discussion" is mostly a battle between posters :laugher


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chall03 said:


> Glad however that your happy to accept that you don't know everything that went on and therefore the best we can achieve here is _conjecture_.


If the conjecture saves lives then I an totally up for it.

This thread has a zillion lessons in it for a family about to set off, or anyone going to sea in a boat. Chances are Eric and family never will again. They crucified themselves, and we have to learn how not to crucify ourselves.

Bounty captain can't do it again, but theres a whole industry thats learned.

Lives are at stake! So I don't mind shoving someone up the stake!


----------



## chall03

MarkofSeaLife said:


> This thread has a zillion lessons in it for a family about to set off, or anyone going to sea in a boat. Chances are Eric and family never will again. They crucified themselves, and we have to learn how not to crucify ourselves.


My preventer setup thanks in part to this thread and _Morgans Cloud _ has been modfied.

People though seem to think I am saying something here which I am not.

Eric's last word on the hull/deck of Rebel Heart and the 'conjecture' that was taking place about this can be found on CF.



rebel heart said:


> I would caution anyone interested in learning about what happened to be a little careful about conjecturing that a problem, repaired, in one place years before is somehow related to something else.
> 
> If you want to draw that conclusion, it's your business. Like I said, I'm not going to try to argue or defend anything.
> 
> There are plenty of things not written on my blog. It is not, nor have I presented it, as a comprehensive and balanced view of everything about our boat and our life. I picked topics I wanted to put on there; others weren't, so looking at it like you'll find an even-steven accounting of affairs is a fool's errand


Since then Eric has chosen to remain silent on the matter.

Several opinions here and at CF have been put forward about what might of been the case and the subsequent outcome.

As Rebel Heart was abandoned and scuttled( according Eric because of his daughter's health) most of these opinions will never be proven true or untrue however as some of those giving them have considerably more experience than I, I have given them alot of consideration. There have been lots of lessons to learn here.

For my part I do believe there is probably something to what Smack and others uncovered. I don't really know what Eric did or didn't do to shake that boat down, but if the proof is in the pudding, then yes the pudding is sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

However given Eric's response above I guess I am also happy enough to take what I can from the discussion shrug my shoulders and walk away.


----------



## lowtide

chall03 said:


> Comments were not _specifically_ addressed at you.
> 
> Glad however that your happy to accept that you don't know everything that went on and therefore the best we can achieve here is _conjecture_.


You didn't show me where I said I knew everything, then I have suddenly agreed.

A lot more than conjecture here. We don't know it all but we know plenty.

If you can't make a valid argument just make it up and put it in COLORS. That's better than using the *BIG BOLD* when you make stuff up.

Thanks to their rescuers the Kaufmans are fine. The next family that does all of the same things might not be so fortunate. This discussion is nothing personal to them, or anyone else, it is about learning from mistakes.

I know a lot of people who never learn from their mistakes because they can never admit to one. When as a community we can no longer admit anyone made a mistake, we will all be doomed to never learn from anything.

I have in this very thread admitted to a mistake, that I was not prepared, and that the sea punished me. What's the big deal? Only those who never cast off the dock lines make no mistakes, so why not step forward, are we that thin skinned these days?

'


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> You didn't show me where I said I knew everything, then I have suddenly agreed.
> 
> A lot more than conjecture here. We don't know it all but we know plenty.
> 
> If you can't make a valid argument just make it up and put it in COLORS. That's better than using the *BIG BOLD* when you make stuff up.
> 
> Thanks to their rescuers the Kaufmans are fine. The next family that does all of the same things might not be so fortunate. This discussion is nothing personal to them, or anyone else, it is about learning from mistakes.
> 
> I know a lot of people who never learn from their mistakes because they can never admit to one. When as a community we can no longer admit anyone made a mistake, we will all be doomed to never learn from anything.
> 
> I have in this very thread admitted to a mistake, that I was not prepared, and that the sea punished me. What's the big deal? Only those who never cast off the dock lines make no mistakes, so why not step forward, are we that thin skinned these days?
> 
> '


I think you will find a fairly succinct summary of my thoughts above.

I'm done with this thread.


----------



## aeventyr60

I have in this very thread admitted to a mistake, that I was not prepared, and that the sea punished me. What's the big deal? Only those who never cast off the dock lines make no mistakes, so why not step forward, are we that thin skinned these days?

'[/QUOTE]

The intuitive reader will find that the biggest whingers on these threads are those that have never cast off the dock lines....


----------



## caberg

It is interesting how the analysis and discussion has evolved. I still believe the simplest explanation is sometimes the correct one. Doug Sabbag may have had his detractors following the abandonment of his boat, but at least he told it as it was.



DougSabbag said:


> Well, my First Mate / Mrs. Sabbag, basically threw in the towel at that development. And I couldn't (though I should have in retrospect) overcome her insistence on abandoning the vessel.


As a litigation attorney by day, there are some basic principles to follow in the search for truth. At the top of the list is that shifting, inconsistent explanations of how or why something occurred provide a strong inference of being pretextual. That is, they are reasons given to hide the real reason for doing something. Pretexts can be based on half truths, and the person may even convince him or herself that it was the "real" reason.

In this case, I don't think RH realized how badly the "reasons" would come back to bite them when analyzed by others. Then they simply dug themselves deeper as they tried to explain, bolster, or withdraw the "reasons."

Just my gut feeling based on the various things I've read.


----------



## Dean101

lowtide said:


> As I posted earlier, you test in increasingly heavy conditions.
> 
> *Start taking the boat out when it is blowing. When you are comfortable with all of the weather that will still allow leaving and coming back into port, you can step up.
> 
> Leave a day or two before the passage of a front to gain sea room, and negotiate the heavy weather to test your systems fairly near shore. Safety and help are not far away if something huge fails.*
> How is this simple, time tested procedure nonsensical? Do you believe you can only shakedown in nice weather hopping down the coast?
> 
> Airplanes, cars, and just about anything are tested gradually in this same manner. Look up sea trials, and see that most passenger ships are given trials in progressive weather up to what is expected routinely before they ever carry passengers.
> 
> The idea that most people don't do a proper shakedown somehow makes it seaman like is certainly nonsensical. Seamanship is not democratic, it is tried and true methods for surviving the unfathomable power of the sea. The rules of seamanship have been developed by analyzing and learning from the failures of ships that are lost, and the methods of those that have thrived, over hundreds of years of history at sea. Basic rule of seamanship; watertight integrity. Ranks pretty high.
> 
> Nobody here pulled any punches discussing the Bounty's very poor watertight integrity, it's deceased Captain was held feet to the fire right here, because the boat should have been fixed.
> 
> Modern people are way too smart I guess to do things the right (hard) way, and don't have time for all of that. Besides they have satphones and spots and inreach and epirbs and someone else can always risk their life to come get them, so just do it!
> 
> No time to fix the boat, learn the boat, or do a shakedown, just go!
> 
> The Pardey's have sailed all of their miles without any of these "safety" gadgets, taking the ultimate responsibility for their own safety at sea. I can't imagine Larry leaving port with a rotten boat, because he knows no one will be coming to get them. They always stress learning your boat in increasing weather conditions until you are comfortable in the snot, but what do they know, they don't even use a gps or a satphone.
> 
> So rather than fix the boat, make sure your sim cards are in order, and head out! No big deal to have someone else's kid jump into the ocean and risk their life to save you, it's their job.
> 
> Yes, me, the Pardy's and the very rules of seamanship are nonsensical, who needs that crap. Finding out what will surely break should be done as far from land as possible, preferably with precious cargo. It makes for a much cooler book.
> 
> Highwire artists should all begin learning 100' off the ground! Shakedown shmakedown. Ainobody got time fuhdat!
> 
> '


It really seems to bother you that RH didn't do what you call a proper shakedown cruise. Do you feel that it is negligent for a boat and crew to cross an ocean without first experiencing the worst case conditions in a coastal environment? Are you stating here that one should place the boat and crew into conditions in which they are not comfortable, may not have previously experienced, and could possibly overwhelm them or deteriorate into a life threatening situation based on the fact that they are closer to their rescuers? Does the premise of your version of a shakedown rely on the belief that it is ok to "push the rescue button" if you find you cant handle the situation? How is that different than gaining experience as one ventures further away from land other than the actual distance involved? Do you think it is somehow less strenuous or dangerous for a Rescue Swimmer to pull you out of the water simply because you are only 30 miles from land rather than 300?

I agree with you that taking increasingly bigger steps in sailing is an important way to learn your boat, it's peculiarities and problems, and your own strengths and limitations. I would also agree that correcting problems with the boat and equipping and preparing for deficiencies and weaknesses in boat AND crew is just good seamanship. Learning in progressively harsh conditions is fine as long as you realize that you are putting yourself in a position that could potentially become more than you can deal with. Pretty much what RH did.

If you followed your own advice and took your boat out in increasingly bad conditions and never had to be rescued, then good on you. You were not one of the relatively few people who had to "push the button". Unfortunately, RH was. And I guarantee you they will learn from it.


----------



## Coquina

A shakedown cruise is NOT intended as a suicidal stunt perhaps ameliorated by being close to the USCG rescue boats 
Prior to our fist trip to Bermuda we had a well found boat and good crew. We did a shakedown by racing around the Delmarva peninsula. This was over 400 miles including an ocean leg. A breakdown or malfunction would at worst be halway between Cape May and Norfolk. Much better to find out there than most of the way to Bermuda with 600 miles of ocean behind you and uncertain parts and services ahead of you. Now times about 10 for going across the Pacific.


----------



## Dean101

Coquina said:


> A shakedown cruise is NOT intended as a suicidal stunt perhaps ameliorated by being close to the USCG rescue boats
> Prior to our fist trip to Bermuda we had a well found boat and good crew. We did a shakedown by racing around the Delmarva peninsula. This was over 400 miles including an ocean leg. A breakdown or malfunction would at worst be halway between Cape May and Norfolk. Much better to find out there than most of the way to Bermuda with 600 miles of ocean behind you and uncertain parts and services ahead of you. Now times about 10 for going across the Pacific.


My idea of a shakedown would not be a suicidal thing either. Using your example, do you feel your shakedown race had undoubtedly revealed any problems with your boat? Did that race completely prepare you for your trip to Bermuda and any problems you could reasonably expect to encounter? My point is that Lowtide seemed to dismiss all the time and sailing Eric put in on RH prior to their departure as not good enough to be considered a proper shakedown.

I really think that most responsible sailors push their boats and their own limits at a reasonable pace over time. They learn as they go. A part of that learning process is finding out, sometimes the hard way, what deficiencies can be put off and which ones cant. How many posts on this forum alone outline mistakes or miscalculations that, given the addition of one extra problem, one sick child, deteriorating weather, or whatever, could have quickly escalated out of hand and resulted in a call for help?


----------



## Coquina

The race did great - it was quite rough and we got in the routine of working and eating in horrible conditions.


----------



## lowtide

I never suggested suicidal conditions. RH certainly never faced suicidal, or even gale force conditions. 

My posts say specifically frontal passage conditions. 

The advantage of being near shore is not simply to be closer for rescuers, as stated. If you are near shore, and lose the rig, you have enough fuel to motor back in. If you lose the engine (sloshed up crud from fuel sediment often shows up in a heavy weather shakedown) you can sail, even upwind. RH had neither option. If you are near shore, and the crew decides they want off the boat, it can be accommodated. 

I could not be suggesting that you shake down in the worst weather you might face, as that is logically impossible. The sea is always capable of destroying you.

My belief that a shakedown in heavy weather is essential is partly based on my own experiences, but mostly based on the recommendations of nearly every heavy weather sailing book. People with hundreds of thousands of sea miles recommend it, but maybe you guys are that much smarter than them. 

The other thing that recommends incremental increases to heavy weather is common sense. As a crew faces conditions just a little more daunting than last time, there is no panic or fear, even when last time was 35knots. If the crew has never seen more than 15 on the beam, 40 and a confused sea will produce more fear than Freddy Kreuger. 

It is more about expectation than anything else. When the crew knows what to expect, there is a comfort factor. Uncertainty instinctively produces fear, especially when the situation is perceived as life threatening (whether it is or not). If a crew has gradually worked up, they know how the boat will behave, what to expect, and everything is calm. 

How will you know what storm tactics work with your boat otherwise? How will the boat sit to your para-anchor or your drogue? What sail configuration will make the boat heave to comfortably? You don't want to learn to deploy these things for the first time when caught by 50kts that came out of nowhere. It's just common sense, to test the waters a little at a time,until everyone is confident they (and the boat) can handle whatever comes.

'


----------



## ScottUK

> How is that different than gaining experience as one ventures further away from land other than the actual distance involved? Do you think it is somehow less strenuous or dangerous for a Rescue Swimmer to pull you out of the water simply because you are only 30 miles from land rather than 300?


Don't know what your on about but in this case they could have sailed to the nearest harbour if they were 30 miles from shore. If the boat was in imminent peril a rescue boat would have been able to get to the scene promptly.



> My point is that Lowtide seemed to dismiss all the time and sailing Eric put in on RH prior to their departure as not good enough to be considered a proper shakedown.


It should be dismissed because the 'captain' left on a major ocean crossing on what I think an experienced objective observer would consider an un-founded boat with an ill-prepared crew. I think the captain had just enough knowledge and experience to make him dangerous hence his decision to leave.

There has been some discussion of having a shake-down cruise and I think that is prudent. I think it can be as little as 2-4 days with an experienced crew on a new to them boat to as much as 2-4 months with passages of 1-3 days for a crew of dubious experience with their own boat. I would certainly put RH more into the latter group.

If on a cruise of 2-4 months you don't have to go looking for a rough experience but you are very likely to encounter heavy weather at some point(s) while out on the water regardless of the forecast. The first time I was ever went sailing was on an 800nm cruise/delivery and during the 14 days we took to get there we experienced a lightning storm with winds up to 40 knots and then as we got out of the Med into the Atlantic we had 55 knots sustained. So it does happen though I want to say that even after that I would not come close to considering that I could manage a boat at that time.

For RH a 2-4 month cruise would not only have shown them their boat was not yet up to the task but would have taught them the dynamics of passage making. I think a long shake down cruise would have given them an appreciation and understanding of their undertaking and in this case I think that was sorely lacking.


----------



## Coquina

If Rebel Heart had done a 4 day trip - two days out and 2 days back - they would have quickly discovered the wife was not up child care in a small boat in the ocean among other things. They could have decided to stick to coastal sailing for a few more years.


----------



## christian.hess

that was my point...you cant expect to find rough weather while hopping down the pacific coast of mexico and central america with the exception of a few places...

if he wanted to shake down cruise...he could of stayed in northern california...and hop up and down from pt conception to drakes bay and encounter much harsher weather and be more prepared....in fact a simple farallones trip solo would be tougher than going down the coast...

so its hard to ever get those rough weather conditions..so while Im all for shakedown cruises...and Im adamant on knowing you and your boats weaknesses, sometimes you never really find out what your worth or your boat is until the crap hits the fan...

for example...in the bay area, when a norther pops in I would go and and have a hell of a time...on my little boat...loved getting the crap kicked out of me...why? cause I was preparing I wanted to see what the boat and myself did in those conditions...

35-40knots steady gusts and rain can be a handful..

yet I remember only once getting remotely similar conditions on the whole pacific coast of mexico and central america

one was tehuantapec(bareley just high winds) and the other was a micro burst off panama...

so unless you are asking people to wait for a tropical depression or a hurricane to hit while in mexico you simply arent going to find conditions that would be a good tester of a boat for say a pacific crossing...

you wont be able to test your drogue well...or other emergency aids, or storm sails in rough conditions etc...etc...etc...*until *when the crap actually hits the fan...

the best you can do is prepare mentally and the boat...in that regard thats all I can find fault with what these guys did...

maybe they shrugged off some things they shouldnt of...

peace

s


----------



## caberg

How many people, when abandoning your boat in the Pacific, in (supposedly) nasty conditions, with a boat that (supposedly) had been knocked down, and (supposedly) was taking on water, with a (supposedly) sick infant who needs medical care, would.... grab a bottle of champagne to take in your ditch bag?



> At our going away party a few years ago, a friend gave us this bottle of champagne. I was pregnant at the time and wanted to be able to savor it, so we waited. We waited so long that it ended up tucked away in the bottom of the bilge and we discovered it as we were provisioning for the South Pacific. The plan was to put it in the fridge once we made landfall, so it would be nice and cold as we anchored in Hiva Oa and we could celebrate.
> 
> Ahhh the best laid plans of mice and men.
> 
> I reminisced about our champagne dream a few weeks ago and Eric surprised me by pulling the bottle out of his SeaBag. Delighted, we agreed to wait until we were in our own place and celebrate all the same.
> 
> Rebel Heart - Charlotte's Blog - Back to the*Start


The idiocy of these folks is astounding. Not only in what they do, but in what they choose to share. Their priorities are skewed beyond any sense of reason. Apparently they are so self-centered they don't even realize how it sounds when they publish this lunacy to the world.


----------



## ScottUK

> sometimes you never really find out what your worth or your boat is until the crap hits the fan...


I think that is the point. It would have been better to be somewhere you can seek cover rather then so far off shore. I think part of preparing to go offshore is acquiring the experience. How do you acquire that? By going through the paces near shore no matter how long it takes. This is especially the case if you are taking your toddler and baby. No matter how long you liveaboard with your family it is not the same, by a long shot, as cruising with your family.


----------



## aeventyr60

caberg said:


> How many people, when abandoning your boat in the Pacific, in (supposedly) nasty conditions, with a boat that (supposedly) had been knocked down, and (supposedly) was taking on water, with a (supposedly) sick infant who needs medical care, would.... grab a bottle of champagne to take in your ditch bag?
> 
> The idiocy of these folks is astounding. Not only in what they do, but in what they choose to share. Their priorities are skewed beyond any sense of reason. Apparently they are so self-centered they don't even realize how it sounds when they publish this lunacy to the world.


More of the augmented reality and app generation maybe?


----------



## christian.hess

ScottUK said:


> I think that is the point. It would have been better to be somewhere you can seek cover rather then so far off shore. I think part of preparing to go offshore is acquiring the experience. How do you acquire that? By going through the paces near shore no matter how long it takes. This is especially the case if you are taking your toddler and baby. No matter how long you liveaboard with your family it is not the same, by a long shot, as cruising with your family.


YES I agree completely...what Im trying and FAILING to point out is simply those rough offshore conditions cant be duplicated near shore...where they were at and leaving from..and you cant prepare no matter what...because they are not the same....

going through the paces is different than experiencing tropical deprression or typhoons mid ocean...so how can one say you must do that first then go offhshore?

only thing I can think if is they should of crewed on other peoples boats more, offhsore...together maybe before heading out into the deep blue sea

other than that it just wont happen

I also pointed out before that most cruisers in mexico and central america simply will never experience any sort of out there rough tests to boat and crew...in fact most guys get a little whooped in panama and say wtf?


----------



## christian.hess

aeventyr60 said:


> More of the augmented reality and app generation maybe?


why criticise someone for grabbing a bottle of champagne...?

I completely agree that this generation(and Im part if it however dont partake so much in it) is completyely self involved, living out a reality tv show and all about me me me, with blogs and twitter accounts much ado about nothing, yet so embellished with funny quips and facts and whatever...I dont see where grabbing that last thing and the other is intertwined

now we are just arguing for arguments sake

in most tales of last moment ditch bag or grabbing stuff as the boat goes down, in movies in books etc..there are countless tales of the captain or crew grabbing that one special item be it a mug or captains compass or simply your passport or some personal cherised belonging before stepping off...

read it many times...so why is this all of a sudden off limits

people criticise too much then often will be surprised when they find themselves doing the same thing in similiar situations...

the human mind cant be dissected so well in that you can definitively say I would never do that no matter what

its an impossibility...

anywhoo

dont know why I keep coming back to this thread...its like my el dorado! jjaja


----------



## ScottUK

> going through the paces is different than experiencing tropical deprression or typhoons mid ocean...so how can one say you must do that first then go offhshore?


I say this because they are taking their children with them offshore so more rigorous metrics should apply. If it was just the adults then I wouldn't be to fussed. Though in the end they made the decision to go off shore with minimal experience in a boat known to have issues.



> only thing I can think if is they should of crewed on other peoples boats more, offhsore...together maybe before heading out into the deep blue sea


I think that would have helped especially for the mother who appears not to have had too much experience.


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> why criticise someone for grabbing a bottle of champagne...?


+1

It was Dom Perignon after all. What else are you going to grab?


----------



## christian.hess

you cant criticise sentimental value...thats all I was saying really

plus yeah a dom?


----------



## MedSailor

On the value of champagne:

"I drink Champagne when I win, to celebrate… 
And I drink Champagne when I lose, to console myself."
Napoleon Bonaparte


"In Success you deserve it and in defeat, you need it," 
--Winston Churchill 

"Gentlemen, in the little moment that remains to us between the crisis and the catastrophe, we may as well drink a glass of Champagne."
Paul Claudel, French playwright (1868 - 1955).

MedSailor


----------



## aeventyr60

christian.hess said:


> you cant criticise sentimental value...thats all I was saying really
> 
> plus yeah a dom?


A bottle of bubbly wasn't my criticism. It was in agreement with cabergs comments on the stuff that keeps falling out of the RH mouths...


----------



## Dean101

My point is this: A shakedown cruise by definition tests the ship and its various systems for problems and deficiencies. How did they get to Mexico? How long had they been coastal cruising? How much work on that boat did Eric do himself? I think much of the stuff being said here is based on what can be read in a blog. A blog! Since they did not blog about a shakedown does that mean they didn't do one? Do you really think that someone who finds corroded pins in his chainplates and then wisely replaces the chainplates themselves while he's overhauling the rig wouldn't find other problems while coastal cruising? Come on! Sure, maybe they didn't push the boat as hard as any one of you or even myself would but I wouldn't just ignore a few years of coastal cruising and working on the boat and systems as useless. I would wager that's more than many sailors do. I would also think that by the time they left, Eric had a pretty good idea of how the boat handles. Again, maybe he practiced heaving to or deploying a drogue and just didn't write about it. I'm willing to give the guy a benefit of a doubt.

And can somebody tell me how you can spend that much time on a boat with a wife and 2 kids and NOT know the missus ain't happy? Yes, I think they made mistakes. Their choice of blog subjects may be a little.... unconventional but that has nothing to do with what happened. And after all, they did have quite a bit of time to pack what was precious to them before they scuttled. It's not as if they had to swim out on her way down.


----------



## Dean101

christian.hess said:


> YES I agree completely...what Im trying and FAILING to point out is simply those rough offshore conditions cant be duplicated near shore...where they were at and leaving from..and you cant prepare no matter what...because they are not the same....
> 
> going through the paces is different than experiencing tropical deprression or typhoons mid ocean...so how can one say you must do that first then go offhshore?
> 
> only thing I can think if is they should of crewed on other peoples boats more, offhsore...together maybe before heading out into the deep blue sea
> 
> other than that it just wont happen
> 
> I also pointed out before that most cruisers in mexico and central america simply will never experience any sort of out there rough tests to boat and crew...in fact most guys get a little whooped in panama and say wtf?


I understand what you are saying about gaining experience prior to departing across an ocean. I completely agree with you on that. I also think that gaining experience is not the same as a shakedown of the boat. Not according to any definition I've seen for shakedown. I've agreed before this thread ever started that gaining experience by actually experiencing it is the only way to truly understand those kinds of conditions and gaining that experience on your own boat is even better.

I think the sick child was the tipping point for them. Everything else, well, some temporary repairs and they could most likely have made landfall. Had they waved off the rescue, continued on and posted about their temporary repairs and ingenuity, most of you would be patting them on the back. A few I'm sure would still find something to slam them for...


----------



## christian.hess

aeventyr60 said:


> A bottle of bubbly wasn't my criticism. It was in agreement with cabergs comments on the stuff that keeps falling out of the RH mouths...


I shouldnt of quoted you but the one before that...jajaja

sorry


----------



## christian.hess

Dean101 said:


> I understand what you are saying about gaining experience prior to departing across an ocean. I completely agree with you on that. I also think that gaining experience is not the same as a shakedown of the boat. Not according to any definition I've seen for shakedown. I've agreed before this thread ever started that gaining experience by actually experiencing it is the only way to truly understand those kinds of conditions and gaining that experience on your own boat is even better.
> 
> I think the sick child was the tipping point for them. Everything else, well, some temporary repairs and they could most likely have made landfall. Had they waved off the rescue, continued on and posted about their temporary repairs and ingenuity, most of you would be patting them on the back. A few I'm sure would still find something to slam them for...


yup!

its the non stop slamming that irks me...people do it all the time think they know it all, have experienced it all and since they have experience they think that by prepping and avoiding doing "stupid" stuff they are inmune to these sort of things

all it takes is a couple of bad decisions or equipment failure and it could be game over

just a little more respect and understanding from the it crowd would go a long ways in letting this thread die in peace


----------



## JonEisberg

Dean101 said:


> My point is this: A shakedown cruise by definition tests the ship and its various systems for problems and deficiencies. How did they get to Mexico? How long had they been coastal cruising? How much work on that boat did Eric do himself? I think much of the stuff being said here is based on what can be read in a blog. A blog! Since they did not blog about a shakedown does that mean they didn't do one?


But of course, they DID blog about it...

Rebel Heart - Charlotte's Blog

What is truly stunning about what she considers to have been their first Shakedown/First year of cruising, is that it make no mention or reference whatsoever to much of anything actually related to _SAILING_... 

However, she did learn this:



> *Cruising with babies sucks.*
> 
> When they are really little you can just lay them down and sandwich them between blankets like a hot dog, but once they start wanting to sit and crawl, and the boat is bumping and you feel drowsy from Bonine or a little bit seasick and you are just holding a baby in your arms or in a baby carrier or they are stuck in a seat or in a berth while you are underway, or dealing with their older sibling, or trying to pee, or trying to cook, or trying to do ANYTHING&#8230;..yes, it's a run on sentence,* but FOR ME, I have not enjoyed sailing with little kids. I think 3 years old and up may be the magic number for leaving to go cruising with kids.*


In 7 years of living aboard in San Diego, they made *ONE* trip out to Catalina, living on a mooring in Two Harbors for almost 2 months, which they initially considered to have been their "Shakedown Cruise"...










I'm still mystified how Eric got the sea time for a 100 ton Master's ticket, he must have done a hell of a lot of sailing on OPBs...


----------



## christian.hess

you only need a couple of captains and or yourself to provide hours...

when I got mine thats what I showed...getting a masters ticket(now in retrospect) is a joke

most people lie about their hours anyway

past the test and bingo

ps. I did mine in a "world renowned" ft lauderdale based school...there was not one physical or on the water test, there was not one hands on teaching part, nothing...anyone could do it...provided you had some sort of familiarity with boats

I was doing some reading a few days back and found the funniest add in a searching for crew list

it said "uscg captains license...new to sailng willing to learn and crew or CAPTAIN anywhere in the caribbean or pacific etc..."

and I laughed cause it made sense...if your good with books you can hop in, lie about your hours, take a test, and be a "captain" and be a complete newb at the same time! jajaja


----------



## lowtide

Dean101 said:


> Again, maybe he practiced heaving to or deploying a drogue and just didn't write about it. I'm willing to give the guy a benefit of a doubt.
> 
> And can somebody tell me how you can spend that much time on a boat with a wife and 2 kids and NOT know the missus ain't happy? Yes, I think they made mistakes. Their choice of blog subjects may be a little.... unconventional but that has nothing to do with what happened. And after all, they did have quite a bit of time to pack what was precious to them before they scuttled. It's not as if they had to swim out on her way down.


Ten thousand miles of light conditions will tell you nothing about how the boat will do in heavy weather. Aerodynamic forces are not linear functions, but exponential. 40 is not 4 times as much as 10, it is 16 times the force.

Living aboard and passage making are apples and oranges. Living aboard at a dock, and passage making are almost opposites. At the dock, the world is infinite, the finger pier instantly leads to land and the whole world. The world is pretty still most of the time, and things stay where you put them. The ports and hatches are open most of the time. You can leave whenever you want.

Passage making is a whole different psychology. The finite nature of the boat is absolute. The idea that one cannot get off the boat is more than some can easily cope with. When things start to go wrong, it really weighs. The world is moving, sometimes in unpredictable and violent motions, and everything is a potential projectile. The hatches are closed, only vents and dorades provide any air. In this case, at least some sea water (and it's smells) were getting aboard, making things damp or wet. Dirty diapers were washed in the galley sink, and with little ventilation that had to be a nightmare. None of this is even approximated with coastal cruising, especially the feeling of being trapped in the situation.

I call it the "get me off of this #@%$^&*&^^&**&^^&#@#@@ BOAT NOW" stage. It is also a matter of helplessness. Crew who are not experienced feel like they are at the mercy of the boat, the weather, the skipper, and everything else. They have no control over anything, and when things go bad, everything intensifies again. So you feel helpless and trapped, the pea in a paint can, and it is going to last for at least a few more weeks.

The only control you can assert is to insist on the skipper pressing the panic button, when you are at that stage.

If someone reaches "get me off" stage near shore, they can be calmed by the knowledge that it won't last long. The psychological effects of the isolation of passagemaking are not to be underestimated, and are best eased into.

'


----------



## chall03

Dean101 said:


> . How did they get to Mexico? How long had they been coastal cruising? How much work on that boat did Eric do himself? I think much of the stuff being said here is based on what can be read in a blog. .


According to the blog, up until mid last yeat when the Hydrovane was installed.....




> Right now we have our little X5 wheel pilot which has faithfully steered Rebel Heart for a maybe three or four thousand miles...




There were additional passages to sort out the hydrovane after this I believe. And this note from Eric on CF...



rebel heart said:


> There are plenty of things not written on my blog. It is not, nor have I presented it, as a comprehensive and balanced view of everything about our boat and our life. I picked topics I wanted to put on there; others weren't, so looking at it like you'll find an even-steven accounting of affairs is a fool's errand.


Now I am not saying 4000nm makes one 'experienced' but unless I am missing something( And I might be) I can't fathom how they can be as inexperienced as guys like Jon believe them to be.

However in our first casual 2000nm coastal cruising doing mainly day sails with some overnights(with bub on board) we were caught in several sqaulls and storms, seeing 40+ kts once, and over 25 on several occasions. I recall one day of beating into 25+ and bad seas for 12 hours which was enough to give us the impression that a week of that kinda of thing would be terribly unpleasant. We learn't plenty about our boat, sea sickness, watch keeping and that yeah there are big waves out there sometimes.

Clearly after 2000nm we didn't know everything and we certainly would of found crossing an ocean intimidating at that point, but we had an idea.

I like Dean I guess can't make sense of how they could of been 'cruising' for years and not had gained some of that experience.



JonEisberg said:


> However, she did learn this:
> 
> _"I have not enjoyed sailing with little kids. I think 3 years old and up may be the magic number for leaving to go cruising with kids." _


FWIW despite having times when she might of said the above on a particular bad day, my wife is of the complete opposite opinion based on the several thousand miles of *Coastal Cruising* we did when our daughter was a baby. Now she is three sailing is _a lot _more work  If it wasn't fun, if it was all stress we wouldn't of kept doing it.


----------



## TomMaine

chall03 said:


> FWIW despite having times when she might of said the above on a particular bad day, my wife is of the complete opposite opinion based on the several thousand miles of *Coastal Cruising* we did when our daughter was a baby. Now she is three sailing is _a lot _more work  If it wasn't fun, if it was all stress we wouldn't of kept doing it.


You're putting up a great fight, Chall. But I think the war is won. 

Blogs are like Facebook pages, a good moment here, a bad moment there. They prove, people are weird.

I'm with your wife, babies and kids are hard to sail with! Then they are not,...then they are,...

It's hard to explain, unless you've done it. There's my 'blog' on the subject.


----------



## ScottUK

> Now I am not saying 4000nm makes one 'experienced' but unless I am missing something( And I might be) I can't fathom how they can be as inexperienced as guys like Jon believe them to be.


I can only relate this to my own experience. When I started I did cruises and some cruise/delivery type sailing and had by then a few thousand miles under my belt. I knew I still had a lot to learn but was somewhat confident in my abilities. Then I started to race and boy I tell you that was a slap in the face. Though I learned many skills from my previous cruising I really can't articulate how much more I have learned from racing. Though I consider myself a cruiser, I shudder at how naive I was prior to doing extensive racing. I guess what I am saying is that you really don't know how inexperienced you were until you have gained that experience. RH had the confidence to make the decision to cross an ocean but lacked the experience to make it across.


----------



## chall03

TomMaine said:


> You're putting up a great fight, Chall. But I think the war is won.
> 
> Blogs are like Facebook pages, a good moment here, a bad moment there. They prove, people are weird.
> 
> I'm with your wife, babies and kids are hard to sail with! Then they are not,...then they are,...
> 
> It's hard to explain, unless you've done it. There's my 'blog' on the subject.


A War?  

Hey people seem to think because I won't join the righteously indignant tut-tutting castigation brigade, and because I keep correcting people in the middle of their rants that thereby I am in agreement with everything Rebel Heart did.

I have never said that.


----------



## caberg

The champagne is part of a larger picture which is revealing as to what really was going on out there. As a Dad to a 4 year old, I cannot fathom thinking to dig to the bottom of the bilge to secretly pack up and carry a heavy bottle of champagne, when I have responsibility for two small kids to safely abandon a sailboat and make the transfer on the open ocean to a navy vessel.





At the same time, clearly space is at a premium.



> How do you tell your three year old that you are not, indeed, going to the South Pacific, but instead are awaiting rescue, in whatever form that may come, and that they can pick two toys to go into the bags we packed
> Rebel Heart - Charlotte's Blog - Overwhelmed, Shocked,*Saddened


But this is just par for the course for these two on this passage.



> When Cora woke up this morning she asked for some of the treat I was making last night because she had smelled it baking as she fell asleep. I lied and told her we ate it up; all the while, the rest of the cake sat on the counter by the dish rack, just waiting for Eric and I to devour it this evening with a cup of coffee, in silence, once the girls were asleep.
> Rebel Heart - Charlotte's Blog - Pacific Crossing ? Day 13, March 31,*2014





> Eric and I look forward to two moments each day, Lyra's nap, and the kids' bed time. Lyra's nap means either I can nap too, or Eric if he needs it more. Or it means we can get stuff done, since Cora doesn't need constant supervision, or it means we can put Cora in front of a movie in the cabin, and we can go up to the cockpit for adult time. I will let you be the judge of what adult time means. After Lyra's nap, we try hard not to look at the hours tick by until bed time.
> Rebel Heart - Charlotte's Blog - Pacific Crossing ? Day 11, March 29,*2014


Now, why is this relevant? Because they were out there for all the wrong reasons to begin with. They were not taking the kids on an adventure. The kids were along for the ride, and a very uncomfortable and dangerous one at that. The kids were just characters in this reality TV type story that the parents were trying to live in order to blog about it and then write a book.


----------



## vtsailguy

Having wasted an hour reading this, I come to the conclusion that probably 80% of posters here (I suspect mostly older gentleman) have no idea what a blog is, or is for.....


----------



## chall03




----------



## ScottUK

> I come to the conclusion that probably 80% of posters here (I suspect mostly older gentleman) have no idea what a blog is, or is for.....


Conversely, I would imagine 80% of the sailing blogs are written by older gentleman or their partners.


----------



## christian.hess

arent blogs money makers? most of them?

it would seem as eric pointed out that much of the stuff posted cannot be taken as fact or in stone if you will

so I dont really understand the massive amount of quoters of erics blog here and using that to make a point...its a fools errand as he says


I have mentioned in the past that Im a new father, my first born is 9 months old...without being biased and or critical I think that Im not ready at all to take my kid out or my wife for that matter

yes around the bay, and local waters but no even remotely close to say being out of sight of land

it will take a looooong time for that to ever happen unfortunately...but that doesnt mean someday it wont happen

if it does....on whatever boat I may have at that time(maybe not my current one although its perfect for that)its obvous Ill be doing my damdest to make the boat as ready and myself(im a bit rusty since my offshore days) to get back in shape and safe and ready...

however im fully aware that even with my past experience that crap can hit the fan in a second...an even the most prepared boat out there is just a tiny speck of glass or steel or wood, thats on borrowed time from the gods if you will...

people who dont realize will ge a good dose of humble pie as we all have at some point in our offhshore careers or experience if you will...

in any case

I just wish these guys well like I would anyody that has experienced something like this, get back on track and be done with it...

thats not to say there arent any unsafe mariners out there who dont give a crap....


----------



## vtsailguy

ScottUK said:


> Conversely, I would imagine 80% of the sailing blogs are written by older gentleman or their partners.


Yes, I would agree. I think that few of them are able to gain traction or traffic. Those that do tend to be written by younger people. The concept of a "successful" blog is one that is able to do this, and you do it by having copy that is readable, not always accurate (in the objective investigative reporting sense)

Another characteristic of "successful" blogs is the untarnished thoughts of the blogger. Think Dooce. But untarnished musings is not the same as representative thinking. Life one quote from a blog from something that was posted late one night and you might as well be convinced Fox News or MSNBC is balanced reporting.

There, I made age-ist AND political off the cuff remarks in the same reply, beat that!

/firmlydonstinfoilhat


----------



## vtsailguy

christian.hess said:


> arent blogs money makers? most of them?


Good grief no. To be able to even pay your mortgage takes 20 hours of blogging a week and 1000 visitors a day. 99.99% of blogs don't come close to that.


----------



## christian.hess

well I guees it was a stretch...I have a blogger friend down here who makes money off of saying whats on her mind every day

about fashion

anywhoo

my point was blogs are sometimes embellished for publicity sake

cheers


----------



## ScottUK

> it would seem as eric pointed out that much of the stuff posted cannot be taken as fact or in stone if you will


If that is the case then I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with people who question the veracity of the events leading to the demise of RH. It would then seem RH is reaping what they have sown.



> I have mentioned in the past that Im a new father, my first born is 9 months old...without being biased and or critical I think that Im not ready at all to take my kid out or my wife for that matter


Good on ya. That has been one of my contentions all along. It would seem you have a bit more experience then RH so I would think that has aided in your view.

It appears that Mrs. RH had sailed 1500nm up to the end of Nov. 2013 and those miles were mostly composed of short trips to move the boat. For owning the boat 7-8 years that is a lot of dock time. It also appears she was more of a passenger rather then an active participant.

My point is this they left on an ocean crossing with what is effectively a passenger and a toddler and a baby with one person operating the boat. This is not singlehanding but singlehanding multiplied exponentially that would be trying even for the most experienced sailor. Why they did not take on an experienced offshore sailor I don't know. It would have likely saved their boat and a lot of heartache.



> I think that few of them are able to gain traction or traffic. Those that do tend to be written by younger people.


Not too sure about that. I don't read that many blogs but the ones I do tend to be older more experienced folks that appear to have a fair amount of readership.


----------



## christian.hess

I dont know exactly how eric got his captains license...from my post above I got mine when I was barely 21...after having sailed all the pacific both coastal, caribean side of central america and up to ft.lauderdale... and to french polinesia....and beyond...

I was the youngest in my class and was with those that had a lot of experience..in fact most of them had less experience then me as I grew up sailing in the med off spain and had been around boats all my life 

in the end...my last post was idicative of my conservative nature...not my experience as after that I went on to cruise the indian, red sea, and others almost complete a full circumnav with the exception of the atlantic

so my post was simply stressing how different people react to different situations...Im very conservative when cruising or going offshore...but I also can be a hooligan on a hobie or dinghy racing etc...

sailors are different

so Im not critical or bashing eric or rebel heart because I feel for them naturally more than I feel the need to criticise and scrutinize them eternally

I feel the endless rants of guys on here and almost ridicule is sometimes cause of inexperience and having not done it themselves...

I know for a fact some here have just started sailing...or started at a later age...and are some of the most vociferous on here....its just the way it is....

I guess in the end Im agreeing with a few on here who look at this as a mistake or series of mistakes that lead to this...but by no means is it unnormal if you will or a special case etc...

there are many many many many boats that do the pacific puddle jump after just hopped down the coast of california and mexico for the first time and do just fine...

without eons of experience...so it just goes to show that experiences are different for all of us

peace


----------



## TomMaine

vtsailguy said:


> Yes, I would agree. I think that few of them are able to gain traction or traffic. Those that do tend to be written by younger people. The concept of a "successful" blog is one that is able to do this, and you do it by having copy that is readable, not always accurate (in the objective investigative reporting sense)
> 
> Another characteristic of "successful" blogs is the untarnished thoughts of the blogger. Think Dooce. But untarnished musings is not the same as representative thinking. Life one quote from a blog from something that was posted late one night and you might as well be convinced Fox News or MSNBC is balanced reporting.
> 
> There, I made age-ist AND political off the cuff remarks in the same reply, beat that!
> 
> /firmlydonstinfoilhat


Blogs have to be better than just readable to gain an audience. Good writing, that's what hooks me. You can tell immediately the writer has spent time thinking, editing, re-editing and generally cutting out all the stuff I don't need to read.

Then the great blogger has skill and artistic talent with other image and or video media. They edit there too. Suddenly, I'm hooked.

Most blogs are just barfing on the keyboard. There, I insulted bloggers of all ages.

Beat that!


----------



## ScottUK

> I guess in the end Im agreeing with a few on here who look at this as a mistake or series of mistakes that lead to this...but by no means is it unnormal if you will or a special case etc...


I agree mistakes are forgivable on the water but in this instance the mistakes were made prior to departure. That is where I have a problem. I have no issues with them calling for a rescue given their situation at the time. I do take exception of their being in the situation in the first place. It appears their approach to some aspects to the crossing was cavalier which jeopardised their children. Their decisions also put the rescuers in harms way.



> there are many many many many boats that do the pacific puddle jump after just hopped down the coast of california and mexico for the first time and do just fine...


Just because it has been done does not mean it should be done. I would also say the majority of these boats did not have a crew composition similiar to RH. RH rolled the dice and they lost.


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> RH had the confidence to make the decision to cross an ocean but lacked the experience to make it across.


This is about as well-stated as it can possibly be.


----------



## christian.hess

ScottUK said:


> I agree mistakes are forgivable on the water but in this instance the mistakes were made prior to departure. That is where I have a problem. I have no issues with them calling for a rescue given their situation at the time. I do take exception of their being in the situation in the first place. It appears their approach to some aspects to the crossing was cavalier which jeopardised their children. Their decisions also put the rescuers in harms way.
> 
> Just because it has been done does not mean it should be done. I would also say the majority of these boats did not have a crew composition similiar to RH. RH rolled the dice and they lost.


we will never really know...and I will avoid making more comments based on what few facts we do have...

respecting all parties thoughts on the matter

happy sailing


----------



## ScottUK

> This is about as well-stated as it can possibly be.


Thanks Smack - might have been one of those rare and fleeting moments of lucidity. Back into the fog now.


----------



## chall03

ScottUK said:


> I agree mistakes are forgivable on the water but in this instance the mistakes were made prior to departure.


I actually think you were slightly _more_ right in that statement. In other words he had the confidence to leave, but not the experience to realise that maybe he shoudn't of.



ScottUK said:


> RH rolled the dice and they lost.


While a different roll of the dice and maybe they would be sitting under a palm tree now, everytime you leave the dock you roll the dice and the point if to try and keep the odds in your favour.

The hull and deck issue, regardless of what role it actually played in the end was a big roll of the dice. Do we know whether they did ever have Rebel Heart surveyed??

I also believe choosing to do that passage as their first major passage was to me the biggest roll of the dice. I am surpirsed there hasn't been more discussion about their route choice? They did make it 800nm. If they had tried Panama to Galapagos they would of gotten there (battered and bruised). They also arguably would have had more favourable winds, better suiting a slow vessel with limited motoring range. Distance wise they basically completed the Salty Dawg Rally  So 800nm is nothing to be sniffed at, unless of course you still have 1800nm to go 

I think the lesson to be learn't is don't bet against the house.


----------



## christian.hess

they also would of cruised the coast if central america more, got more experience...a little rough weather over tehuantepece, some papagayos and nortes in el salvador and costa rica and experienced the rich weather patterns off panama...in panama they could of provisiones, reffitted worked on the boat and hoped over to perlas, then off to galapagos...etc...

20/20 hindsight though

the trip to galapagos is no joke...some seasons or if you leave to early its a beat, make very little progress against current and wind and many limp back to panama only to leave at a later date...

my friends had this happen to them the first time...

peace


----------



## chall03

christian.hess said:


> they also would of cruised the coast if central america more, got more experience...a little rough weather over tehuantepece, some papagayos and nortes in el salvador and costa rica and experienced the rich weather patterns off panama...in panama they could of provisiones, reffitted worked on the boat and hoped over to perlas, then off to galapagos...etc...
> 
> 20/20 hindsight though
> 
> the trip to galapagos is no joke...some seasons or if you leave to early its a beat, make very little progress against current and wind and many limp back to panama only to leave at a later date...
> 
> my friends had this happen to them the first time...
> 
> peace


True.

This is all hindsight, Panama to Galapagos and they may have been smashed by an entirely different scenario.

Like you said plenty of cruisers with limited experience do seem to make the passage they attempted as their first offshore outing without issue.

While it strikes me as a long way, and a struggle until you hit the trades, we really haven't properly researched Pacific routing in detail and I may be off base here, as we still have the other three quarters of the world to worry about first


----------



## christian.hess

are you talking about the route I just mentioned or leaving straight from mexico?

the pacific puddle jump for example by latitude uses 2 or 3 ports or countries of departure

either around pv, mexico or panama and or any central american country, however the facilities and help is in mexico and panama for paperwork...thats the reason most use the puddle jump as it helps with papwerwork ,save you money on the bond french polinesia require among other things...

now having said that

the pacific coast of central america has winds...but they are fluky and if you are near the coast you can count on 4-6 hours of steady winds from noon to around 6pm after that they can die...pick up or do whatever they feel like we would always look at the sunset with very light winds...depending on the time of year at midnight they would pick up again till dawn when the sum comes up and dies right after it comes up...then picking up again around 11am noon...

during "winter" or our dry season here from november till april or so you get northers...which are fresh winds coming from the carribean...you can count on these however its nothing like trade wind sailing

for getting to panama its always using the engine...all the coast...

once in panama and leaving for perlas you get for the most part winds and currents against you except on those months that its an easy trip, forget, something like april or a few months ago cant rememeber what month when we did it...

you can get to galapagos easily in a week or less or take much longer...we motored more than half the trip...

after galapagos it takes 3 or 4 days to get into the good trades...after the first week its steady all the way to hiva oa...or you can go way down to tuamotos etc...

all I can say for sure is that central american cruising close to shore is anything but steady sailing...ts flucky often with no wind for days...then you get awesome sailing from the north winds and can make good time

a trip straight to panama can be as short as 4 days from el salvador, if you get the right wind...

anywhoo


----------



## vtsailguy

TomMaine said:


> Blogs have to be better than just readable to gain an audience. Good writing, that's what hooks me.


You might be in the minority!

Katy Perry has 53 million followers on twitter, I don't think it's because of the excellent grammar


----------



## TomMaine

vtsailguy said:


> You might be in the minority!
> 
> Katy Perry has 53 million followers on twitter, I don't think it's because of the excellent grammar


You're probably right, I've never heard of her. 

Here's a good one from a friend. He's a prolific writer and blogging his trip for the last few years around the Atlantic has been a lot of work. He enjoys it and has gotten better and better.

I think his key is good wit, writing in the 3rd person(you may not know which of them is writing) and the ability to make the reader feel he or she is sailing along.

His posts have shortened, his photography improves with use, and from not catching a single fish between the UK and the US, he's become quite an accomplished sailing fisherman. It all took work.

The Magic Carpet. | A little boat and a big ocean.

The Magic Carpet. | A little boat and a big ocean.


----------



## vtsailguy

Nice!


----------



## TomMaine

vtsailguy said:


> Nice!


I look forward to following your cruise with your family. Having sailed Lake Champlain for over a decade, many years with babies, we have some commonalities.

Your 3 beautiful boys will make yours, quite a memorable adventure.

I know you won't have as much free time for your blog as Iain.


----------



## UnionPacific

All I have to say with this entire ordeal is this very thing is why someone should carry a full prescription med kit. Oceanmedix: Cruiser Prescription Kit
Then when you child gets ill, and they do get ill, you can do almost every treatment, including morphine. I think in this case some strong antibiotic would have saved the trip, their boat, and kept me from reading them blog about intercourse.


----------



## Shinook

UnionPacific said:


> All I have to say with this entire ordeal is this very thing is why someone should carry a full prescription med kit. Oceanmedix: Cruiser Prescription Kit
> Then when you child gets ill, and they do get ill, you can do almost every treatment, including morphine. I think in this case some strong antibiotic would have saved the trip, their boat, and kept me from reading them blog about intercourse.


They gave her a prescription antibiotic, upon the doctor's recommendation over the satphone. She didn't respond to it.


----------



## ScottUK

After the Rescue: The Kaufman Family Speaks - San Diego Magazine - June 2014 - San Diego, California

A couple of recent posts have mentioned hindsight is 20/20. From the linked article I don't think their hindsight vision will ever be 20/20. The problem, as I see it, they didn't have the experience to have the foresight for their undertaking.

The picture of them in the cockpit of RH with their recuers boggles the mind.


----------



## christian.hess

ScottUK said:


> After the Rescue: The Kaufman Family Speaks - San Diego Magazine - June 2014 - San Diego, California
> 
> A couple of recent posts have mentioned hindsight is 20/20. From the linked article I don't think their hindsight vision will ever be 20/20. The problem, as I see it, they didn't have the experience to have the foresight for their undertaking.
> 
> The picture of them in the cockpit of RH with their recuers boggles the mind.


man they say a pic is worth a thousand words...

its wierder now to me than ever...

if it were me Id refuse a pic Id be so pissed Im about to scuttle my boat...looks like tea and crumpets time is about to start if one looks at this pic

ahh


----------



## caberg

ScottUK said:


> After the Rescue: The Kaufman Family Speaks - San Diego Magazine - June 2014 - San Diego, California
> 
> A couple of recent posts have mentioned hindsight is 20/20. From the linked article I don't think their hindsight vision will ever be 20/20. The problem, as I see it, they didn't have the experience to have the foresight for their undertaking.
> 
> The picture of them in the cockpit of RH with their recuers boggles the mind.


She is just bizarre. That article is basically saying that they are better than every other American because they have a dream and are following it and are living enriching lives (note the lack of past tense). Uh, the dream literally sank to the bottom of the ocean. A little humility could go a long way for her.


----------



## ScottUK

Yes the article was written in a denigrating and superior manner showing what appears to be a lack of maturity.


----------



## sailvayu

5 of the paragraphs in that article start of with "we believe" 

I do get the impression this is a very self centered couple and I base this on a lot of their writings. I am not saying that is good or bad just my observation. 

Arrogance will get you into trouble at sea, humility could save your ass.

I am disappointed it appears they have not taken much from this as a learning experience or at least that is not reflected in their writings after the fact. In one of Eric's first posts once back on CF he stated that his blog was honest and almost all other sailing blogs were not. Now this article with Charlotte criticizing the way most people live. 

Sorry but I am just not finding this couple likable at least not for me. I am not going to judge but I do wish they had come back with a bit more humility, oh well such is life some learn others ignore and carry on. 

In reflecting on this adventure or perhaps mis-adventure, some of can learn a few things even if those involved do not.


----------



## vtsailguy

sailvayu said:


> "Now this article with Charlotte criticizing the way most people live. "


Actually, I find your statement very very unreasonable.

People have frothed rabidly online "wishing her and her baby were dead"

I find her response astonishingly restrained. Go read some of the venom that they have been attacked by. It's insane....


----------



## ScottUK

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by sailvayu
> "Now this article with Charlotte criticizing the way most people live. "
> 
> Actually, I find your statement very very unreasonable.
> 
> People have frothed rabidly online "wishing her and her baby were dead"
> 
> I find her response astonishingly restrained. Go read some of the venom that they have been attacked by. It's insane....


Do actually think it is restrained by attacking 'most' people due to the comments of a few?


----------



## sailvayu

I agree many comments have been very harsh and uncalled for. 
that does not change the fact that she clearly says that most people live bad lives. "We believe that most people lead lives of quiet desperation" "give us the ability to not live in the blasé, “safe” world of suburbia or Middle America." "over the alternative of discussions about Monster High dolls, TV shows, and the latest version of their iPads" 

I understand what she is saying but clearly she is taking a holier than tho attitude, sorry just the way I read it. 

I fail to see what the harsh criticism has to do with this attitude.


----------



## vtsailguy

ScottUK said:


> Do actually think it is restrained by attacking 'most' people due to the comments of a few?


Sorry, it's not a few. We are talking h.u.n.d.r.e.d.s of comments at best personally insulting, at worst, borderline criminal.


----------



## lowtide

sailvayu said:


> Arrogance will get you into trouble at sea, humility could save your ass.


+1

The arrogant attitude long preceded the harsh comments, as evidenced in black and white.

'


----------



## ScottUK

> Sorry, it's not a few. We are talking h.u.n.d.r.e.d.s of comments at best personally insulting, at worst, borderline criminal.


It is a few compared to the population she was pontificating about. That does not excuse the vile comments nor does it excuse Mrs. RH response.


----------



## titustiger27

vtsailguy said:


> You might be in the minority!
> 
> Katy Perry has 53 million followers on twitter, I don't think it's because of the excellent grammar


or mammar skills


----------



## christian.hess

ScottUK said:


> It is a few compared to the population she was pontificating about. That does not excuse the vile comments nor does it excuse Mrs. RH response.


not that there is any comparison...but moitessier, knox johnston, hisocks, chichester, dumas, and many others all had many of the same beleifs and pontificated all the time...some better than others

its how they expressed these views that made it drinkeable to the masses or not

for example even a full french euro monster when reading about the hero motissier in his books could understand what was wrong with the masses and population in europe at that time...the greed, the culture, however its how you express it that makes the writer likeable or not

when moitissier wrote he absolutely lambasted the masses, the cultre, the greedy monster that was europe in the 60s no less...yet how he said it made you think, and recocgnise and look inside your soul...and youd be hard pressed to not see what he was talking about or how you were part of it.

his little diagrams and cartoons...in his books almost like reading st.exuperry or something...its like reading the little prince but with deep knowleadge and topics being exposed in childrens terms...yet the power of the words are there...

criticising public education or the workforce or the american dream or how children or most are raised in "society" the masses, etc, etc etc...has always existed its HOW you write about it that can make the difference between sounding HOLIER THAN THOU or iluminated, respected, a true soul searcher if you will...

the difference is subtle but its the writers grasp on things and in the end literary QUALITY that makes the difference

one could even say intelligence...but that would sound holier than thou wouldnt it? jajja

cheers


----------



## ScottUK

Not looking to get into a philosophical discussion here but most of the individuals in your list are/were fairly well off and used the systems that they apparently disfavoured to their own benefit. Reminds me of how politicians are currently lecturing the poor on how to live. As it relates to RH, they had purchased a boat, outfitted it, provisioned it, brought along a lot life's necessities along with extra comforts all of which they could not have had if it were not for the worker bees they so disdain. If I recall correctly Mr. RH also 'laboured' in the financial sector prior to their departure. Given what was written I would doubt Mrs. RH would understand the hippocracy.


----------



## sailvayu

And circling back to my original point, arrogance and the ocean do not mix much like oil and water do not mix. Both arrogance and oil will speed you down that slippery slop to disaster.


----------



## christian.hess

ScottUK said:


> Not looking to get into a philosophical discussion here but most of the individuals in your list are/were fairly well off and used the systems that they apparently disfavoured to their own benefit. Reminds me of how politicians are currently lecturing the poor on how to live. As it relates to RH, they had purchased a boat, outfitted it, provisioned it, brought along a lot life's necessities along with extra comforts all of which they could not have had if it were not for the worker bees they so disdain. If I recall correctly Mr. RH also 'laboured' in the financial sector prior to their departure. Given what was written I would doubt Mrs. RH would understand the hippocracy.


hisocks and chichester yeah...not the rest...what I was trying to say was that its dependant on the quality of the writer on how things can be portrayed

for example:

"it is my beleif(we beleive) that the system sucks and all are evil" versus

"throughout our voyaging and travelling so far we have learned and accepted new ways and different manners of living within society and have adpoted certain things for our children in their upbringing, education, etc...in the hopes that they will become better people"

stuff like that...

one sounds holier than thou the other sounds like people that are willing to learn and progress and appreciate...

less me me me


----------



## ScottUK

> hisocks and chichester yeah...not the rest


Beg to differ but is not relevant to this thread.



> less me me me





> "throughout our voyaging and travelling so far we have learned and accepted new ways and different manners of living within society and have adpoted certain things for our children in their upbringing, education, etc...in the hopes that they will become better people"


The second quote is about personal experience so is inherently about me, me me. I am obviously fine with anybody doing this as it is also my lifestyle choice. It is Mrs. RH's dictative you should/shouldn't, you should/shouldn't edicts followed by 'you should be like me' comments I find offensive.


----------



## aeventyr60

caberg said:


> She is just bizarre. That article is basically saying that they are better than every other American because they have a dream and are following it and are living enriching lives (note the lack of past tense). Uh, the dream literally sank to the bottom of the ocean. A little humility could go a long way for her.


Something else comes to mind in a quote I read:

Life is a stage, and when the curtain falls upon an act, it is finished and forgotten. The emptiness of such a life is beyond imagination.[5]
"
"
-Alexander Lowen, describing
the existence of a narcissist


----------



## chall03

This just in...

Another crazy family trying to cross the Pacific with young kids. 
In such cramped, horrible conditions and such a difficult arduous trip.

Ohhhhhh the humanity. The poor miserable souls. Someone should get those kids into the back of a KIA and off to the mall for their own safety and sanity.....

Crossing the Pacific Low Res on Vimeo

Before someone points out the obvious, yes there are several things these guys did differently to _Rebel Heart_.

However it is nice to see an alternative perspective and for those thinking of cruising with kids this helps to balance the worry and negativity that has surrounded _Rebel Heart_.


----------



## copacabana

christian.hess said:


> hisocks and chichester yeah...not the rest...what I was trying to say was that its dependant on the quality of the writer on how things can be portrayed
> 
> Chichester certainly didn't start out with any money. He went out to New Zealand as a youth to make a life there and ended up somewhat successful in real estate and then had his own (less successful) map-making business in England. I highly recommend his fascinating autobiography "The Lonely sea and the Sky". The man lived a truly remarkable life.


----------



## ScottUK

Good counterpoint to the detractors of the lifestyle evidencing an approach that should be commended.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> This just in...
> 
> Another crazy family trying to cross the Pacific with young kids.
> In such cramped, horrible conditions and such a difficult arduous trip.
> 
> Ohhhhhh the humanity. The poor miserable souls. Someone should get those kids into the back of a KIA and off to the mall for their own safety and sanity.....
> 
> Crossing the Pacific Low Res on Vimeo
> 
> Before someone points out the obvious, yes there are several things these guys did differently to _Rebel Heart_.
> 
> However it is nice to see an alternative perspective and for those thinking of cruising with kids this helps to balance the worry and negativity that has surrounded _Rebel Heart_.


I think all you've proven here is that if you want to take young children on an extended voyage - you should do it on a cat. Anything else, like a "traditional bluewater boat", is just irresponsible parenting.


----------



## smackdaddy

ScottUK said:


> After the Rescue: The Kaufman Family Speaks - San Diego Magazine - June 2014 - San Diego, California
> 
> A couple of recent posts have mentioned hindsight is 20/20. From the linked article I don't think their hindsight vision will ever be 20/20. The problem, as I see it, they didn't have the experience to have the foresight for their undertaking.
> 
> The picture of them in the cockpit of RH with their recuers boggles the mind.





> We have actively set up our lives to give us the ability to not live in the blasé, "safe" world of suburbia or Middle America.


She's kind of like the Gwyneth Paltrow of The Poor. Just can't help but step in it due to an almost impressive cluelessness.



> Kids on boats grow up around knowledgeable, competent adults who have to make serious decisions about life every day.


Maybe _some_ kids.



> No. Life is too short and too valuable to gamble on pushing your dreams off until later. We believe in going now, and doing it with gusto.


Going with a sound boat is much better than just gusto...and Elmer's. And it's a much, much better gamble on that "valuable, short life" you speak of...especially your children's. You guys had that chance.

Sorry. Fail.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I think all you've proven here is that if you want to take young children on an extended voyage - you should do it on a cat. Anything else, like a "traditional bluewater boat", is just irresponsible parenting.


You would have a hard time keeping the water in the wading pool in a Union Polaris 36.....


----------



## christian.hess

chall03 said:


> This just in...
> 
> Another crazy family trying to cross the Pacific with young kids.
> In such cramped, horrible conditions and such a difficult arduous trip.
> 
> Ohhhhhh the humanity. The poor miserable souls. Someone should get those kids into the back of a KIA and off to the mall for their own safety and sanity.....
> 
> Crossing the Pacific Low Res on Vimeo
> 
> Before someone points out the obvious, yes there are several things these guys did differently to _Rebel Heart_.
> 
> However it is nice to see an alternative perspective and for those thinking of *cruising with kids this helps to balance the worry and negativity that has surrounded* _Rebel Heart_.


awesome...

here here on the negativity...too much of it...lets focus on the good...


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> I think all you've proven here is that if you want to take young children on an extended voyage - you should do it on a cat. Anything else, like a "traditional bluewater boat", is just irresponsible parenting.


The Bumfuzzles might agree with you on this point.

MedSailor


----------



## miatapaul

chall03 said:


> This just in...
> 
> Another crazy family trying to cross the Pacific with young kids.
> In such cramped, horrible conditions and such a difficult arduous trip.
> 
> Ohhhhhh the humanity. The poor miserable souls. Someone should get those kids into the back of a KIA and off to the mall for their own safety and sanity.....
> 
> Crossing the Pacific Low Res on Vimeo
> 
> Before someone points out the obvious, yes there are several things these guys did differently to _Rebel Heart_.
> 
> However it is nice to see an alternative perspective and for those thinking of cruising with kids this helps to balance the worry and negativity that has surrounded _Rebel Heart_.


This is a perfect example of someone doing it right. Just about every issue that people had with RH is dealt with. Children are older. They actively cruised the Caribbean before going off shore. The boat is properly prepared and they have 2 extra crew to make for reasonable watch schedules. I don't really see any comparison. I think what Field Trip is doing is great "were going to French Polynesia" with the loli-pops is classic. Of course they are in a catamaran so they are sure to flip at any moment.


----------



## MedSailor

miatapaul said:


> Of course they are in a catamaran so they are sure to flip at any moment.


I hope to be the piranha that tastes first blood on that thread. Hehe....

Seriously though, why do all these threads change from "what we can learn" to a "judgementfest"? I vote for insecurity on the part of us who want to do it too. We feel safe judging them for their errors and our plans are threatened by their poor outcome. To judge too harshly and dismiss what they have done wrong as things that we would never do wrong is missing the opportunity to learn from their experience IMHO.

MedSailor


----------



## AlaskaMC

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Very few places in the Northern Hemisphere, even most of Alaska, are so remote that emergency medical care is more than 12 (or, at most, 24) hours away; a boat well off-shore being one huge exception. Perhaps you either don't have kids, or if you do you (and they) are lucky enough that you haven't seen just how fast an infant/toddler can develop a life-threatening illness. Believe me, witnessing such is no fun; even with and ER just a short car ride away. I can't imagine waiting days for help to arrive while I watched any small child, particularly my own child, getting closer to death with every passing moment.
> 
> If any of you think that such a risk is worth not having to postpone the adventure for a few years, fine. But how can an infant or toddler make an informed decision about such risks?


I live in Alaska in remote areas. This statement is incorrect. MOST of Alaska does fit this description. No access at all by road or water. Emergency services (IE: Flight rescues) are not available in many places and were defunded about 5 years ago. Just watch what you say when you don't know. This same criticism is aimed at folks that live in remote villages with no police, fire or medical services.

EDIT: And as I should know better I will avoid this thread in the future. Silly me.


----------



## chall03

miatapaul said:


> This is a perfect example of someone doing it right. Just about every issue that people had with RH is dealt with. Children are older. They actively cruised the Caribbean before going off shore. The boat is properly prepared and they have 2 extra crew to make for reasonable watch schedules


Yep, Yep, Yep Yep and Yep.

And they had a wading pool and lollipops 

I love the Antares. Yes it is big, expensive, has too many hulls and will flip but what a nice boat.


----------



## B.J. Porter

miatapaul said:


> This is a perfect example of someone doing it right. Just about every issue that people had with RH is dealt with. Children are older. They actively cruised the Caribbean before going off shore. The boat is properly prepared and they have 2 extra crew to make for reasonable watch schedules. I don't really see any comparison. I think what Field Trip is doing is great "were going to French Polynesia" with the loli-pops is classic. Of course they are in a catamaran so they are sure to flip at any moment.


We spent some time with Field Trip in the Caribbean. I don't know the Rebel Heart folks but did spend some time talking with Mark about our mutual plans. They seemed prepared and yes the kids are older and that does make a difference.

I've said before if I was to cruise with babies/toddlers it would be island hopping the Caribbean until they are older then head off shore.

Sailing offshore with teenagers...that is like having your own extra adults.


----------



## miatapaul

B.J. Porter said:


> Sailing offshore with teenagers...that is like having your own extra adults.


not my teenagers! I doubt they could make it 3 days!


----------



## h20man

And the saga continues... they are filing a lawsuit:

"The Kaufmans are suing the makers of the satellite phone they used to call their doctor, saying the reason they had to activate an emergency beacon is because the phone stopped working and they were unable to get full instructions on how to treat their daughter."


----------



## smackdaddy

Lawsuit? Nice.






The phone caused deck rot and water intrusion?


----------



## h20man

smackdaddy said:


> Lawsuit? Nice.
> 
> 10News Interview: Eric and Charlotte Kaufman - YouTube
> 
> The phone caused deck rot and water intrusion?


Sure.... as the constant use of the phone previously was detrimental to his brain, causing his CPD* symptoms..... that let him decide that the boat was seaworthy....

**CPD: "Cognitive Processing Disorder*"


----------



## ScottUK

Sure I don't have all the information but if the provider of the service failed in their support I would be none to pleased. These sat. phones are touted as being a safety feature.


----------



## UnionPacific

I am sure someplace in the contract is a statement to the effect of " not responsible for lost communications or inability to make or receive calls"

What page were the unseaworthy state of their boat discussed?


----------



## fryewe

Don't know all details about the phone service interruption but the longer term implications for ocean sailors may be significant.

What happens if the Kaufmann's get a very large judgement against the sat phone service providers? What happens to the cost of service if providers now have to insure themselves against this kind of lawsuit through subscription increases?

Charlotte says their motivation is to make sure no one else has to experience what they had to because of loss of sat phone service. Their actions may cause the price of the service to be out of reach of many who would have otherwise had it.

This lawsuit perhaps will get many unanswered questions answered because the phone service is one small piece of a much larger puzzle of events including preparations for the voyage and boat condition and skills and experience of master and crew and other incidents during the voyage that exacerbated conditions. Discovery may get interesting for Eric and depositions and questioning under oath do not allow for evasion and half-stories (unless you are an IRS official -  -sorry couldn't help myself).

Their lawsuit seems based on the old "for the want of a nail...etc...the war was lost" saw. Gonna be interesting.


----------



## ScottUK

> What happens if the Kaufmann's get a very large judgement against the sat phone service providers? What happens to the cost of service if providers now have to insure themselves against this kind of lawsuit through subscription increases?


I would think reliability would be a bigger issue since sat. phones providers do advertise the safety element. If not I would imagine the service would be construed as pointless for most subscribers.


----------



## christian.hess

devils advocate once again...they should do this...

there are many other accounts of the satphone providers deeming the cards or chips old or non renwewed and cutting off service...those on the pacific puddle jump and other accounts can be read on latitde 38...

if this wasnt disclosed to the, they absolutely should be mad.

completely unrelated to the boat and its state and the state of mind of the kauffmans

satphones used to be the golden standard use when needed emergency or not, only to have them follow the ways of shanky cell phone providers...


id be beyon pissed if I find out mid atlantic or pacific that the satphone provider deemed my minuted uneaseable cause I didnt activate them or something...

pathetic


----------



## MedSailor

Maybe the suit will raise prices but maybe it will also make the providers a little more careful to provide reliable service. 

In general I take issue with lawsuits and huge payouts as a way to change behavior, but that is too big a segue to explore here.

Lawsuits are usually about negligence right? Mailing a sim card to a physical address 1 week before inactivating the old one on a service that is EXCLUSIVELY used in remote locations sounds negligent. Now are they entitled to all the damages as a result? Perhaps but every step of the way Eric has said the loss was because of too many factors to quantify and not one single failure. That's going to be a tough stance to reverse in court. 

Medsailor


----------



## UnionPacific

No matter what, do not expect an outcome in less then 3-4 years. 
these things are slow.


----------



## ScottUK

> No matter what, do not expect an outcome in less then 3-4 years.


It is too bad these cases are attritional with the party with the least resources disadvantaged.


----------



## UnionPacific

ScottUK said:


> It is too bad these cases are attritional with the party with the least resources disadvantaged.


I only agree when the little guy is getting sued. Not vice versa. If the case is strong enough a lawyer will take it without payment. Then he will collect fess with the judgement. 
EG you were molested by the pope in public on live TV
A lawyer can retire on the fees on a 3 year case if he wins.

They will not take on a case that is baseless without pay.
EG if i sued you for WW2 happening.


----------



## ScottUK

> If the case is strong enough a lawyer will take it without payment. Then he will collect fess with the judgement.


That can be true but is also largely dependent on the complexity of the case so doesn't really matter how right you are.


----------



## titustiger27

These guys went from not wanting to talk to the press, to taking to anyone

https://gma.yahoo.com/parents-rescu...le-lawsuit-144843401--abc-news-parenting.html

and suing.. Seems like most people who are suing.. don't want to talk to the media.. or told not to by their lawyers


----------



## smackdaddy

titustiger27 said:


> These guys went from not wanting to talk to the press, to taking to anyone
> 
> https://gma.yahoo.com/parents-rescu...le-lawsuit-144843401--abc-news-parenting.html
> 
> and suing.. Seems like most people who are suing.. don't want to talk to the media.. or told not to by their lawyers


Did you hear the part about getting the phone company to pay for the rescue AND replace the boat? The one "that was damaged in the journey"...I assume by the phone company since they were the negligent ones?

Damn phone company.

(This is going to be ugly.)


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> Lawsuit? Nice.
> 
> ..._.video removed_....
> 
> The phone caused deck rot and water intrusion?


I will say again. I would not make the same decisions they did, but they just don't seem all that nuts to me. Lot's of people have made a passage like theirs in at least as questionable condition. Their call on this one.

There is at least some chance they would be across the Pacific now, if that phone worked. I'm not saying the sat company has any legal liability, that seems like a stretch. However, the rescue folks acknowledged the boat was not taking on much water. Without being able to consult with a Doc, they bailed. Right call. Doesn't make them bad people in my book. Clearly others differ.


----------



## titustiger27

smackdaddy said:


> Did you hear the part about getting the phone company to pay for the rescue AND replace the boat? The one "that was damaged in the journey"...I assume by the phone company since they were the negligent ones?
> 
> Damn phone company.
> 
> (This is going to be ugly.)


Well everyone does hate their carrier... I know the other video I fell asleep, but that might be about me, more than their assertions


----------



## fryewe

I'm still having a little trouble with this whole concept of "I lost my boat because my phone didn't work."

Is it just me? I'm going to have to think about this some more...


----------



## ScottUK

> "We're both experienced sailors," said Charlotte


I think this is the attitude that got them into trouble in the first place. From what I read in a short perusal of their blog I believe Mrs RH had sailed 1500nm total a couple of months prior to their departure. It would also seem a lot of this experience consisted of being mostly a passenger while Mr RH did the bulk of the sailing. I have a very hard time thinking this person is an 'experienced sailor'.

It was also mentioned a number of times in the other interview about being a live aboard for years. This is no substitute to actual sailing.


----------



## Minnewaska

fryewe said:


> I'm still having a little trouble with this whole concept of "I lost my boat because my phone didn't work."
> 
> Is it just me? I'm going to have to think about this some more...


What I heard, was "my kid's life was in danger and I had to press the EPIRB because the sat phone stopped working and I couldn't consult with the doc"

The consequence of that is to abandon your boat when they come for you.


----------



## chall03

fryewe said:


> I'm still having a little trouble with this whole concept of "I lost my boat because my phone didn't work."
> 
> Is it just me? I'm going to have to think about this some more...


It's drawing a long bow.

My iPhone 5 that runs Navionics is playing up at the moment. If I sail into a rock can I sue Apple?

I have defended these guys and will continue to defend them against some of the wilder and more outrageous rants. I am not sure I am with them on this one however.

I guess if I was in their situation I would be somewhat miffed- To the point of litigation? I am not sure.

I guess for them it is a shot at getting another boat and another go, something I believe they are keen for. That they are doing all this media right now is telling. They don't want to wait 3-4 years to win this. They want a big reaction and a quick payout now.


----------



## titustiger27

chall03 said:


> It's drawing a long bow.
> 
> My iPhone 5 that runs Navionics is playing up at the moment. If I sail into a rock can I sue Apple?
> 
> I have defended these guys and will continue to defend them against some of the wilder and more outrageous rants. I am not sure I am with them on this one however.
> 
> I guess if I was in their situation I would be somewhat miffed- To the point of litigation? I am not sure.
> 
> I guess for them it is a shot at getting another boat and another go, something I believe they are keen for. That they are doing all this media right now is telling. They don't want to wait 3-4 years to win this. They want a big reaction and a quick payout now.


If I was running Navionics.. and the chart was wrong... I wouldn't sue Apple, but the makers of the app...maybe. First I would have to know that there was something wrong with the program ...

I generally find that when someone sues now a days I tend to stop being on their side. Like the guy who was sleeping a a baseball game and decided because they put him on camera he could sue. Maybe the announcers shouldn't have poked fun at you... but maybe you need to take responsibility for what you do in public.


----------



## sailvayu

"Taking responsibility for your actions" for me this is the heart of the matter. RH keeps insisting they did everything right, that they are experienced and that everything is the fault of something else. Maybe so but in the end I would have a lot more respect for them if they just sucked it up and said "yeah we screwed up and made some mistakes." Learn from your mistakes and move forward. But no it is the fault of the sat phone company. The more this drags out the less respect i have, but that is just me.


----------



## titustiger27

One things that happens when a battle of words, moves to a battle of words (and hopefully facts) in court ---> It can do nothing BUT drag on


----------



## fryewe

Minnewaska said:


> What I heard, was "my kid's life was in danger and I had to press the EPIRB because the sat phone stopped working and I couldn't consult with the doc"
> 
> The consequence of that is to abandon your boat when they come for you.


And the pararescue guys had a sat phone and brought medical skills and the youngster was stabilized and transferred to an FF...and then the Captain decided to scuttle his boat rather than sail it to safety.

I have no issue with his decision making. Only he knows his full rationale and his skills and the true condition of his boat...but the decision to scuttle was AFTER the medical danger to his daughter had passed and the sat phone's operability was not an issue.

But he is the guy who blogged that the only reason he had the sat phone was it was needed for his work.

And he did have HF equipment that failed due to salt water intrusion (apparently) that could also have been used for off-board advice...and he was responsible for that failure.

So while I don't question his decision making at sea I do question his decision to try to assign all the blame for his outcome on inability to make a sat phone call.

He was the Captain. He made all the decisions regarding that voyage from boat to equipment and equipage to date and time of departure to repair practices to navigation to sail selection and courses to steer to sailing with youngsters and crew who recently required medical attention.

And the inference is that "if only we had an operable sat phone the voyage would have been successful"...which I find ludicrous.

More likely the sat phone failure saved their lives. If it had continued to work they may have continued on their merry way until the boat's deck disintegrated (Elmer's glue as a wood filler?)...the interior of the boat was waterlogged...all electrical power was lost...fresh water was exhausted...and they were impelled to rely on EPIRB and AMVER because they were out of range of the Cal Natl Guard.


----------



## MedSailor

fryewe said:


> And the pararescue guys had a sat phone and brought medical skills and the youngster was stabilized and transferred to an FF...and then the Captain decided to scuttle his boat rather than sail it to safety.
> 
> I have no issue with his decision making. Only he knows his full rationale and his skills and the true condition of his boat...but the decision to scuttle was AFTER the medical danger to his daughter had passed and the sat phone's operability was not an issue.
> 
> But he is the guy who blogged that the only reason he had the sat phone was it was needed for his work.
> 
> And he did have HF equipment that failed due to salt water intrusion (apparently) that could also have been used for off-board advice...and he was responsible for that failure.
> 
> So while I don't question his decision making at sea I do question his decision to try to assign all the blame for his outcome on inability to make a sat phone call.
> 
> He was the Captain. He made all the decisions regarding that voyage from boat to equipment and equipage to date and time of departure to repair practices to navigation to sail selection and courses to steer to sailing with youngsters and crew who recently required medical attention.
> 
> And the inference is that "if only we had an operable sat phone the voyage would have been successful"...which I find ludicrous.
> 
> More likely the sat phone failure saved their lives. If it had continued to work they may have continued on their merry way until the boat's deck disintegrated (Elmer's glue as a wood filler?)...the interior of the boat was waterlogged...all electrical power was lost...fresh water was exhausted...and they were impelled to rely on EPIRB and AMVER because they were out of range of the Cal Natl Guard.


Nailed it. I completely agree.

MedSailor


----------



## chall03

titustiger27 said:


> If I was running Navionics.. and the chart was wrong... I wouldn't sue Apple, but the makers of the app...maybe. First I would have to know that there was something wrong with the program ...


Nothing wrong with the app. My iphone is just crap. So if I _rely_ on it to navigate my vessel clearly Apple would be to blame wouldn't they? 

Maybe it's a cultural thing, we are just not as litigous here( becoming so).

This is clearly not about the moral high ground for these guys though. They are not worried about convincing Sailnet. They are being pragmatic, they want a boat, if they do enough media and scare the lawyers they get a quick payday.


----------



## miatapaul

fryewe said:


> And the pararescue guys had a sat phone and brought medical skills and the youngster was stabilized and transferred to an FF...and then the Captain decided to scuttle his boat rather than sail it to safety.
> 
> I have no issue with his decision making. Only he knows his full rationale and his skills and the true condition of his boat...but the decision to scuttle was AFTER the medical danger to his daughter had passed and the sat phone's operability was not an issue.
> 
> But he is the guy who blogged that the only reason he had the sat phone was it was needed for his work.
> 
> And he did have HF equipment that failed due to salt water intrusion (apparently) that could also have been used for off-board advice...and he was responsible for that failure.
> 
> So while I don't question his decision making at sea I do question his decision to try to assign all the blame for his outcome on inability to make a sat phone call.
> 
> He was the Captain. He made all the decisions regarding that voyage from boat to equipment and equipage to date and time of departure to repair practices to navigation to sail selection and courses to steer to sailing with youngsters and crew who recently required medical attention.
> 
> And the inference is that "if only we had an operable sat phone the voyage would have been successful"...which I find ludicrous.
> 
> More likely the sat phone failure saved their lives. If it had continued to work they may have continued on their merry way until the boat's deck disintegrated (Elmer's glue as a wood filler?)...the interior of the boat was waterlogged...all electrical power was lost...fresh water was exhausted...and they were impelled to rely on EPIRB and AMVER because they were out of range of the Cal Natl Guard.


I agree, especially the highlighted parts. In my opinion the going public now is purely to put pressure on the sat-phone company to settle without it going to court.


----------



## smackdaddy

From what I've been able to dig up - I think we might actually be at rock bottom (with RH) now.


----------



## h20man

chall03 said:


> Nothing wrong with the app. My iphone is just crap. So if I _rely_ on it to navigate my vessel clearly Apple would be to blame wouldn't they?
> 
> Maybe it's a cultural thing, we are just not as litigous here( becoming so).
> 
> This is clearly not about the moral high ground for these guys though. They are not worried about convincing Sailnet. They are being pragmatic, they want a boat, if they do enough media and scare the lawyers they get a quick payday.


I believe that the ipad app and even chartplotters come up with a disclaimer... This is the garmin one:


> "WARNING: Digital charts are intended to be used as an aid to traditional navigational charts, not as a replacement. Please read the full disclaimer here before purchasing or using Garmin charting."


This is the iNavX disclaimer:








the only system that I know of that claims to allow use without paper charts is an ECDIS certified system... and they still have disclaimers, otherwise they would be responsible for bad stuff like this: US NAVY ON REEF.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smackdaddy said:


> From what I've been able to dig up - I think we might actually be at rock bottom (with RH) now.


Don't be silly. Its the Internet! We can go MUCH lower 

Mark


----------



## titustiger27

If Navionics is smart... and I am sure iPhones has this... has a release that you have to 'click' and it releases them from all litigation... you probably read it, it's 70 pages long, which is still shorter than the iTune contract.


----------



## chall03

Well _that_ CF thread lasted maybe 10 minutes longer than I thought it would.

So who is going to help me sue Apple??

I just used google maps to try and find the local pizza place and it was way off. We damn well near starved to death.


----------



## titustiger27

chall03 said:


> Well _that_ CF thread lasted maybe 10 minutes longer than I thought it would.
> 
> So who is going to help me sue Apple??
> 
> I just used google maps to try and find the local pizza place and it was way off. We damn well near starved to death.


Tell me about it... Pizza Hut gave me directions assuming I was in my boat... I drove right into Lake Flower...


----------



## lowtide

We are all so lucky that Eric and Charlotte have made this sacrifice for us. The only reason they are suing is to make the satphone world safe for the rest of us.

As Moon Unit Zappa said in the song; gag me with a spoon.

He should also sue the HF radio maker, for not making it watertight, and Elmer's wood filler for not telling him not to use it for boat repair. 

Too bad he can't sue the Mexican Physician, but they don't put up with such nonsense.

Shakespeare gave the best legal advice ever.

'


----------



## h20man

chall03 said:


> Well _that_ CF thread lasted maybe 10 minutes longer than I thought it would.
> 
> So who is going to help me sue Apple??
> 
> I just used google maps to try and find the local pizza place and it was way off. We damn well near starved to death.


Regarding the thread... I am surprised that it was closed... not deleted...

There was so much pro RH that people were ignoring all else....

Regarding suing Apple for a defect in google maps.... RH has done the legwork. Use his 'lawyer'. But first we need to start the stories about your hospitalization due to the starvation ... and did you also total your old car? You should sue to get an RV (with full oven and freezers so you can have pizza so this will NEVER happen again...) and make sure it is class action, as I want a new car/RV as well... and a driver... so this will never happen to me.....


----------



## chall03

lowtide said:


> He should also sue the HF radio maker, for not making it watertight, and Elmer's wood filler for not telling him not to use it for boat repair.
> 
> Too bad he can't sue the Mexican Physician, but they don't put up with such nonsense.
> 
> Shakespeare gave the best legal advice ever.
> 
> '


Maybe he should also sue Bob Perry?? I mean if the boat broached then clearly it is also faulty ?
As for the leaks....well if it was made of steel then things would have been different


----------



## titustiger27

sue the sea

she's an evil mistress


----------



## Dean101

I have zero experience with sat phones so I looked at the Iridium website. I looked at the first rugged sat phone that caught my eye and under the "overview" description of the phone I saw this: 

"Rugged and reliable

The Iridium 9555 is engineered to withstand rugged environments, so customers can depend on it as a critical lifeline wherever need takes them."

In my opinion that is a pretty strong and confident statement and I feel the company should be held accountable for it. If the phone is that tough and reliable, then so should the service that is required for the phone to function. I don't think the loss of that phone caused the loss of that boat, but if his particular phone was advertised similar to the statement I quoted above and it was simply a matter of the company disrupting a "critical lifeline" that they themselves advertised, then I believe that company should be held accountable.


----------



## titustiger27

I am losing track of what everyone has said.. in and out of this thread... but I thought the first problem with the phone was they were suppose to install a new chip, that --- after they had gone to sea --- had been mailed out. And that after their phone call the company switched over to the new chip.

that is, it wasn't a matter if the phone was workable or rugged, but because un-functional


----------



## lowtide

Truth in Advertising? You're kidding right?

I guess we should sue Tony the Tiger if our Frosted Flakes aint frosty enough. Damn cat told me they were GREAT!



Seriously, if you consider something a critical lifeline, and you are headed offshore, you should have two of them, especially if it involves electricity in any way. If it involves third parties, like a service provider, you make sure everything is paid and set for months ahead. If you're not sure if a new card had been mailed, you make damn sure. You have to treat it like it is a critical lifeline beforehand, if you want to claim it later. You can't say "it is a critical lifeline" and "I just assumed it would work" in the same breath offshore.

The chain of events that was critical didn't involve the child or the satphone, and could have killed them all; no electricity = no watermaker = no water = :x

The medical issues at worst sped up the inevitable, what damage is there in that?

While doing laundry yesterday a woman overheard that we were cruisers and immediately asked what I thought about this story she had seen on TV. Her view was that it was OK to cruise with kids as long as you're prepared. I agreed with that 100%, but it took about 90 seconds for her to shake her head in disbelief when she heard just a bit of the story. A random woman, with a pre-placed belief that it was OK to cruise with kids, concluded they were not prepared in under 2 minutes. Might take 3 minutes if some Jurors are hard headed. If I had been able to show her photos, it would have been over faster than that.

No need to Depose anyone, they have already testified against themselves sufficiently,then tried to scrub it, all preserved by the Internet Archive. Cross examination of the Plaintiffs would be so much fun it could go on for days,and include the phrase "you told us this, but in your blog dated....." over and over. 

Even if Iridium were assigned some small percentage of the responsibility, no reputable Marine Surveyor is going to assign much value to that boat in that condition. That leaves the bottom line at pocket change, even if Iridium went to trial and lost. 

If we know all of this, the Attorney does, so Eric does, so this is just another run at the news and the talk shows, another 15 minutes, and more run up to a book.

'


----------



## Dean101

Tony the Tiger told the truth. Frosted Flakes are indeed frosty and yes, they are great! I've never read or heard that they are the frostiest flakes on the planet but they are frosty enough to be called frosty. Let's not get ridiculous here. Yes, I think the public expects truth in advertising. If a new chip needed to be installed, there should be plenty of notice given. I don't know how much advance notice they got, or even if they actually received it before they departed. Given the fact that those sat phones are used in remote locations not quickly or easily reached, something I'm sure the company is aware of, I would think that they would ask for some sort of confirmation of receipt or allow a generous amount of time to elapse prior to disabling the phone. Sure, it was RH's responsibility to ensure the integrity of his communications. I'm not saying it wasn't, nor am I insinuating that the phone company is libel for his entire loss. I'm merely saying that when a company makes statements like that in it's advertising it should bear the responsibility to make sure they can back it up. If your customer base is comprised of people who spend extensive amounts of time out of reach of conventional communications, then your customer service should allow for that. Telling someone that a cereal is great is rather subjective. Telling someone they can depend on your phone as a critical lifeline? That sounds much less subjective and more like a promise.


----------



## fryewe

Dean101 said:


> I'm merely saying that when a company makes statements like that in it's advertising it should bear the responsibility to make sure they can back it up.


When the customer publicly states prior to a voyage that sat phone reliability is poor and shouldn't be relied on for emergency communications...and that he wouldn't have one except that he needed it for work purposes...

...and that customer then sues the company because the phone wasn't operable when he wanted to use it in an emergency situation...

...does that mean the customer is now saying he was relying on it for emergency communications...

...even though he knew it to be unreliable?

Huh?


----------



## JonEisberg

fryewe said:


> When the customer publicly states prior to a voyage that sat phone reliability is poor and shouldn't be relied on for emergency communications...and that he wouldn't have one except that he needed it for work purposes...
> 
> ...and that customer then sues the company because the phone wasn't operable when he wanted to use it in an emergency situation...
> 
> ...does that mean the customer is now saying he was relying on it for emergency communications...
> 
> ...even though he knew it to be unreliable?
> 
> Huh?


Exactly... Anyone know what the fancy Latin Legalese phrase is for _"Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice, shame on me..."_ ?

What many appear to be unaware of, is that Eric had a well-documented history of problems with this provider, and his service had been cut off at least _TWICE_ before they began their passage. He has stated, unequivocally, that he had reason to believe that a satphone is an unreliable form of communication for a lengthy offshore passage:



> *- I have the satellite phone for business because I need to make voice calls. If I didn't have that need, I doubt I'd have the phone.
> 
> - Satellite phones are flukey. I've had two times where mine has been de-activated by the billing company. When this happens it becomes a paperweight, and both times it was a paperwork error on their part. It's easy for paperwork problems to happen when traveling international by boat.
> 
> - When they work,* satellite phones are the (long term) most expensive and easiest way to do email, voice, and weather.
> 
> If I didn't need my satellite phone for my job I'd have an SSB with a modem, and eventually study for the ham exam because why not?
> 
> Ham Radio vs Marine SSB - Page 6 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
> 
> *- Twice I've had them disconnect my SIM card from their network for no apparent reason. It only took a phone call (via a cellular number) to clear it up, but still, disconcerting for long passages.*
> 
> Iridium Service Plans - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


Actually, his decision to still rely on a setup he knew to be unreliable squares quite nicely with some of the other choices made in preparation for this trip... Hey, gotta get started on crossing that circumnavigation off the Bucket List, even though Mama posted on _HER_ blog that she thought embarking on extended passagemaking with children under the age of 3 made little sense...

But, what the hell, may as well give the Lawsuit Lottery a shot - it's the American Way, after all... 

I'm not aware that they are members of the SSCA, so I guess they don't have that whole committment to "Leave a Clean Wake" thing to contend with...

Oops, my bad - I keep forgetting they're doing us all a favor in holding Iridium accountable for their loss... Silly me, I thought if one wanted to be insured against the loss of a boat, you bought _Insurance_, instead of a sat phone...

)


----------



## Dean101

fryewe said:


> When the customer publicly states prior to a voyage that sat phone reliability is poor and shouldn't be relied on for emergency communications...and that he wouldn't have one except that he needed it for work purposes...
> 
> ...and that customer then sues the company because the phone wasn't operable when he wanted to use it in an emergency situation...
> 
> ...does that mean the customer is now saying he was relying on it for emergency communications...
> 
> ...even though he knew it to be unreliable?
> 
> Huh?


I fail to see how anything any customer says might somehow relieve a company from providing a service they so blatantly advertise thusly; "The Iridium 9555 is engineered to withstand rugged environments, so customers can depend on it as a critical lifeline wherever need takes them." Regardless of whether the end user plans to rely on that phone or not in an emergency, the option is there according to the company.

As for what RH said, says, or might say, I've stated that I'm not familiar with this new round of drama from them. I'm addressing an opinion towards a service provider, not trying to make or break the case for RH specifically. The customer I keep referring to could be you or any other sailor/arctic adventurer/hunter/remote outpost operator/ (fill in the blank).

Now, if Iridium is the only company out there that makes claims such as this and was an isolated case with RH, then let me know. One poster has already essentially stated that the problem was big enough to warrant a magazine article so I can only assume that this was NOT an isolated case. My point is that someone like me, who knows exactly zero about these phones, who don't know that they might randomly change chips on a whim, and may not know enough about them to ask the right questions, might be dangerously mislead by such advertising promises. Isn't the opposite of "truth in advertising" called "false advertising"? And isn't there a law against that in the States?


----------



## fryewe

Dean101 said:


> My point is that someone like me, who knows exactly zero about these phones, who don't know that they might randomly change chips on a whim, and may not know enough about them to ask the right questions, might be dangerously [misled] by such advertising promises.


Caveat emptor, Captain.


----------



## Dean101

fryewe said:


> Caveat emptor, Captain.


A polite way of saying that it's ok to be a lying sack of excrement, thereby revealing the extent of the corporate character. I'll agree it's sound advice but no matter how you paint it, a turd will still be a turd under the polish.


----------



## JonEisberg

Dean101 said:


> A polite way of saying that it's ok to be a lying sack of excrement, thereby revealing the extent of the corporate character. I'll agree it's sound advice but no matter how you paint it, a turd will still be a turd under the polish.


Hmmm, you might want to write your Congress Critters, ask them to look into why the Department of Defense fell for such blatantly false advertising, and is wasting your tax dollars (not to mention, placing the lives of of our military service men and women in jeopardy) in their dealing with such lowlifes, who offer nothing but a completely substandard service...





> Since the Navy has a requirement more than twice as large as the current capability, the Department of Defense needs the capacity Iridium uniquely offers small unit operations in areas without satellite constellation coverage or during periods when various assets are being used in other contingencies. Special Forces operations, combat search and rescue activities and polar communications will also be enhanced. Iridium will provide a unique resource to enhance DoD mobile satellite communications requirements.
> 
> "Iridium will not only add to our existing capability, it will provide a commercial alternative to our purely military systems. This may enable real civil/military dual use, keep us closer to the leading edge technologically, and provide a real alternative for the future," said Dave Oliver, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics).
> 
> US Defense Rescues Iridium From Fiery Death


----------



## christian.hess

man I just dont know enough about what the kauffmans did before their trip, their blog etc...to realize that they KNEW about shoddy satellite phone service


see if they didnt, and wanted to make a call and it failed cause if a bad chip or whatever that would piss anyone off, 

BUT if they alread had problems, left anyway, and then come back to sue thats two timing and just as shoddy

this is so weird still to me...

dont know who to beleive really


----------



## h20man

christian.hess said:


> man I just dont know enough about what the kauffmans did before their trip, their blog etc...to realize that they KNEW about shoddy satellite phone service
> 
> see if they didnt, and wanted to make a call and it failed cause if a bad chip or whatever that would piss anyone off,
> 
> BUT if they alread had problems, left anyway, and then come back to sue thats two timing and just as shoddy
> 
> this is so weird still to me...
> 
> dont know who to beleive really


On a site that does not allow you to delete your own posts (although they do delete whole threads or posts if they feel they violate the TOS) Eric himself said that they do not rely on the SAT phone as it is flukey. And they have had many issues with the operator. They KNEW. Of course to be fair that was some time before they went on their journey. 5 DAYS! (post dated from 15-03-2014, 14:40)

The actions of trying to delete posts, rewrite history, and find someone else to blame and working with a lawyer who specializes in publicity rather then law.... is the part that disheartens me.

Eric in the past has been presenting himself as a licensed USCG 100 Ton certified captain... aware of what he is doing... Dismissing others....

And then this happens...


----------



## Dean101

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, you might want to write your Congress Critters, ask them to look into why the Department of Defense is wasting your tax dollars (not to mention, placing the lives of of our military service men and women in jeopardy) in their dealing with such lowlifes, who offer nothing but a completely substandard service...


I don't know personally whether Iridium is a substandard lowlife corp. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I'm just stating that a company using that type of marketing should back it up and be held accountable for those statements.

Does anyone following this thread have experience with this? Or perhaps experienced a chip change or something similar to which you had little or no warning? I'm really curious whether or not these companies honor what they imply.


----------



## christian.hess

they dont, read latitude 38 updates and you will see spotty sattelite phone service, especialy lately, this is a new thing

satellite phones are going the way of cellohone providers, with their plans, limited time, minutes that expire and or service plans that need to be continously activated...

what the hell is the purpose of that may I ask?

I remember back in the late 90s I was lent a satellite phone and that dang thing was as reliable and trustworthy as they come...there was NO question on wether they would work or not(maybe in a sever severe storm it might drop a call)

seems this is not so anymore

regardless of what these guys do, there is a point to be made and that is, that no aid to navigation or emergency system is infallible...


----------



## Dean101

christian.hess said:


> they dont, read latitude 38 updates and you will see spotty sattelite phone service, especialy lately, this is a new thing
> 
> satellite phones are going the way of cellohone providers, with their plans, limited time, minutes that expire and or service plans that need to be continously activated...
> 
> what the hell is the purpose of that may I ask?
> 
> I remember back in the late 90s I was lent a satellite phone and that dang thing was as reliable and trustworthy as they come...there was NO question on wether they would work or not(maybe in a sever severe storm it might drop a call)
> 
> seems this is not so anymore
> 
> regardless of what these guys do, there is a point to be made and that is, that no aid to navigation or emergency system is infallible...


I agree totally that nothing is infallible. I also agree with the buyer beware advice. After somewhat following the discussion prior to this lawsuit thing I realize that suing the phone company for the total loss of the boat and insinuating that the success or failure of that cruise was solely dependent on sat phone service is just ridiculous. I do however feel that IF the sat phone provider failed to provide reasonable reliability implied by their advertising, they should be held accountable.


----------



## fryewe

Dean101 said:


> A polite way of saying that it's ok to be a lying sack of excrement, thereby revealing the extent of the corporate character. I'll agree it's sound advice but no matter how you paint it, a turd will still be a turd under the polish.


No.

It's a polite way of saying "Do your homework and don't rely on someone _trying to sell you something_ for full disclosure of capabilities/operational reliability/unflattering history/maintenance headaches and similar info."

It's a polite way of saying "You are the Captain of your ship and your decisions will determine the level of risk for you/your ship/your crew/your guests as you sail. Manage that risk and don't give up that responsibility to a sales brochure or sales person."

I think Eric properly evaluated reliance on Iridium service for emergency comms...before he left. It's just another tool in the bag and not an EPIRB. It is not a flawless system (no comms system is).

Now he's trying to cash in even though he knew the risk.

He had an EPIRB. It did what it was supposed to do.


----------



## Dean101

fryewe said:


> No.
> 
> It's a polite way of saying "Do your homework and don't rely on someone _trying to sell you something_ for full disclosure of capabilities/operational reliability/unflattering history/maintenance headaches and similar info."
> I agree that it is good advice. However, it is much easier to evaluate an item than it is a service since the service itself can change as often as the employee turnaround. I generally research larger ticket items before I buy, always discounting reviews on affiliated websites, and I try to discern between disgruntled rant and honest review. The majority of items I research boils down to a 50/50 shot. I am not so naïve as to trust a salesperson. I DO have a reasonable expectation of honesty and statements such as I quoted earlier can arguably imply at least a minimum amount of warranty. Most countries have laws governing false and deceptive advertising. This is my point. I never stated don't do your homework but it also does no good to complacently disregard the obligations of the seller/provider.
> 
> It's a polite way of saying "You are the Captain of your ship and your decisions will determine the level of risk for you/your ship/your crew/your guests as you sail. Manage that risk and don't give up that responsibility to a sales brochure or sales person." I completely agree with you here. Having multiple means of communications is a wise move and mitigates the risk of loss of a single comm method. Again though, there is an expectation that the brochure contains reasonably accurate specs for that equipment. In the case of a service, there is an expectation of trust that the company will detail possible down times, upgrades, or events that may disrupt service.
> 
> I think Eric properly evaluated reliance on Iridium service for emergency comms...before he left. It's just another tool in the bag and not an EPIRB. It is not a flawless system (no comms system is). Exactly as you said, another tool in the bag. His evaluation of the service as unreliable pretty much dismisses any claim that it was the providers fault for the loss of the boat. However, IF the company made explicit claims as to the reliability of its equipment and/or service, such as the statement I quoted, then they should be held accountable, maybe not as far as the loss of RH but to the extent that their advertising was deceptive or downright false.
> 
> Now he's trying to cash in even though he knew the risk. Which is a pretty ****ty thing to do in my book. That is why I was trying to focus on the provider and keep RH as a token example rather than coming off like I was condoning or condemning them.
> 
> He had an EPIRB. It did what it was supposed to do.


 But what if it didn't? What if they shut down that entire system for maintenance with very little warning to mariners? We trust that the EPIRB system will work when we need it to. If my boat went down and mine got busted in the capsize I wouldn't even think about blaming the manufacturer or the system itself. If that system were shut down temporarily with the providers giving very little notice while at the same time them knowing that the people who will rely on that system may be weeks or months between ports, well, I would NOT be a happy camper.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> ask them to look into why the Department of Defense fell for such blatantly false advertising, and is wasting your tax dollars (not to mention, placing the lives of of our military service men and women in jeopardy) in their dealing with such lowlifes, who offer nothing but a completely substandard service...


Unless something has changed since I was involved (with a minority objection by the way) DoD uses Iridium as a non-operational convenience service. USG and commercial satellites and SSB are used operationally.


----------



## fryewe

Dean101 said:


> But what if it didn't? What if they shut down that entire system for maintenance with very little warning to mariners? We trust that the EPIRB system will work when we need it to. If my boat went down and mine got busted in the capsize I wouldn't even think about blaming the manufacturer or the system itself. If that system were shut down temporarily with the providers giving very little notice while at the same time them knowing that the people who will rely on that system may be weeks or months between ports, well, I would NOT be a happy camper.


I would be disappointed and probably drowned...but not unhappy.

These hi-tech systems we have now are NOT infallible. That's why there are vest lights and flares and signal mirrors and waterproof VHF with GPS/DSC and whistles and life rafts and immersion suits and ditch bags and SPOT...and Iridium.

And prayer...but that's a PRWG topic.


----------



## Dean101

fryewe said:


> I would be disappointed and probably drowned...but not unhappy.
> 
> These hi-tech systems we have now are NOT infallible. That's why there are vest lights and flares and signal mirrors and waterproof VHF with GPS/DSC and whistles and life rafts and immersion suits and ditch bags and SPOT...and Iridium.
> 
> And prayer...but that's a PRWG topic.


I think I've agreed several times now that these systems are not infallible, nor are the basics. Lights can burn out, flares fail, mirrors break or get dropped, and so on and so forth. We just don't seem to be talking about the same thing here. You don't seem to get it and I don't know any other way of saying what I'm trying to say so I'll just let it go.


----------



## miatapaul

Dean101 said:


> I have zero experience with sat phones so I looked at the Iridium website. I looked at the first rugged sat phone that caught my eye and under the "overview" description of the phone I saw this:
> 
> "Rugged and reliable
> 
> The Iridium 9555 is engineered to withstand rugged environments, so customers can depend on it as a critical lifeline wherever need takes them."
> 
> In my opinion that is a pretty strong and confident statement and I feel the company should be held accountable for it. If the phone is that tough and reliable, then so should the service that is required for the phone to function. I don't think the loss of that phone caused the loss of that boat, but if his particular phone was advertised similar to the statement I quoted above and it was simply a matter of the company disrupting a "critical lifeline" that they themselves advertised, then I believe that company should be held accountable.


Well there is no issue with the phone being rugged, it was a billing issue, not a service issue. I don't think you can fault the satellite service. And they are suing for the phone doing something he already knew it might do, and had done in the past.


----------



## smackdaddy

Dean101 said:


> I fail to see how anything any customer says might somehow relieve a company from providing a service they so blatantly advertise thusly; "The Iridium 9555 is engineered to withstand rugged environments, so customers can depend on it as a critical lifeline wherever need takes them." Regardless of whether the end user plans to rely on that phone or not in an emergency, the option is there according to the company.


The thing to keep in mind here is the difference between the hardware provider (Iridium) and the service provider (SatellitePhoneStore.com according to the L38 article).

The phone hardware worked, it just apparently threw a SIM card error and would not place a call. In other words, the service for the phone was cut off. In another article (I linked to it over on CF) - a person from the service company said it was a billing issue - not the SIM card swap issue RH is claiming.

What's the actual truth here? Who knows? But these are the factors at play.

Even so, despite the issues being put forth, I've not seen anything that says that the Iridium hardware failed to do what Iridium promised it would do (i.e. - function in rugged conditions). This appears to be a failure of the service that was separate from the hardware.

Does Iridium provide its own service? A quick view of their website seems to provide only 3rd party providers.


----------



## christian.hess

how did it use to be?


----------



## miatapaul

christian.hess said:


> how did it use to be?


Ya light a fire on the foredeck and hope someone saw your smoke signals?

OH, you mean not quite that long before!


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> The thing to keep in mind here is the difference between the hardware provider (Iridium) and the service provider (SatellitePhoneStore.com according to the L38 article).
> 
> The phone hardware worked, it just apparently threw a SIM card error and would not place a call. In other words, the service for the phone was cut off. In another article (I linked to it over on CF) - a person from the service company said it was a billing issue - not the SIM card swap issue RH is claiming.
> 
> What's the actual truth here? Who knows? But these are the factors at play.
> 
> Even so, despite the issues being put forth, I've not seen anything that says that the Iridium hardware failed to do what Iridium promised it would do (i.e. - function in rugged conditions). This appears to be a failure of the service that was separate from the hardware.
> 
> Does Iridium provide its own service? A quick view of their website seems to provide only 3rd party providers.


Here is his "reveiw" of his provider back in November of 2013.

Satellite Phone Store - San Diego, CA | Yelp



> I've had an Iridium 9555 that I purchased in San Diego and have had my service with satellitephonestore.com for over a year. I use my phone regularly as I'm an offshore sailor spending time at sea and various countries. Here are my experiences:
> 
> - Michel, my sales guy, is great.
> 
> - I have had my SIM card suspended for no apparent reason, twice. Fortunately both times I checked before we headed offshore but just imagine the results if I (or you) experienced no service connection in the exact scenario that you need it. A quick phone call (from a cellular connection) fixed the glitch, which was never explained and brushed off like it was no big deals.
> 
> - I have been over billed a total of three times now. The first time in September of 2013 my plan was changed from a ~$120/month to a $200/month. When I caught it they said "we notified everyone in advance that we were doing that". I got no notification. At the same time, I was billed for additional air time that should have been included in my service plan (both my $120/month or $200/month, depending on how you look at it).
> 
> - I just opened up my latest invoice (October 2013), and surprise, I'm back on the $200/month plan that I specifically requested in writing to be off of.
> 
> - I was also billed separately for data minutes, which apparently is not included in "minutes", although I dare you to determine that for yourself if you read the plan descriptions. satellitephonestore.com/&#8230;
> 
> Every month that I open my invoice from satellitephonestore.com I know I'll be performing an audit to see what fraudulent (either by negligence or intent) behavior and billing practices have been employed this time.
> 
> After I type this, I'm going to request my money back on my latest invoice and contact the Florida Secretary of State to file an official grievance


So obviously they were aware with the companies issues with billing. Not sure why they continued to use there service.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh boy.


----------



## JonEisberg

miatapaul said:


> Here is his "reveiw" of his provider back in November of 2013.
> 
> Satellite Phone Store - San Diego, CA | Yelp
> 
> So obviously they were aware with the companies issues with billing. Not sure why they continued to use there service.


Or, why they didn't "check before heading offshore" this time, as claimed to have done in the previous instances?

Perhaps Eric was going with Dubya's version of "Fool me once, shame on you..." ?


----------



## h20man

No more speculation.. We have some 'facts'. There is more then media bluster... Here is the lawsuit:



> Plaintiff Charlotte Kaufman ("Charlotteo) is an adult who resides in San Diego County, California. Charlotte has an ASA Basic Keelboat Certification, and has substantial experience sailing the California and Channel Island coasts, down Baja California, in the Sea of Cortez, the Pacific Coast of Mexico, and blue water sailing in the Pacific Ocean. She has lived aboard ship since 2007, and has raised both ofher daughters from birth on her sailboat. Charlotte is also a PADI certified diver. At all material times, she was the registered owner of a 36.17' Hans Christian Yacht, CA Hull ID XSA000040675, USCG 1101961,named the Rebel Heart.


Most intriguing to me is the 'fact' that Charlotte Kaufman sailed extensively down baja coast (different fact then what was posted on their blog) and blue water sailing in the Pacific Ocean.

I now see that their blog is just for entertainment, and in real life things happen quite differently....... or am I missing something.....?


----------



## smackdaddy

h20man said:


> No more speculation.. We have some 'facts'. There is more then media bluster... Here is the lawsuit:
> 
> Most intriguing to me is the 'fact' that Charlotte Kaufman sailed extensively down baja coast (different fact then what was posted on their blog) and blue water sailing in the Pacific Ocean.
> 
> I now see that their blog is just for entertainment, and in real life things happen quite differently....... or am I missing something.....?


That actually struck me as well in their interview. RH-The-Feminine spoke glowingly about off-shore cruising with their kids in the interview - how it "ruins you for anything else" - while pretty much all she did was complain about it the whole time on their blog.

Which is the truth?

Interesting that she is the owner/plaintiff and RH-The-Masculine is a co-owner and "nominal defendant". (I know, it's technical language.)


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm certainly not going to go so far to conclude Whenever didn't screw something up on this deal (especially not knowing what the service contract laid out)...but, based upon what I've seen in the blog, in forum posts, etc. - some of this language is giggle-inducing:



> 9. Prior to leaving, the Kaufmans *prepared diligently for their voyage*, packing and planning the trip for years. Although Lyra was recently sick in Mexico, her physician had cleared her for departure on the voyage, and the Kaufman's had ample medication and supplies in their fully stocked medicine locker.





> 11. Another important safety preparation for the Kaufmans was obtaining and packing a satellite phone, which occurred on August 13,2012, when Eric purchased the phone and executed a service plan agreement with Whenever at its SatellitePhoneStore.corn location in Point Lorna, California (San Diego County). At the time Eric purchased the phone, Whenever knew or should have known that Eric would use the phone on sea voyages and that other, non-signatories would *reasonably rely upon the satellite phone not being deactivated without Eric's consent or for other reasons (e.g., non-payment of the bill).*


Hoo boy.


----------



## h20man

smackdaddy said:


> I'm certainly not going to go so far to conclude Whenever didn't screw something up on this deal (especially not knowing what the service contract laid out)...but, based upon what I've seen in the blog, in forum posts, etc. - some of this language is giggle-inducing:
> 
> Hoo boy.


The only way this works is if the blog is a fiction. After all, on the blog it was mentioned how Eric Singlehanded down baja. But in the lawsuit...... She is a 'bluewater' sailor that went down coast of baja...

I wonder if their lawyer read their blog before writing this work of fiction...


----------



## sailvayu

Therein lays the problem, the more this goes on the less the pieces fit. Honestly I am at a loss as to what to think or who to believe at this point. The judge will have their hands full trying to sort this one out. The sad part for me is this could have been a learning lesson and now it is just a convoluted soap opera.

Here is another angle on things just for ****s and giggles REBEL HEART: Lawsuit Against Sat-Phone Provider

At least it is all entertaining!


----------



## smackdaddy

Boy - Charlie doesn't love JonE's continual haranguing on the rescued, eh?


----------



## zeehag

the truth will always come to the top of any epic nonstory. this is same, as no one will ever really know, except those around to read the first part of the epic saga will remember what was said, and some specific souls who were recipients of the calls he was successfully able to make before arriving on terra firma............... hhhhmmmmmm

i was actually finding entertainment in his tales of woe--different each time told....

in wws, a fb group she founded, women who sail.. what a misnomer.... she tells of hotels and airplanes and buses. 
there is no evidence that she sailed coastal mexico with him.. she actually asked of me, where she should go to have her baby. what hospital is best for that in mexico. they wanted somewhere near a marina, and with good transportation services. ok. i gave her a list--she chose nuevo vallarta. nice new and clean private ****** used clinic and hospital near 2 marinas not used by the rh family. it was during these communications i earned of her seasickness, and that she hadnt planned on sailing with the boat as long as she was preggers.


----------



## smackdaddy

I posted this over on SA, but I really think this is going to become a crux issue in this debacle - and has potential implications for everyone cruising off-shore with kids:



> _armido, on 16 Jul 2014 - 09:36, said:
> Well said. I'd rather sail alone than have a chronically seasick person aboard. It's like having a cadaver aboard. Dead weight. Except unfortunately, you still have to care for them. :huh:
> 
> Panoramix, on 16 Jul 2014 - 09:17, said:
> +1
> 
> It's always easy to be wise with hindsight.
> 
> Also it is much harder to sail with inefffective seasick/ill people on board than to sail solo. Sure some crews would have managed to repair somehow the boat and to limp somewhere sailing the old fashioned way but not all crews are composed of Parlier style super heroes. And anyway they would have gambled their daughter life doing this._
> 
> *smackdaddy, on 16 Jul 2014 - 13:11, said:
> This is an aspect that I think, when explored in more detail, will cause some additional discussion on "parenting at sea". In a situation like this, where you KNOW you're going to be cut-off from medical services for an extended period - does knowing techniques for administering medicine to your very young child when they want to spit it out become a reasonably critical piece of knowledge?
> 
> As mentioned in the complaint, the RHs had everything they needed already onboard to care for their daughter. The SAR dudes used exactly what was there and she quickly improved.
> 
> RH is also apparently an EMT.
> 
> So what responsibility does a parent/EMT have in knowing how to properly use/administer the medical means they themselves have brought along? And what liability does a satphone company have in relation to this knowledge or lack of it - when the circumstances make it clear that the parent/EMT has voluntarily assumed an increased burden of responsibility by their action of "leaving the grid"?
> 
> Interesting.*


PS: I thank MOD for how things are handled on SN. CF is ridiculous. They close every single thread discussing this case, when it ABSOLUTELY has relevance to what we all love to do. It's like junior high over there.


----------



## zeehag

passing emt cert for cattle boat driving, his former profession, 50 ton cpt, fishing tour (cattle) boats, san diego, his boating experience, en toto. is not emt work or experience at all in any way shape or form. he got to drive after a stint of putting bandaids on hoooked fingers. 
when i lived in sd i asked around as to what the requirements were to work the cattle boats--i didnt wanna be captain, i just wanted to work the boat-- lol.. yes emt required for service on a cattle boat,. and minimum 50 ton master to drive em


----------



## Minnewaska

For whatever it's worth, EMTs are not trained to, nor authorized to, administer drugs. At least not when I was certified in my 20s. I did so as a dive instructor at the time.


----------



## Minnesail

Minnewaska said:


> For whatever it's worth, EMTs are not trained to, nor authorized to, administer drugs. At least not when I was certified in my 20s. I did so as a dive instructor at the time.


A lot of people in their 20s administer drugs they're not authorized to. Not that that has anything to do with ocean sailing.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> For whatever it's worth, EMTs are not trained to, nor authorized to, administer drugs. At least not when I was certified in my 20s. I did so as a dive instructor at the time.


I'm really talking more about the parental aspect of this than the EMT aspect. However, the EMT aspect would certainly imply more training/knowledge, or at least the drive to get more training/knowledge on these kinds of things for their own kid/infant than the typical parent of same.

Again, the driver here to me is their willingness to put themselves and their kids at far higher risk with this kind of passage - which, I think, naturally implies and requires a far higher level of readiness. Solving the issue of a kid spitting out the medicine you're trying to give her is a medical emergency for an EMT? Or a mom?

Everything they needed they had right there. They just didn't know how to get the medicine into a kid that didn't want it. How much of that is on the satphone company?


----------



## MedSailor

Before I was a PA, I was an EMT. Let me tell you the big downside of being an EMT. They can't possibly train you in all the stuff you need to know to make a real medical diagnosis. To do that, you need Medical School, PA or NP school. Unfortunately in EMT school, they pretty much ONLY teach you the bad stuff. That's okay for your role, because your role is to watch for the bad stuff, and take them bodily to the hospital for the medical providers to sort out.

Problem is, everything seems bad. I'll give an example. As a young, 20something healthy EMT, I was grocery shopping, and I got into my car. I looked at my stereo, and all the numbers were jumbled up. Damn! Stereo must be broken. Then I looked up at a street sign, which I know reads "NW Market ST". Problem was, what I SAW was "NW _________ St". The middle part was inexplicably missing. 

I immediately drove myself to the closest ER (about 5 blocks away) and the symptoms rapildly progressed until the entire left half of my vision was gone. I was completely freaking out, thinking stroke, or retinal detachment, or retinal artery occlusion. All very bad things. 

The ER doc comes in, is totally unimpressed and after about a 3 minute history and exam, and says I'm having a painless migraine. He's going to leave and just wait and it should resolve. He refused my pleas for a CT or MRI. 

Of course, he was right. 20 minutes later, everything was back to normal. As a Doc, he had enough training to know that a healthy 20something essentially CAN'T have an embolic stroke or retinal artery occlusion and there was no history to suspect retinal detachment and 10-ish percent of all migraines are painless and I was just experiencing the "aura" before my painless migraine. As an EMT I had a list of things it could be, but they were only catastrophic things. 

Point being, if I was on a boat at the time, I would have called MAYDAY without a doubt. 

Generally the more medical training you have, the better, but there are select cases where it can put you in the "knows just enough to be dangerous" category. It's "possible" that his EMT training helped him to want to push the button on the EPIRB because his list of known possibilities for kiddo's issue were only a select list of bad bad things. At my current level of training and experience, my list of what can be happening to kiddo in similar circumstances includes a lot of benign things...

MedSailor

PS As far as administering the drugs, he was doing that as a non-trained person. He got advice by sat phone to administer them by the Mexican doctor. It's exactly the same as when you go to your doc and he/she prescribes antibiotics. You "administer" them to yourself on their order. Eric didn't unilaterally decide to start giving his kids oral antibiotics and steroids. No IV meds were given.


----------



## smackdaddy

Med - I completely understand, and agree with what you're saying in general. And I want to make it clear that the mayday in this case was the best possible outcome. Absolutely no argument there.

BUT, in the larger context of taking such a long, isolated passage with young children, why did they have onboard prescription-strength medication and even (apparently) the oral syringes to administer it in non-tablet form - without the knowledge of how to administer it to an uncooperative child?

In other words, if you're going to have a fully stocked "medical-grade" kit, shouldn't you have the requisite basic knowledge of how to use it? Isn't it more dangerous to have these potent "tools" in the first place if you have no idea how to use them?

You are absolutely the expert here, and I will defer to your opinion. But it is very strange to me that something this "basic" would confound a trained EMT - or even a mom - to the point we saw in this particular incident and this resulting lawsuit. And, more importantly, it begs the question of, IF this was the straw that could break the camel's back for this family, why and how could they feel comfortable being so far away from the medical care they so obviously relied on? It just doesn't add up.

From what I've seen, this isn't about diagnosing an illness or even formulating a dosage...it's about a technique for getting medicine down a young child who doesn't want it. That's a different kettle of hamsters than diagnosing a painless migraine isn't it?


----------



## MedSailor

Admittedly I haven't read every word of this thread for the past few pages, so apologies if I missed the part about not being able to give meds by mouth to the kiddos. I can tell you though that nothing in the EMT training would help with this.

My kiddo got croup a couple months ago. My well meaning doc prescribed solu-medrol (a steroid) in oral liquid form and we were given a syringe. My kiddo puked up every single dose. After speaking with a co-worker MD of mine, it turns out that this particular steroid (commonly prescribed) is in a formulation that is more likely to induce puking than ipecac. Bad situation all around, and at this point I was a PA with plenty of training and experience. I still couldn't get the meds down my kid, but that had more to do with the fact that this preparation really shouldn't exist because nobody can actually administer it. 

My point about the EMT part was just to point out (without judgement) that this training (which is focused on bad things) could have paradoxically counted against him. I don't fault him at all for pushing the button when he did, knowing his situation and his level of knowledge. 

MedSailor


----------



## chall03

On the lawsuit I have nothing to add. Let's see what happens.

On cruising with kids I agree with you Smack that carrying appropriate medication and being more than casually familiar with it and how to administer all onboard medication is a very good idea. I think what the actual situation was on RH is hard to know.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> ....However, the EMT aspect would certainly imply more training/knowledge....


Naturally, Med did a pretty good job of explaining the irrelevance of EMT training to administering meds to an infant.

Their dosing issue, however, was more understandable than you're giving them credit for. Since the antibiotic was being partly spit out, some was ingested. It's a legit concern that they were uncomfortable dosing again, with a random estimate of what was expelled. Failing to get enough in would concern them that the infection could lead to septic shock. That he would have understood from his EMT training, although, your training would be to administer O2 and get the patient on the bus and to the hospital in the next 15 mins. That's it.



> Again, the driver here to me is their willingness to put themselves and their kids at far higher risk with this kind of passage - which, I think, naturally implies and requires a far higher level of readiness.


No beef with that point. I would not have made the decision to go on the passage. But, I still defend their decision as their own for their own family. It was not a guaranteed failure, like the Bounty sailing into a hurricane.



> Solving the issue of a kid spitting out the medicine you're trying to give her is a medical emergency for an EMT? Or a mom?


I hope there are no Mom's out there that just make up the proper method and amounts for re-dosing their kid.



> Everything they needed they had right there. They just didn't know how to get the medicine into a kid that didn't want it. How much of that is on the satphone company?


I see no chance that their law suit is successful. However, if the phone worked, they would have received proper instruction, as demonstrated by using the rescuers phone, and would have been on their way. Even among all the conflicting information, I see nothing that would suggest otherwise.

The speculation that their boat would have crumbled somewhere in the passage is possible, but unprovable. If the kid got better with the re-dose and stayed better, I see no indication they would have called SAR due to boat condition a that time. That may have resulted down the road, but we can't know that.

In the moment, they had a kid that relapsed once already. While better after being administered meds from their kit, they would be understandably concerned over it happening again, or being presented with another medical issue they could no longer get help with. At this point they know they have no way to contact help. I doubt the SAR team offered to leave them their phone.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain

I'll say it again, very little kids can get very sick very fast. Going offshore with a toddler was mistake number one. I have no problem with taking a toddler day sailing or coastal cruising. But taking a very small child offshore is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette, particularly if the child has just recovered from a serious infection. If they would have waited until the younger child was a few years older before trying an ocean crossing (thus giving everyone involved some more sailing experience, and allowing time to make sure that the boat was in seaworthy condition), and made damned sure that everyone was healthy before leaving, the chances are that 95% of the "drama" of this story would never have happened. 

Having little kids doesn't mean putting ones life "on hold", it just means doing different things with ones life for a few years.


----------



## christian.hess

back to iridium and how they have gone the way of cell phone providers another latitude update here:

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

take away rebel heart, the whole debacle, the kids, the bad condition of the boat, inexperience or false experience, whatever

take it all out of the situation and look at these 3 points being made

THIS

is unacceptable for an emergency phone provider...it HAS happened to others and its inexcuseable

I think we need to separate issues here...they are unrelated in essence but in RH case they did become a factor...

Im avoiding any comment whatsoever about the lawsuit, how fit or not they were as captains and crew , parenting etc...

the last point made by richard is the one that most impacts me(a satellite phone SHOULD be able to be used NO MATTEER WHAT THE CHARGES in an emergency, it can be dealt with AFTER but in order to save lives there has to be NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that it will work.

in my limited experience using these phones over 10 years back and most recently about 6 years ago this was the case.

what has happened these last few years, months days?


----------



## Minnewaska

Puddin'_Tain said:


> I'll say it again, very little kids can get very sick very fast. Going offshore with a toddler was mistake number one.......


You and I would have made the same decision not to take our young children on this passage. However, in the extreme, you have to be critical of every parent that decides to even have a child across half the planet that has nearly zero access to medical care. Judging someone, just because they come from a first world country doesn't seem entirely fair. In the end, it's the parent's decision and only their decision to make. Up to a point. That point is highly subjective.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> You and I would have made the same decision not to take our young children on this passage. However, in the extreme, you have to be critical of every parent that decides to even have a child across half the planet that has nearly zero access to medical care. Judging someone, just because they come from a first world country doesn't seem entirely fair. In the end, it's the parent's decision and only their decision to make. Up to a point. That point is highly subjective.


I totally agree with you here Minne. What's intriguing to me about this case - in general - is the seeming expectation that a satphone would/should infallibly provide access to "first-world quality medical services/consultation" regardless of location or situation the user has put himself/herself into.

This is the flip-side issue of this case in my opinion -i.e. - what IS a "reasonable expectation" for what a satphone provider owes you in regards to these grayer areas of communication beyond a simple call for rescue?

Given the nature of offshore passage making, uninterrupted "first-world quality medical services/consultation" certainly doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation. But it seems to be what the case is hinged on.


----------



## Minnewaska

I agree, the lawsuit has no merit, unless there was an explicit guarantee I'm unaware of. However, losing the sat phone was why they lost their boat, the sat company just doesn't accrue liability for it.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> I agree, the lawsuit has no merit, unless there was an explicit guarantee I'm unaware of. *However, losing the sat phone was why they lost their boat*, the sat company just doesn't accrue liability for it.


Well, I'm not so sure that's a foregone conclusion.

These folks pointed the finger all over the place (except at themselves) giving inconsistent and illogical reasons for abandoning RH. The sick kid came in and out of the picture for awhile there.

Moreover, if a 1 year old really was _that_ sick in the middle of the ocean, wouldn't a doctor recommend abandoning ship and seeking medical treatment anyway? I mean, it's not like a doctor can reach through the sat phone and diagnose and render treatment.

Lastly, I've said it before and I'll say it again. My read on the whole situation was that it was driven by Charlotte wanting Off The F'in Boat. The sick kid, the broken sat phone, the leaky boat, was all pretext for the ultimate desire. Believe me, if I was defending the sat phone company, this would be a large part of the defense, and there has been plenty of evidence to support the theory.


----------



## JonEisberg

Charlie Doane has dug into this a bit more, his post is well worth reading... Clarifies some issues, but muddies the waters in some others...

REBEL HEART: Lawsuit Against Sat-Phone Provider | Sailfeed

For those who have been ragging on Iridium:



> Attorney Gilleon: We have no evidence that Iridium was at fault in any way and furthermore would like to thank Iridium for being as forthcoming as possible in helping us to understand what happened to Eric's account as it was handled by Whenever LLC.


One of the more interesting conclusions I draw from reading Charlie between the lines, is that for Eric to have continued the voyage himself without the use of a satphone or EPIRB might have presented a risk sufficient to warrant abandoning REBEL HEART... I'd love to hear what someone like Robin Knox-Johnston, or Webb Chiles - or anyone else who ever sailed across an ocean without an EPIRB or sat phone - would have to say about that... 

Anyway, it's nice to know that Charlie is still praying that I'll never have to abandon a boat offshore...


----------



## dinghygoddess

Children have a habit of getting sick in all kinds of places: hotels, boats, in-laws house, in-laws's boat, the mall, etc.

This family sounds like they were prepared for all other contingencies. We have met other live-aboard families with happy, well-adjusted, healthy kids. I am sure those kids all got a cold, stomach viruses, chicken pox, etc, at one time or another. 

Take the child away? Parents irresponsible? Really??? 

The parents should get the child well and get right back on the boat if it can be repaired and go on with their plan. Their children's lives will be that much richer.


----------



## smackdaddy

dinghygoddess said:


> Children have a habit of getting sick in all kinds of places: hotels, boats, in-laws house, in-laws's boat, the mall, etc.
> 
> This family sounds like they were prepared for all other contingencies.


I'm sorry - but being able to take care of your kid when he/she is sick is pretty important.

In light of everything I've seen in my research, I have lost _complete_ respect for these people.

They should have stayed home and taken care of their kids. Period.


----------



## caberg

dinghygoddess said:


> The parents should get the child well and get right back on the boat if it can be repaired and go on with their plan. Their children's lives will be that much richer.


You are missing a very large part of this story.

For one, the boat sunk to the bottom of the Pacific some 900 miles off the coast of Mexico while the family was taken back to California on a Navy ship.

If you happened to miss that detail, you really don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> You are missing a very large part of this story.
> 
> For one, the boat sunk to the bottom of the Pacific some 900 miles off the coast of Mexico while the family was taken back to California on a Navy ship.
> 
> If you happened to miss that detail, you really don't know what you are talking about.


I do not recall that it sunk. It was either just abandon or was scuttled.

While you are correct that the previous poster missed an important point that the boat is not recoverable, I think it's also important to note that they voluntarily stepped off to save their kid. As they should have.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Eric cut a hose in the head and it SANK. whether it sank by being scuttled or not is irrelevant. It sunk.


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Eric cut a hose in the head and it SANK. whether it sank by being scuttled or not is irrelevant. It sunk.


I'm not making a huge case out of it, but I think there is a distinction between a boat that sunk on its own and one that was scuttled. The former may imply damage, the latter a volunteer abandonment.


----------



## MedSailor

Minnewaska said:


> I'm not making a huge case out of it, but I think there is a distinction between a boat that sunk on its own and one that was scuttled. The former may imply damage, the latter a volunteer abandonment.


Insurance would probably make a huge case out of it....

Med


----------



## rgscpat

EMTs (Basic) can administer a few drugs, depending upon the rules of their jurisdiction and under medical direction. I recall practicing injections was one of the things my son did when he trained to be an EMT. What's allowed to be administered is limited, with more options typically with higher levels of training (intermediate, paramedic). For an example, here in NM EMT-basics can administer the Narcan antidote to drug users suffering a heroin/opiate overdose, and I believe New York has a pilot program now to allow their EMT-Basics to do the same. Scope of practice will vary with an EMT's locale and other circumstances.


----------



## smackdaddy

From what I gather from the interviews, this was not an injection. It was an oral syringe.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> I'm not making a huge case out of it, but I think there is a distinction between a boat that sunk on its own and one that was scuttled. The former may imply damage, the latter a volunteer abandonment.


When someone states that the family should repair the boat and be on their way, it makes no difference.

Context is everything.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> When someone states that the family should repair the boat and be on their way, it makes no difference.
> 
> Context is everything.


I acknowledged that in my first reply to you. Yes, they can't fix the boat.

Context was my point. The context of dinghygoddess was they should get back out there. They had to abandon their boat to save their kid, they didn't drive it to the bottom of the ocean. Encouraging them to get back aboard is reasonable. I would not encourage them to make that passage under those circumstances again. But, as I've said before, that is exclusively their decision to make.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> I acknowledged that in my first reply to you. Yes, they can't fix the boat.
> 
> Context was my point. The context of dinghygoddess was they should get back out there. They had to abandon their boat to save their kid, they didn't drive it to the bottom of the ocean. Encouraging them to get back aboard is reasonable. I would not encourage them to make that passage under those circumstances again. But, as I've said before, that is exclusively their decision to make.


Thankfully, I don't think this family will be getting "back out there" any time soon. I mean, sorta hard to testify from the middle of the Pacific. That lawsuit and all.

I have no problem at all with cruising families. There are some great cruising families out there and the kids are having amazing upbringings.

I guess the Kaufman family could be completely misunderstood. But from what is publicly available, these folks had no business being in the middle of the Pacific with two small kids aboard. If you don't see that, then maybe you haven't read enough. It's pretty obvious.


----------



## UnionPacific

They should have allowed the boat to drift. They could have left the anchor light on for a good long time, and even a tracker, so the boat could be recovered.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> .....If you don't see that, then maybe you haven't read enough. It's pretty obvious.


This is the problem I have with this discussion. It makes no difference what I see or what you see (despite the condescending tone). The decision to get back out there is theirs alone to make.


----------



## rgscpat

(IMHO/Your Sea Miles May Vary) 
If the Rebel Heart was sinking, albeit slowly, and was a thousand miles offshore, with no other boats capable of salvage reasonably close on its track, and the US Coast Guard or US Navy advised the Kaufmans to scuttle, then they did the right thing. 

At a guess, hiring a commercial towing/salvage vessel to come a thousand miles or more to de-water, patch, and tow a damaged sailboat could cost a lot of money relative to the sailboat's value. 

And, if the boat seemed most likely to sink anyway, the case for leaving it afloat in hope of an unlikely salvage wouldn't seem that great when weighed against its liability as a hazard to navigation. 

Supposing some other crew had been close enough to find and catch the boat before it sank, and they had salvage tools and expertise, and spare crew, they still would have had to have made a pretty heroic effort to save the boat, plus likely diverting from their planned course or having to repatriate part of their crew, etc., and would have deserved a very hefty salvage award. That, and the cost of repairing damage and cleaning up/replacing a water-damaged interior and systems, might have come up to a very big figure compared to the value of the boat. 

Sure, the case could have been very different if the Rebel Heart had only been one or two hundred miles off shore, or perhaps if the shore had been downwind/downcurrent and the leakage had stopped, or if that to-be-wished-for intrepid boat crew had been nearby. But they weren't. So I have to believe that this is one of the things that Eric did right.


----------



## UnionPacific

If the track was good, the cost would have been minimal. The independent salver has the say in what the rescue cost, but I think it would have been worth it, if it had passed an insurance survey.


----------



## UnionPacific

besides, we are taking the word of a man suing a phone company for having to scuttle his own boat. How are we sure it was sinking?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

You are missing the points that the boat wasnt worth anything!!!!!!!!

It was leaking through the deck from the pointy end to the bow and the blunt end all the way to the stern. It wasnt worth diddly squat!

A salvor will ask for multiple THOUSANDS per DAY. Tug here the other day pulled a boat off the beach, took 10 minutes and was well done. But it coast $2,000 per HOUR. and he traveled 25 minutes each way to get there.

Now, lets hit the phone book and see who is going to go 900 miles west and pick up a boat worth NOTHING and tow it UPWIND, UP-CURRENT for 900 nms?


they got off the boat because they did a risk cost benefit analysis and decided their lives would be forfeit if they tried to sail on for another 2,000nms.


And unless you have read ALL the posts on this and the other threads, the owners website before it was 'redacted' then you wouldn't know any of the facts to come to a real conclusion... So as someone suggested, go read it because theres more lessons to be learned in this 'incident' than 100 wanky Coast Guard courses and Celestial Navigation courses teaching you to butt shove a sextant.





Mark


----------



## rgscpat

For what it's worth, here are my wild and crazy guesses about salvage: 
$ 75,000 initial value of boat
vs. 

$ 30,000 charter of ocean-capable towing vessel with salvage capability and 2,000-plus nm endurance/range, including salvage costs for pumping and patching. This may be optimistic. 

$ 15,000 possible charter of light jet or medium turboprop search aircraft
(no homing beacon on Rebel Heart, airplane can somewhat take its place, otherwise salvage vessel may take a long time to find boat or risk it sinking first)

$ 20,000 cost of repairs to hull and interior, cleanup, etc. 

Net: Possible $10,000 savings from salvage

BUT: 

With a boat far offshore that might sink before they can reach it, a salvage company seems highly unlikely to offer a "no cure no pay" contract, so all risk and cost would be put on charterer. If Rebel Heart sank before a salvor could arrive, then the cost to the Kaufmans would have just about doubled. 

Most "deluxe" or "gold" coastal towing policies will pay a moderate amount for towing beyond their service limits, but this might only be around $2500 - $5000 -ish, so not likely much help.

As for "was the boat really leaking?", I think we'd have to trust the word of the rescue personnel who spent time on the boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

MarkofSeaLife said:


> So as someone suggested, go read it because theres more lessons to be learned in this 'incident' than 100 wanky Coast Guard courses and Celestial Navigation courses teaching you to butt shove a sextant.


+FREAKIN1 Mark.

As you say, the problem is that no one can get the facts now because these chuckleheaded rotrebels have erased those facts in order to try to make themselves look rational and win a very questionable lawsuit.

Again - NO RESPECT. NONE. ZERO.

No BFSoup for you RH!



rgscpat said:


> As for "was the boat really leaking?", I think we'd have to trust the word of the rescue personnel who spent time on the boat.


RH himself said the boat was rotted and leaking. Stick with the facts. This boat was a disaster.


----------



## rgscpat

smackdaddy said:


> ....
> RH himself said the boat was rotted and leaking. Stick with the facts. This boat was a disaster.


If so, then Rebel Heart was even less worth salvaging and wouldn't have had much chance of being worth the cost of salvage.


----------



## smackdaddy

rgscpat said:


> If so, then Rebel Heart was even less worth salvaging and wouldn't have had much chance of being worth the cost of salvage.


Exactly. And it's yet another reason for the sentiment that this family should have never been out there in the first place.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

rgscpat said:


> If so, then Rebel Heart was even less worth salvaging and wouldn't have had much chance of being worth the cost of salvage.


There was photos of huge holes in the deck where the wood had rotted away. And this wasnt timber over fibreglass deck, this was timber over stringers.

The photos are in this thread somewhere and on CF.

The point is that most of the rotted wood was not fixed. There were forum pists and blob posts saying that.

I think the area they lived in, San Diego, then Baha, is very dry and the water through the deck problem was not apparent till they went to sea.

Once at sea they saw the water ingress and changed their minds as to the ability of the boat to be safe.


----------



## lowtide

MarkofSeaLife said:


> There was photos of huge holes in the deck where the wood had rotted away. And this wasnt timber over fibreglass deck, this was timber over stringers.
> 
> The photos are in this thread somewhere and on CF.
> 
> The point is that most of the rotted wood was not fixed. There were forum pists and blob posts saying that.
> 
> I think the area they lived in, San Diego, then Baha, is very dry and the water through the deck problem was not apparent till they went to sea.
> 
> Once at sea they saw the water ingress and changed their minds as to the ability of the boat to be safe.


Another example of the difference between living aboard, coastal sailing in fair weather, and ocean voyaging.

At the dock and in fair seas, the leak is only an issue when it rains really hard, and is easily solved with a bowl in the right place. At sea, the leak sprays water under pressure in many directions, and it runs everywhere as the boat yaws, pitches, and rolls.

The rain storm leak ends quickly and the mess is easily cleaned up, where as a leak at sea is relentless, and only ever gets worse. Often such leaks result in water being tracked throughout the boat, creating a wet miserable enclosed existence, with no end in sight.

Watertight integrity needs to be 100%, 90% won't do on a voyage longer than a reliable forecast. The salty stuff has to stay outside. No chance of that with the Elmer's at the hull/deck joint, 0%.

'


----------



## christian.hess

man I have no idea how my wooden boat survived at sea then as well as countless others, by design...no wooden boat is ever 100 percent watertight and yet many of us still voyage on them and sometimes fantastically...with great seaworthy results.

the issues with the union polaris is that wood is used in structural areas that are then not integrated to the glass parts in a real good way even new, dont even get me started with the deck structure(I still have nightmares about that union 36 I checked out in panama that was abandoned)...and that was the boat builders errror and not the designers...

in any case

Im absolutely flabbergasted btw that this thread still keeps on keeping on...(so thats why Ill add some fuel to the fire, ajajajajja)

peace


----------



## Bene505

*Judge dismisses suit by family saved at sea*

This just hit the news:

Judge dismisses suit by family saved at sea

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

This may sound mean, but I honestly hope the case gets thrown out in Florida as well. The case is garbage...and takes the Kaufman's focus off the real problems.

Now, I'll say this too...I've given Eric a hard time in a couple of forums - because of his attitude. Yet I fully understand I have the same kind of attitude many times. So, there but for the grace of God go I as I take my own family out into the briny. BUT...

Eric, Charlotte - take your lessons from where you've been and focus on your path ahead. This legal tack will get you nowhere.


----------



## jzk

How is the case garbage?



smackdaddy said:


> This may sound mean, but I honestly hope the case gets thrown out in Florida as well. The case is garbage...and takes the Kaufman's focus off the real problems.
> 
> Now, I'll say this too...I've given Eric a hard time in a couple of forums - because of his attitude. Yet I fully understand I have the same kind of attitude many times. So, there but for the grace of God go I as I take my own family out into the briny. BUT...
> 
> Eric, Charlotte - take your lessons from where you've been and focus on your path ahead. This legal tack will get you nowhere.


----------



## Minnewaska

The legal tack may be the only way they'll get a boat back, for all I know. Some ambulance chasing lawyer has likely confirmed their insanity and is working on contingency. Other than suffering the slings and arrows of web forums, it's probably costing them nothing. Hard to imagine them not even trying, just to prove they understand their own errors. 

That said, I find it rather unlikely they will win.


----------



## UnionPacific

Minnewaska said:


> The legal tack may be the only way they'll get a boat back, for all I know.


As I remember it, it was fully insured, and they declined the thousands people had raised for them to help them recover their personal items.

Fully insured boats are the first to be abandoned at sea.


----------



## Minnewaska

That's interesting. Declining free money is not typical of one with major character flaws. 

So on to a new hypothesis. So outraged at losing coverage right when their baby was sickest is driving a need for revenge. 

I can keep making these up, if it helps.


----------



## UnionPacific

Minnewaska said:


> That's interesting. Declining free money is not typical of one with major character flaws.
> 
> So on to a new hypothesis. So outraged at losing coverage right when their baby was sickest is driving a need for revenge.
> 
> I can keep making these up, if it helps.


I would go with broken boat, realizing they would never make it, their kid got sick, not getting better, they got a free, safe ride home, and insurance gave them enough to replace the boat with a better one.

People that followed it from day 1 knew that they had delaminated decks, and other major issues with the boat.

This is why the man did not stay behind to single-hand the boat back to port. Because their boat was a piece of junk. I will take an SSB or HAM radio over a sat phone any day, thou we will most likely pick up a spot phone to call people at home.


----------



## jzk

Why do you find it unlikely that they will win?



Minnewaska said:


> The legal tack may be the only way they'll get a boat back, for all I know. Some ambulance chasing lawyer has likely confirmed their insanity and is working on contingency. Other than suffering the slings and arrows of web forums, it's probably costing them nothing. Hard to imagine them not even trying, just to prove they understand their own errors.
> 
> That said, I find it rather unlikely they will win.


----------



## UnionPacific

jzk said:


> Why do you find it unlikely that they will win?


The company's contract was pretty clear. They covered their bases well.


----------



## jzk

UnionPacific said:


> The company's contract was pretty clear. They covered their bases well.


Is the contract published somewhere?

Thanks.


----------



## UnionPacific

I do not know where the contract is now, I found it once before.

I like this tidbit I just found


> Attorney Gilleon: There are several differences with Eric singlehanding in Baja versus continuing the Pacific crossing alone. He would crewless, without an EPIRB, and without a satellite phone. Combined it presents a threat that is clearly too high for multiple additional weeks of transoceanic passage making.


Man, glad no one was sailing before epirbs and satellite phones single handed. Or for that matter that they don't do this now....
Seriously this lawyer knows nothing about sailing, so it seems.


----------



## jzk

Thanks, I will look for the contract. I guess the two questions are whether the limitations in the contract are valid and whether abandoning the boat was caused by the lack of sat phone service.

Many limitations of liability clauses are simply not valid. And I am not sure that the abandonment is not a foreseeable result of the actions here.

If you buy a piece of safety equipment, is it reasonable that you would expect it to work? Even if you are a moron, should that safety equipment still work?



UnionPacific said:


> I do not know where the contract is now, I found it once before.
> 
> I like this tidbit I just found
> 
> Man, glad no one was sailing before epirbs and satellite phones single handed. Or for that matter that they don't do this now....
> Seriously this lawyer knows nothing about sailing, so it seems.


----------



## miatapaul

Add to that that he made several public posts that sat phones are not suitable for emergency use. So I doubt there is much of a claim, as he already declared that they were not suitable for the use that he is now claiming he did not have access to.


----------



## smackdaddy

jzk said:


> I guess the two questions are whether the limitations in the contract are valid and *whether abandoning the boat was caused by the lack of sat phone service.
> *


This latter part is what you need to look for - in this thread and on CF. I think you'll find the answer had a lot more to do with them than their sat phone.


----------



## SVAuspicious

jzk said:


> If you buy a piece of safety equipment, is it reasonable that you would expect it to work? Even if you are a moron, should that safety equipment still work?


Consumer satellite phones are not safety equipment. There are good reasons that sat phones are not part of GMDSS despite applications from Iridium and Globalstar.


----------



## miatapaul

jzk said:


> If you buy a piece of safety equipment, is it reasonable that you would expect it to work? Even if you are a moron, should that safety equipment still work?


I think this has been linked before but here is Eric's (from Rebel Heart) take on using satalite phones for emergancy use:



> I would never rely on an Iridium phone for my single connection to a satellite in an emergency.
> 
> Twice I've had the phone provider deactivate my SIM card. Once because of a billing error, another time for some unknown reason. On both accounts I was still on shore and could call with a cellular phone to fix the issue, but it drove home for me that they are not emergency gear.
> 
> They also don't float and although the new "extreme" model is water resistant they're hardly waterproof.
> 
> An EPIRB you buy, it's built like a tank, you mount it, and it sits there waiting like a patient sentinel for years if you ever need to use it. It has its own GPS.
> 
> I also probably use my Iridium more than anyone else does (~100-500 minutes a month); they are finicky. No way are you going to sit there in some horrible storm reading the GPS position off a receiver in the life raft as your Iridium phone stays on a perfect connection and you rattle off your position. I guess it's possible but I'll stick with the EPIRB for emergencies.


Ship safety, SOLAS and national regulation - are they relevant to yachts - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

I am sure this will show up in court. It was not new to him that he could get his phone cut off, I guess as they say third time is the charm. Unfortunately the third time was while he was in the middle of the ocean, but I am sure it came as no surprise to him. Ironic thing about his posts is he was very harsh against anyone who was not 100% prepared for offshore.


----------



## jzk

There is a very good chance that Eric's statement will be inadmissible as irrelevant. What does it go to prove? That Eric knew that the company might be negligent? Assumption of the Risk? Unlikely.

If you ride the CTA bus, and twice before you got in accidents because the bus driver was negligent, would that be a defense for the third accident? Unlikely.

Not saying they will win. Not saying they will lose. But that is sort of the analysis.


----------



## rgscpat

Of course, if the company had to go to court and tell people that their equipment was not to be relied upon, and that as well had always been the company's position, that might not be the best thing from a marketing perspective.


----------



## zeehag

strange how they were able to get help from air national guard, out of north cali when they needed help,and strange how these rescuers were on board when the alleged calls went out. 
no fone company caused any loss of boat.
those of us with gps KNOW that satellite communications are interruptable unexectedly and for no reason other than running out of range of satellite. 
i bellieve this had been discussed at length before this particular family set out on their misadventure.
splain the on boat rescuers vs inability to get help to me a few more times as i am not able to understand this part. 
were i a juror in this fiasco i would have to rule on side of fone company on the merit of known information, published by both erik and charlotte as they went thru this. 
facts is facts and there is a published timeline to read and know, as it has been published many too many times at this point.


----------



## miatapaul

jzk said:


> There is a very good chance that Eric's statement will be inadmissible as irrelevant. What does it go to prove? That Eric knew that the company might be negligent? Assumption of the Risk? Unlikely.
> 
> If you ride the CTA bus, and twice before you got in accidents because the bus driver was negligent, would that be a defense for the third accident? Unlikely.
> 
> Not saying they will win. Not saying they will lose. But that is sort of the analysis.


Well since he said repeatedly that sat phones were not reliable to use as a safety device, at the very least it shows that the lawsuit is disingenuous. Of course when there is profit to be made, your intentions can change, especially when a lawyer starts making promises. In the CTA case they caused an accident, in the sat phone case, they have never promoted it as a safety device but as a convenience. There contract clearly states that they are not to be held liable for laps of coverage. And certainly it did not cause the loss of the Rebel Heart. They had several mechanical and structural failures.


----------



## fryewe

The boat wasn't scuttled for lack of phone service. The boat wasn't scuttled because it was unseaworthy (although it's condition seemed to be degrading). 

The boat was scuttled because Eric chose to abandon it and to scuttle it as he left it.

The medical advice they are insisting would have solved all their problems (if only that darn phone had worked!!!) was eventually provided by the pararescue team and the frigate that responded. The boat was still afloat and seaworthy when they got that assistance, and the child whose health had been at risk was reportedly no longer at risk at the time of frigate rendezvous.

Their dream of sailing to the south seas was aborted due to their own poor planning and lack of grit when the going got tough. Some day I hope they feel embarrassed for demanding that someone else pay for their mistakes.


----------



## Sunphish

Should they pay for their rescue?

My mother, at age 92 broke her hip. The county rescue squad responded and transported her to the hospital. Some time later we got a bill for part of the transport.

My mother didn't really have any involvement in putting herself in the position where she needed rescue, other than living to 92.

I think Eric should pony up.


----------



## Kostis

Excuse me, but we do we pay taxes?


----------



## chall03

It would appear from their blog that Rebel Heart they are still keen to go cruising, possibly on a cat next time.

Any word on whether their court case amounted to anything?


----------



## smackdaddy

If it did, they'd probably already have the boat.

I'm not a big fan of the dude, but one thing he said in that post is absolutely true:



> Charlotte and I talk about it a lot: *it's just so damn easy to live on shore.*


The inverse of this is that living on a boat is not all that "easy". Absolutely rewarding. But not "easy".

Of course, that's an entire conversation in itself.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> The inverse of this is that living on a boat is not all that "easy". Absolutely rewarding. But not "easy".
> 
> Of course, that's an entire conversation in itself.


I think they may of figured that one out... Perhaps they feel two hulls might make it 'easier' next time?

It takes guts to give it another go.


----------



## aeventyr60

He had a hard time maintaining one hull, delusional to think two hulls will be any easier.


----------



## rbyham

I hear you guys that are concerned about another try but the reality is that if everyone quit after a life threatening sailing incident the waterways and oceans would be pretty empty of boats... Certainly true in my case...


----------



## smackdaddy

rbyham said:


> I hear you guys that are concerned about another try but the reality is that if everyone quit after a life threatening sailing incident the waterways and oceans would be pretty empty of boats... Certainly true in my case...


Same here. I completely agree.


----------

